090318ED

Page 38169

1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

2 WITNESS: IVAN BANDIC [Resumed]

3 [Witness answered through interpreter]

4 Cross-examination Ms. Alaburic: [Continued]

5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Bandic.

6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Good morning to all in the

7 courtroom.

8 Q. Mr. Bandic, let us try to use these 20-odd minutes to show as

9 many relevant details as possible to Their Honours. Yesterday we were

10 dealing with document P4699.

11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness please be given

12 the binder with my documents. I would kindly ask the usher for his

13 assistance.

14 Q. In the meantime we can focus on screens. 4699 is the document

15 that we are dealing with, page 18 in Croatian, which corresponds to page

16 11 and then 12 in the English text. In this big binder -- oh, I'm sorry,

17 yes, it's a separate document. Right. So page 18. You don't have to

18 look at it yet because I'm going to put a very general question to you.

19 We said yesterday that the authorities of Herceg-Bosna wanted to create

20 the HVO as a multiethnic army of both the Croats and the Muslims who live

21 in the territory Herceg-Bosna and in the other areas where the HVO was

22 fighting against the Serb forces; is that right, Mr. Bandic?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. Tell us, Mr. Bandic, as for what we saw here, the attack on

25 Bioelo Brdo and the area north of Mostar, what happened on the 30th of

Page 38170

1 June, do you know of any other example of a Muslim citizen who was a

2 soldier of the HVO who would have been disarmed, mistreated, detained,

3 dismissed from the army because he was a Muslim? Do you know of any

4 other such case?

5 A. Your Honour, madam counsellor, good morning to all. In relation

6 to your question, I can say that I am not aware of any case when persons

7 of Muslim ethnicity were mistreated on account of that in any way. There

8 were many ethnic Muslims or, rather, Bosniaks later, who were members of

9 the HVO.

10 If you allow me, I would just like to say a few words in relation

11 to this specific case because this has to do with a survey up until

12 mid-1993 by when, regrettably, there had been some incidents. In April,

13 I think, that year, we learned certain things and we obtained the

14 documents of the commander of the corps in Mostar, Mr. Pasalic, where he

15 speaks about our people in the HVO. Of course, the reference is being

16 made to ethnic Muslims, Bosniaks, and he is counting on them in the

17 attack. So we had some indicia that this might happen and that persons

18 of Bosniak ethnicity who were within the HVO could be used.

19 I remember that very well. When Mr. Lucic, or rather, when we

20 were dealing with this report and trying to define things as specifically

21 as possible, we did have certain indicia to the effect that on the basis

22 of political developments as well, because at the time Mr. Hadziosmanovic

23 had been replaced. I personally happen to know Mr. Hadziosmanovic, he

24 was a very moderate person who headed the SDA, and that was the point

25 when he and some other moderates in the SDA were dismissed. So quite

Page 38171

1 simply it was the policy of the SDA that was changing, yes.

2 Q. A sub-question, you mentioned the documentation and plans of Mr.

3 Arif Pasalic and the army Bosnia-Hercegovina headquartered in Mostar.

4 Tell me, do you know that very similar plans were in the Bregava Brigade,

5 and they had plans to take Stolac together with the Muslims in HVO?

6 A. Yes, yes.

7 MR. STRINGER: I have an objection. I recognise the Trial

8 Chamber has given counsel additional time to conduct this examination.

9 I'd suggest that this line of questioning is outside the scope of the

10 direct examination, and therefore that counsel should not be allowed to

11 ask leading questions during this part. Thank you.

12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I just respond.

13 During the direct examination, the witness was giving answers about

14 Dretelj, Gabela, Heliodrom, and other detention centres and, generally

15 speaking, about measures that were being taken. My current questions are

16 directly related to these detention centres because the majority of the

17 persons who were detained in Dretelj, Gabela, and the Heliodrom were

18 precisely HVO soldiers who were of Muslim ethnicity. So I think that

19 this is directly related to the examination-in-chief. Of course, if the

20 Honourable Trial Chamber rules otherwise, I will fully abide by your

21 ruling, and there's no need for me to --

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will consult my colleagues.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Ms. Alaburic, the

25 Chamber has deliberated and feels that during the examination-in-chief,

Page 38172

1 the questions dealing with the conditions in which people were detained

2 and not why they were detained, we feel that there is no need to ask

3 those questions. So we will ask you to proceed and move on to another

4 topic. Yes, or please do not ask leading questions.

5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

6 Q. Now, I'm going to deal with a direct link with the

7 examination-in-chief. Mr. Bandic, if I observed correctly, you said

8 during your examination-in-chief that in the detention centres about

9 which you were asked there were civilians actually?

10 A. That's right.

11 Q. Tell me, do you know that in these centres, there were Muslim

12 soldiers of the HVO who had been disarmed in the beginning of July 1993?

13 A. Yes. And a large number at that. For the most part actually.

14 Q. All right. Let's deal with the reports because I have a few more

15 topics that I would like us to discuss. In the next section of this

16 report, there is a reference to SIS activities in registering and

17 processing a series of crimes. Yesterday, we talked about that. We

18 talked about the line of work of the SIS; is that right?

19 A. Yes, that's right.

20 Q. All right. In this same section it says, It is necessary to

21 point out that in relation to that, a special contribution was given by

22 the SIS centre in Vitez and there is some documentation in this regard.

23 I conclude on the basis of this sentence that SIS centres had a direct

24 responsibility to deal with uncovering and prosecuting perpetrators of

25 crimes; is that right?

Page 38173

1 A. Yes, madam, that is partly correct. If we say the SIS centre --

2 if you allow me, the SIS centre in Vitez, that practically never started

3 to function, as you've seen, due to objective and subjective reasons.

4 There was a total of five persons there, and we believed that they

5 belonged to the SIS centre. However, in the field that is the task that

6 they had.

7 Q. All right. We will be dealing with central Bosnia separately.

8 Already on the next document, the next document is P7419, the very next

9 one. That is a report for the second half of 1993. We are just going to

10 analyse one particular section. On a page that has ERN number 409. It's

11 page 3, actually, in that document.

12 A. Sorry, could you please help me out with this. Where is this?

13 Q. In the big binder. The last document in the fourth section. But

14 you have it on the screen now. We are just dealing with one particular

15 section. That's right. I'm saying for Their Honours that it is the

16 fifth paragraph on page 2.

17 Mr. Bandic, on the basis of the situation in the administration

18 of SIS, there was a new organisation of the SIS centre and the SIS in HVO

19 units. The sentence I want is the following:

20 "New conditions were created for the SIS to be in the function of

21 the units of the HVO."

22 I'll try to deal with this as briefly as possible. The new

23 establishment of the SIS towards the end of 1993 was initiated and

24 realised by Mr. Ljubica as the minister and Mr. Biskic as -- as the

25 assistant for security.

Page 38174

1 I'm stopping for the sake of the transcript. Towards the end of

2 1993 Mr. Jukic -- as the new minister of defence and Mr. Jukic as his

3 security assistant. Can you explain to us, Mr. Bandic what does that

4 mean? That it was only this new establishment of the SIS that was

5 supposed to make it possible for the SIS to be in the function of the

6 units of the HVO. I infer on this basis that the establishment until

7 then was not in that function?

8 A. Madam Alaburic, Your Honours, Ms. Alaburic, you see we are

9 dealing with the end of 1993, along with all these terrible problems that

10 we were dealing with for a year and a half. This is a moment when there

11 were major changes, politically and from a military point of view and

12 from a personnel point of view. In the military and in the political

13 sections, respectively. Please don't hold this against me, the fact that

14 I'm dealing with this matter at such length, but this led to a

15 recapitulation of the situation in the entire HVO including the area that

16 we are discussing.

17 Q. Mr. Bandic?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Can we just interrupt your answer, I do apologise for the

20 interruption. We will deal with this re-organisation in relation to SIS

21 centres precisely dealing with the example of central Bosnia, if we have

22 enough time. But before that I would like us to discuss Stupni Do a bit.

23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours my first document is

24 going to be a document that is under seal. I am going to be referring to

25 statements made by a protected witness, so I believe that at first in

Page 38187

1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] [Interpretation] If you allow me,

2 concerning the last question of my learned friend, that question was

3 absolutely irrelevant and this question illustrates exactly what we've

4 been maintaining all along, when it came to giving extra time is that

5 Madam Alaburic in this courtroom is trying to indict Mr. Bruno Stojic.

6 She is trying to indict Mr. Bruno Stojic, although she has been

7 maintaining all along that she had been provoked by the Defence of Bruno

8 Stojic. This is a very nasty business, and this is why I have to speak

9 into the transcript.

10 THE ACCUSED STOJIC: [Interpreted] I apologise. Good morning,

11 Your Honours. I apologise, but this makes no sense. This was not the

12 topic of examination-in-chief. If I knew that General Petkovic Defence

13 would be putting forward this thesis, I would have brought hundreds of

14 documents to prove that Blaskic was in charge and controlled the

15 Vitezovi. I would have put this into 65 ter list, but I never knew that

16 she would -- Madam Alaburic would raise such issues. She's constantly

17 attacking my Defence team.

18 You have to control this process, Your Honours. You gave her two

19 hours extra and then ten minutes on top of that, this makes really no

20 sense. You know what this means in the public opinion down there, that

21 Bruno Stojic is attacking the Main Staff and this is not true. Please

22 protect me from her in this courtroom. Thank you.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojic, you know that you

24 are accused, you know that you are being defended by lawyers that support

25 your Defence, you know that Mr. Petkovic via his counsel Ms. Alaburic is

Page 38188

1 putting forward the theory of a double chain of command. Since they will

2 call their own witnesses and when these witnesses will come, you will

3 then have the opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses and challenge

4 their submissions, and the bench will accord this the appropriate weight.

5 Maybe you are right as far as Ms. Alaburic is concerned.

6 Admittedly, Ms. Alaburic has been granted some time and during

7 that time she puts her theory forward. Of course, this needs to be

8 substantiated by documents. This is what I wanted to tell you,

9 Mr. Stojic. Believe me, Mr. Stojic, we listen to what is being said in

10 the courtroom, and we will weigh this at the end of the trial.

11 Ms. Alaburic is putting a question to the witness, the witness answered

12 the question, and that is where we stand now.

13 Ms. Alaburic.

14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I never foresaw the

15 need to clarify this point, and this is why I'm going to additionally

16 clarify my -- what I just said. This is not General Petkovic thesis or

17 Defence case. Mr. Petkovic testified in the Blaskic case and very

18 clearly explained how things were. The issue of General Blaskic was

19 structured in such a way to illustrate the reason for the conflict with

20 General Blaskic and that the whole examination in the case of Blaskic to

21 be put into context in the right and the proper way.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Let me --

23 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, just before you -- I'm not going to get

24 involved in a speech on this issue, but my intervention as far as its

25 relevant is all questions, of course, must be relevant, and we didn't

Page 38189

1 stand before to make objections. Your Honours had, of course, granted

2 additional time, and Your Honours will make a determination if that time

3 is needed and was actually merited after hearing the nature and focus of

4 the cross-examination.

5 But, Your Honours, one question right at the end stood out as

6 completely outlandish in my respectful submission. The view as to what

7 Mr. Nobilo may or may not have of the evidence is complete and utterly --

8 completely and utterly irrelevant. Your Honours, those that have

9 practiced in these courts perhaps have seen Mr. Nobilo, I know my learned

10 friend Mr. Stringer, who was involved in the Blaskic case, knows him to

11 some extent. But whether or not he has particular views, whether they

12 are cogent, coherent, whether they're the product of a diligent and

13 proper investigation or whether they're not are completely irrelevant as

14 a matter of cross-examination. Counsel on any party may have a whole

15 variety of views from sober, very diligent, and well based views to

16 actually outlandish theories, but they're hardly properly the matters of

17 a diligent and proper cross-examination in my respectful submission.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would like to say something. No -- please,

19 please, I also -- I already wanted to say something before Mr. Khan

20 spoke, and I think the Chamber is one that rules on the proceedings and

21 if the Chamber wants to make a statement, it makes it.

22 We are now discussing merits, and it's not absolutely what we are

23 supposed to be doing. We are supposed to hear evidence, and there is no

24 issue now ex post on striking out questions. I would not be aware that

25 that is done here. The Chamber, and I can speak of the Chamber because

Page 38190

1 we have of course commented it, could not help noticing - and it has not

2 been concealed - that between different Defences, there may be different

3 views.

4 There is a children's game with cards that in my language is

5 called Black Peter. One is a card that you should not have in the end.

6 So you try to turn it around and the one who in the end is stuck with it

7 has lost. In this way, we perceive a certain tendency of different

8 Defence teams to try to shift responsibility rather to another Defence

9 team. That seems to us a natural development of things. It is inherent

10 in the starting situation of this.

11 So we cannot stop one party, one Defence from bringing its

12 arguments which may to be the detriment of another Defence, and let the

13 other Defence give her arguments. We must hear them all. And the fact

14 that we hear them does not mean that we eat them and that we believe

15 everything that is alleged. We are, Mr. Khan, aware and I think able of

16 assessing the values of what Defence counsel in a different case brought

17 forward as a theory, it's a theory of a Defence counsel and there are

18 many such theories.

19 So, I think we should not waste time and I think it's wasted in

20 shifting arguments this way and that way, and we should go on with the

21 examination of the witness.

22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me

23 just one sentence. General Petkovic's Defence will not absolutely shift

24 responsibility for any combat action except combat activities undertaken

25 by the Kaznic Kabojna [phoen] or the Convicts Battalion. This question

Page 38191

1 was focused on contextualising Mr. Bandic's testimony and to test his

2 credibility because Mr. Bandic was in French media, highlighted as a

3 person who was active in the preparation of the Defence of Mr. Blaskic.

4 I didn't want to dwell on this topic any further because the witness

5 stated that he had no authority to discuss it further and this is why I

6 concluded.

7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Just a technical question,

8 everything is clear. There's nothing to add or subtract from these

9 arguments. Everything has become clear, but I would like to point out

10 that on page 19 it was not registered that Mr. Stojic said anything. If

11 this could be rectified in this transcript. It's very important that we

12 have it on the transcript.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a follow up

14 question for you. After those questions that Ms. Nozica put to you. The

15 event in Stupni Do occurred on the 27th of October 1993. I would like

16 you to refresh your memory. I would be incapable of answering such a

17 question. If somebody asked me, would I remember what happened 15 years

18 ago I would not be able to, but I'm sure your memory is better than mine.

19 On what date exactly was your service informed of this information?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I've spent so much

21 time to retrace all the steps and all the moments of that time, and

22 believe me, this is extremely difficult, but my service, and personally

23 apart from media coverage, apart from information placed by different

24 media and different sources, my knowledge about that came from the

25 interview with those two members of the Apostoli or the HVO unit which

Page 38192

1 was active in the area of Vares and Stupni Do. My direct knowledge about

2 that was generated maybe one month after the event.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as you know, at the

4 Defence Department or at the Ministry of Defence, whichever you like,

5 this piece of news arrived one month later or don't you know?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at that time when the

7 action was underway around Vares, I was in Kiseljak together with General

8 Petkovic. After that, I can't be specific as to the day, whether it was

9 one day or two, we left and I cannot confirm with any degree of certainty

10 when first information reached the Defence Department and the other

11 institutions. I really do not know that. But I repeat, after several

12 days, there was quite a lot of media coverage. It was very difficult to

13 distinguish between propaganda and truth because no HVO institution could

14 reach the site to collect any evidence or to perform any kind of

15 investigation about this crime.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since you told us that you were

17 in contact with General Petkovic, did you talk to him about this event?

18 Did you discuss with him this event or not?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I reiterate, either

20 that day or the following day or two days afterwards, we returned to

21 Herzegovina, and we of course discussed the situation over there. We

22 were the only persons in the vehicle. After return to Herzegovina for

23 ten days, seven or ten days, I did not see the general, but after that we

24 revisited the area of central Bosnia. I'm not sure about the date, but

25 it was sometime around my birthday, 17th of November, and I believe that

Page 38193

1 by the time we were back in the area of central Bosnia, I'm sure.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 17th of November. On the 17th

3 of November you saw General Petkovic again. When you talked to him about

4 these events how did he react? Was he surprised? Was he someone who did

5 not understand what had happened? What was your feeling about this, if

6 you remember, of course, if you can talk about it, otherwise if you don't

7 just tell us and tell us that you don't remember which I can understand

8 fully.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The only thing I can say, Your

10 Honours, is that I remember that General Petkovic's comments reflected

11 his complete supplies by those events. I know that we commented that

12 there was an investigation going on. He was as surprised with the events

13 up there as I was.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I believe that

15 Mr. Coric's Defence counsel is ready. I shall therefore give her the

16 floor.

17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your

18 Honours. Good morning to everybody in the courtroom. I don't know

19 whether my binders have been distributed. I would like to ask the usher

20 to give the witness the binder especially marked for the witness. There

21 is a reason for that, the documents are sequenced in the sequence that

22 I'm going to use them. I have my 15 minutes and Dr. Prlic's 15 minutes.

23 I'm grateful for their magnanimus offer, which means I have 30 minutes in

24 all. I now would like to start straightaway.

25 Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:

Page 38194

1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bandic, please take a look at the first

2 three documents in my binder, then I will ask you a short question about

3 all these three. These are P00803, P01457, and P02970.

4 All three documents refer to the procedure of appointment of

5 officers in military police. The first document is a consent to the

6 proposal of the head of the military police administration on the

7 appointment of an officer into the military police administration. It's

8 the document sent by the Security Sector of the department for Defence

9 dated 25th of November, 1992, signed by Mr. Lucic, assistant head. The

10 second is dated 10th of February, 1993, signed by the head of the Defence

11 Department, and it is a decision on the appointment in the Security

12 Sector to the position of commander of a military police battalion. The

13 third document is a proposal for an appointment of an officer into the

14 military police administration, dated 26 of June, 1993. Document

15 generated by the head of the police department Mr. Coric, sent to the

16 head of the Defence Department. In the lower left corner there is a

17 handwritten note. It seems to me that it reads, in agreement, and then

18 the signatures of Mr. Lucic. I know that the Bench will inquire about

19 that.

20 And my question concerning all these three documents is, are you

21 familiar with this procedure of appointment as is described in those

22 documents, we have one decision, one request and one consent?

23 A. Your Honour, Madam Counsellor, I have not seen these documents,

24 but what you said is correct, and I know that this is Mr. Lucic's

25 signature on the third document where it says, I agree and signature.

Page 38195

1 Q. Thank you. My colleague, Ms. Nozica, during the direct

2 examination shows you a document of Mr. Ivica Lucic, it's the next

3 document in your binder after these three, that is 2D00934. As you were

4 giving your comments on this document, you said that this was an example

5 of cooperation between the SIS and the military police administration,

6 2D00934 is the number of the document. I put it in the binder just to

7 remind you what it is.

8 It is the Mokronoge case and the killing of 9 civilians of

9 Bosniak ethnicity, and it is a request for the military police to take

10 action. You said to Ms. Nozica in response to her questions that you

11 know that something was done and that the perpetrators were punished?

12 A. That's right, Madam. If you allow me, Your Honours, this is a

13 series of documents speaking of lawful appointments of certain officers.

14 My position is that this is absolutely not controversial, that was the

15 right way to proceed, the problem is with those who were not appointed in

16 accordance with the rules or who did not work right. If we try to change

17 them, that was simply impossible and unfortunately there were quite a few

18 of such people.

19 Q. I'm showing you the Mokronoge document, Mr. Bandic. Have you

20 found it, 2D00934?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. I would like you to look at documents that will show what

23 happened after that. P04143. Have you found it, that's the next

24 document?

25 A. Yes.

Page 38196

1 Q. This is a document from the Tomislavgrad police sent to the

2 Military Prosecutor's Office in Livno. This is a criminal report against

3 perpetrators unknown. There are nine injured parties here, and we see

4 what this is about. Is that actually the case from Mokronoge, what

5 Mr. Lucic wrote about in his request?

6 A. Madam, I'm not familiar with this document, but I think that that

7 is precisely what it being discussed.

8 Q. Now, I would like us to look at 5D02092. This is an entire

9 series of documents, pertains to the Mokronoge case. My colleagues have

10 cautioned me that the colleague does not reflect the name of the village

11 properly, Mokronoge. It is an arrest warrant. It is dated the 13th of

12 August, 1993. The arrest warrant pertains to a person called Ivan

13 Bakovic, and it has to do with the killing of nine persons of Muslim

14 ethnicity. Does it refer to the same person that Mr. Lucic mentions in

15 his document, the one that we started with?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Could you please look at the next document, P--

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a second. Witness, I'm

19 doing my work, and when I see a document I try to look at the document,

20 and I've just noticed one thing here. The Ivan Bakovic, Ruda being his

21 nickname, look at what it says afterwards. Could you please read what it

22 says afterwards?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, is this 2092? There

24 seem to be two. Ivan Bakovic, nicknamed Ruda, member of the 2nd Guards

25 Brigade of the Croatian army, 1st Battalion, 2 Company, currently based

Page 38197

1 in Heliodrom barracks.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Were you aware of a

3 fact that a military unit of the Croatian army, 2nd Company, 1st

4 Battalion, of the 2nd guard was at the Heliodrom?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I explain.

6 Yesterday or the day before yesterday, you asked me about this person.

7 When I said that I did not know whether within the Croatian army or the

8 HVO. I see from here that it is the HVO, so since I was not involved in

9 this case, my first conclusion was on the basis of the last name which is

10 a common one in that area. I thought it was the HVO, but I did not know

11 that the HV was at all in that area. That was not possible. It is

12 possible that that person was a member of the Croatian army and that he

13 probably came home, but not to the Heliodrom. He was put into the

14 military investigative prison at the Heliodrom after this happened.

15 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

16 I believe that in due course, I will get an answer to this question of

17 yours which will confirm what the witness said just now.

18 Q. We had a document, the interpreter did not catch the number, it

19 was again an arrest warrant, and it was issued by the same organ and it

20 has to do with two persons. Can we confirm that it's the same one, P0 --

21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note that counsel is speaking

22 too fast. It is impossible to follow her at this pace.

23 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] PD44 -- P04109. Or

24 rather, 90. We've seen that. And now we've already moved on to the next

25 document. P04190. P04190.

Page 38198

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, you are not only going too fast, you

2 seem to be jumping, because you now say that we have seen the document

3 P04190. Can you show me the trace of this in the transcript? Because I

4 do not find it. I'm not aware that you have mentioned that document.

5 This is -- we are repeating ourselves, but in fact this is really a

6 problem. It is -- you are, but not only you, going just too fast, and

7 then you lose the Chamber. We are running behind trying to keep up, and

8 you do not get across what you actually want legitimately putting across.

9 So please try to pull the brake, change into first gear, and allow us to

10 follow and the interpreters. Thank you.

11 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my question

12 was recorded on page 29, line 21 through 23. However, unfortunately, the

13 number of the document was not recorded. And I did say that yet again we

14 have an arrest warrant, except that this time it pertains to two persons.

15 However, I did not wish to dwell on that document because its content is

16 practically the same like the previous PD ones so let us not waste time

17 over that.

18 Q. Now I would like to ask for a PD -- 5D04440. That is the next

19 document. This document is a judgement --

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I am sorry, I want to go back to the previous

21 document. Again both persons mentioned are mentioned with the reference

22 HV. In the translation at least, it is said that this Guards Brigade,

23 et cetera, is, I quote, "currently stationed at the Heliodrom Barracks."

24 The word "stationed" in the English language, as I understand it, cannot

25 refer to a single person who is incarcerated, but refers to a unit.

Page 38199

1 Maybe this is again a problem of translation and it would be good if you

2 could clarify. Thank you.

3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the

4 document in the Croatian version it says "located at this moment." So it

5 means that it pertains to one person who is a male. Let the interpreters

6 correct me if I'm wrong.

7 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, could I ask, Mr. President, that we ask

8 the interpreters or have the witness read the relevant text of both of

9 the documents in the Croatian language so that we can get from the booth

10 what the -- confirmation whether the translations we have are correct or

11 not.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in this first

13 document, which is --

14 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, Mr. Bandic, we were waiting for a

15 ruling from the Trial Chamber first, thank you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely. I gave him a

17 sign to go ahead. Please proceed.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. So in

19 this first document which is called "Arrest Warrant":

20 "You are hereby ordered in relation to further operational work

21 in the case of the killing of nine persons of Muslim ethnicity in

22 Tomislav, to immediately bring into custody at the Ljubuski military

23 remand prison the person by the name of Ivan Bakovic, also known as Ruda,

24 member of the 2nd Guards Brigade of the Croatian army, 1st Battalion, 2nd

25 company, currently located at the Heliodrom Barracks. After bringing the

Page 38200

1 said person to the military remand prison Ljubuski, immediately notify

2 the officer of the criminal investigations service in Ljubuski, Ivica

3 Kraljevic.

4 Your Honour, may I read the second document now?

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think it is not necessary because we can

6 follow the wording in B/C/S and it's identical.

7 I have a question to the interpreters of a grammatical character,

8 the term here translated by station is "lotzivan," [phoen] and I wonder

9 whether this form gives an indication as to whether this can refer to a

10 unity or to an individual or to either a unity or an individual, if the

11 interpreters could tell us. Thank you.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: It is in the singular at

13 any rate, so it can refer to a unit or an individual.

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much, that's clear and precise.

15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave since

16 it is my language after all --

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, I need to

18 correct what has just been said in the transcript, because the

19 interpreter said it refers to an individual, so can the interpreter

20 confirm that the translation of the word in B/C/S refers to a unit and/or

21 an individual?

22 THE INTERPRETER: English booth repeats its original note.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the booth says that it is a

24 male masculine individual, and should be it a unit it would be feminine

25 and singular?

Page 38201

1 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: That would be correct for

2 the word unit, "jebenica." [phoen]

3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that is

4 what I said a few moments ago, and I am very sorry that Mr. Stringer

5 doubted my professional integrity. I'm certainly not going to say before

6 the Trial Chamber that there is something here in the Croatian language

7 that is not there. 5D04440.

8 Q. This is a judgement of the district court in Zagreb. We see that

9 it has to do with a person called Ivan Bakovic. After the wording "is

10 guilty" we see that it has to do with something that happened in

11 Mokronoge. What I would be interested in, witness, since you are a

12 lawyer you will be in a position to answer my question, we have the

13 number of the indictment referred to in the preamble, KT-465/93. Tell

14 me, please, to the best of your knowledge, as a lawyer, this number, 93,

15 does it denote the year when the indictment was issued?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Now, I would like us to look at Mr. Bakovic's personal details.

18 What is stated here was that he was born in Tomislavgrad. Do you see

19 that particular detail?

20 A. Yes, yes.

21 Q. That would confirm what you said earlier on, that on the basis of

22 the surname, you had assumed that he was from the area?

23 A. That's right.

24 Q. Tell me, Mr. Bandic, do you know, and this was confirmed to us

25 here by several witnesses so far, for example, Prosecution witness

Page 38202

1 Mr. Biskic, then the Defence expert, the Stojic Defence expert, that many

2 people who are originally from Bosnia-Herzegovina and who are Croats, at

3 the beginning of the war of Croatia, in Croatia joined the units of the

4 Croatian army, and then when the war started in Bosnia-Herzegovina, as

5 volunteers they reported to HVO units and came to defend their people in

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Are you a ware of that?

7 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, Mr. President. We are quite far away

8 outside the scope of the direct examination, so I'd ask that counsel not

9 ask leading questions on this topic. Thank you.

10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] All I would like to say

11 is that my question follows on from the question raised by Their Honours

12 during the examination-in-chief. Judge Antonetti asked yesterday already

13 how this member of the Croatian army happened to find himself on the

14 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina and two minutes ago we had a discussion

15 about that, and I am showing the judgement here which unfortunately I

16 don't have the time to read in extenso, but the Prosecutor has this, but

17 anyway in the judgement it say that is it was indeed a volunteer. And my

18 question does not go beyond the direct examination because the Judges

19 themselves expanded the topic, went beyond the questions raised in chief,

20 and the Prosecutor here also stepped outside the frameworks of the

21 examination-in-chief. He said, I put it to you, witness, and then

22 presented his case, we didn't all jump up and get to our feet, at least I

23 did not because I know that he has the right to ask questions like that

24 during a cross-examination, so I think that I am justified fully in

25 asking this question now.

Page 38203

1 Q. Witness, I have already described what the witnesses appearing

2 this in courtroom said, I don't want to repeat that now, you heard the

3 question correctly, do you agree with what those witness said and did you

4 hear of cases like that?

5 A. Your Honours, Madam, I agree with you absolutely. There were

6 many people who came to the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina after the war

7 began in those areas and this other case, Ivan Duvljak [phoen] although

8 the surname suggests that he might be from the Duna [phoen] area, he is

9 in fact from central Bosnia.

10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would

11 like now to move on to another area, so may we take the break now.

12 After, you tell me how much more time I have so that I can organise my

13 questions because there were a lot of interruptions.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll take the break for 20

15 minutes.

16 --- Recess taken at 10.23 a.m.

17 --- On resuming at 10.46 a.m.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The hearing

19 resumes, Mr. Stringer you have a question to ask.

20 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning, to you

21 and to Your Honours. I just wanted to raise two points. First of all, I

22 wanted to inform counsel for Mr. Coric that there was not any intention

23 whatsoever to cast any doubt on her credibility or her integrity when I

24 asked that the interpreters read the relevant parts of those documents.

25 And if it was interpreted in that way, I regret that, but I wanted

Page 38204

1 counsel to know that there was certainly no intention to impugn her

2 integrity on that. I think -- there's a practice that we've done a

3 number of times, just simply have the witness or someone read the passage

4 and let the interpreters do their job, and that's all that I was

5 proposing.

6 Secondly, Mr. President, just as a way of a preview or a warning,

7 and not to sort of anticipate news that might be coming from the Stojic

8 team, but we are informed that over the evening in fact the witness's

9 government, the Republic of Croatia, did give permission for the witness

10 to testify about certain matters that were discussed yesterday on the

11 condition that it be in closed session. And while on the one hand we are

12 happy and gratified that we will be able to conduct our cross-examination

13 as envisioned, all we have or I think all that there will be on this is

14 simply a letter from the government of Croatia saying that he can testify

15 on the condition that it's in closed session.

16 Now, there has to be some greater showing to justify why closed

17 session for this or any other witness is justified, and we've had any

18 number of witnesses, representatives of other states, testify in closed

19 session, I'll be the first to admit that. And -- but in every case there

20 has to be a showing under Rule 75, 79 that closed session is appropriate

21 and justified. And just based upon a blanket sort of letter like what we

22 have, the showing is not being made.

23 It's my intention, Mr. President, as I indicated yesterday, to

24 ask the witness questions about the period of time when he was an

25 intelligence agent for the Croatian information and security -- Security

Page 38205

1 and Information Service, the HIS during 1997 and 1998

2 [Realtime transcript read in error "1987" "1988"] when he was attached to

3 the Croatian embassy here in The Hague. And I'm going to be asking

4 questions and I'm going to be putting it to the witness that part of his

5 duties were to, in fact, obstruct and to sabotage the work of the

6 Tribunal, and in particular the work of the Office of the Prosecutor, as

7 regards to a couple of the Bosnian Croat cases that were taking place at

8 the time.

9 That might be embarrassing for the witness, and it might be

10 embarrassing for the government of Croatia, but these are events that

11 occurred over ten years ago now. And in any event, it's our view that

12 these are not legitimate intelligence or national security issues, and

13 therefore they are not appropriate issues to justify going into closed

14 session.

15 I just wanted alert the Trial Chamber and the Stojic Defence that

16 that's our position -- or that will be our position and that we'll be

17 asking the Trial Chamber to consider these issues in advance of the time

18 we begin our cross-examination.

19 MR. KHAN: Mr. President, I'm grateful to my learned friend's,

20 I'm grateful for my learned friend's --

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a second, Mr. Khan. I'd

22 like to correct one thing, there's a mistake in the transcript, line 2,

23 page 37, it is 1997 and 1998.

24 Mr. Khan.

25 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I'm most grateful for my learned friend's

Page 38206

1 indication. In my respectful submission, not only has he indicated his

2 intention to object to the application for closed session, clearly given

3 the amount of time he spent, he has raised his arguments now as to why

4 the closed session that the Defence are conveying the request of the

5 government of Croatia that the evidence be given in closed session, and I

6 would ask that we respond to this issue now.

7 Your Honour, whether or not my learned friend is happy with the

8 response of the government of Croatia is, of course, an issue to be

9 decided. Yesterday, he made no bones about the fact that he was going --

10 he was proposing on, behalf of the Prosecutor, to make the very drastic

11 step of seeking to exclude the evidence of this witness in toto, and of

12 course the Defence for Mr. Stojic say this is a relevant witness. Your

13 Honours, overnight, at the request of the president and Your Honours,

14 contact was made with the government of Croatia, and whilst, in my

15 respectful submission, in accordance to the law and practice of this

16 Tribunal, and Mr. President you, yourself, referenced General Wesley

17 Clark, and there's numerous examples where the Trial Chamber in similar

18 circumstances has limited and confined the ambit of cross-examination to

19 witnesses -- to issues that have been raised in examination-in-chief.

20 Notwithstanding all that jurisprudence that the government of

21 Croatia said yes, fine, ask these questions, but the only caveat,

22 notwithstanding the fact that these issues were not raised in

23 examination-in-chief, notwithstanding the fact that these issues go out

24 with the period of the indictment, notwithstanding the fact that these

25 issues relate to the diplomatic functions of a state official, you may

Page 38207

1 ask them consistent with the fair trial rights of the accused, the rights

2 of the Prosecution to challenge the evidence. The only very modest, very

3 mild condition that the government of Croatia has requested is this

4 evidence be in closed session.

5 It is bizarre, in my respectful submission, for the Prosecution

6 firstly to object to that, and secondly to say Well, the accused, the

7 witness, the witness may be embarrassed. The government he represents

8 may be embarrassed. Your Honour, yesterday the witness said on the

9 record, very clearly, even before we received any intimation from the

10 government of Croatia, that he himself is completely content, completely

11 content to talk about the matters that my learned friend intimated would

12 be raised in cross-examination. So Your Honours, whether or not there is

13 embarrassment in reality or whether or not my learned friend wishes there

14 to be some kind of embarrassment which the witness, from what we've seen

15 and the government of Croatia from the letter it has written, do not feel

16 is a matter to be determined in due course.

17 Your Honour, there is settled law, at this international criminal

18 tribunal, while set -- predicated by Security Council Resolution 827

19 under chapter 7 of the Security Council, Powers and the Charter, is

20 predicated on international law. And, Your Honour, the Vienna Convention

21 on Diplomatic Relations in the preambular paragraphs, makes it very clear

22 that as part of the requirement for the committee of nations, diplomats

23 do have certain privileges and immunities, and those privileges and

24 immunities are not to be tossed aside as if they are of no consequence in

25 the international legal order, but they have to be given the most anxious

Page 38208

1 scrutiny and careful consideration, and that is notwithstanding the fact

2 that this court has chapter 7 powers.

3 Your Honours, the Appeals Chamber of this court has previously

4 decided in the Blaskic subpoena case of 1997, and I quote:

5 "The International Tribunal should not be unmindful," should not

6 be unmindful, "of the legitimate date concerns related to national

7 security."

8 And they confirmed, in that case the Trial Chamber's position,

9 suggesting that in-camera ex parte proceedings could be held in order to

10 scrutinize the legitimacy of the state's concern.

11 Now, Your Honours, for the life of me I'm at a loss. Despite the

12 my learned friends's assertions of embarrassment and all this evidence

13 that he think will demolish the credibility of this witness or embarrass

14 the state concerned, I'm at a loss to see what Prosecution prejudice the

15 Prosecution will suffer when they've been given every opportunity to

16 challenge the evidence that we've called, to put any evidence to

17 controvert the witness, and to so displace the legitimate state concerns

18 when the area does not relate to the examination-in-chief of this

19 witness.

20 Your Honours, in the Milutinovic case, of the 11th of July, 2006,

21 at paragraph 14, the Trial Chamber held that only brief statements were

22 required. And Your Honours, when one is looking at the rules, one of

23 course must look at Rule 79(a)(3) in which closed session can be ordered

24 where it's interest of justice. It's my submission that ensuring state

25 cooperation with this Tribunal, given the very modest restriction which

Page 38209

1 is closed session, and Your Honours and the parties and the Prosecution

2 can hear the evidence, that standard is made out on the face of the

3 letter from the Croatian government, and we can hand that up in fact now,

4 perhaps if the usher -- with the usher's assistance.

5 Your Honour, the second matter -- just with your leave, is 75(a)

6 of the rules, and in my respectful submission, both of those rules apply,

7 and there is a good cause, good reason for the very mild restriction that

8 Your Honours hear the evidence, the evidence can be heard. Otherwise, of

9 course, what my learned friend is going to do is get back to his position

10 of yesterday and say, Well, because he is prohibited, because of the

11 condition of the Croatian government, because he is restricted because of

12 an application he himself has made to examine in open session, the

13 testimony, the evidence should be excluded. It seems to be rather a

14 self-fulfilling attempt as a result to exclude evidence that the Defence

15 say is relevant and probative to Your Honours determination of this

16 matter.

17 Your Honour, it's very clear that the privilege, both as a matter

18 of Tribunal law, even United States law that my learned friend is

19 familiar with, the United States v. Reynolds, makes it clear that the

20 privilege attaches to the state, not the witness in the box. And for

21 those reasons, it is my respectful submission that the closed session

22 application should be granted as manifestly well-founded.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Stringer, I'll

24 ask you to reply very quickly because we are not going to spend the whole

25 day on this. The Chamber will hand out its decision after the break as

Page 38210

1 soon as we have all the elements necessary to hand out a decision, so

2 please reply very quickly, Mr. Stringer.

3 MR. STRINGER: I'm very grateful for the opportunity to reply. I

4 can invoke the UN charter or the Vienna Convention. I'm just looking at

5 Rule 79, which lays out the grounds for which a Trial Chamber may order

6 closed session, public order, morality, safety, security, non-disclosure

7 of the identity of a victim or witness as provided in Rule 75; thirdly,

8 protection of the interests of justice. The rule says that the Trial

9 Chamber shall make public the reasons for its order.

10 Now, the Trial Chamber doesn't have any information before it on

11 which it can make a finding that closed session is justified under Rule

12 79. Mr. Khan's referred to national security. Croatia has not invoked

13 national security. Croatia hasn't invoked anything other than a request

14 or a condition that the testimony be in closed session. It doesn't say

15 why. As I've said, I'm going to ask the witness about things that

16 happened ten years ago. It's not clear why closed session is necessary.

17 So that's my submission on that. Thank you, Mr. President.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For Mr. Coric, you have 16

19 minutes left. Please proceed. We'll ask the witness to come into the

20 courtroom. I'd forgotten him. I was so concerned by the Vienna

21 Convention.

22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] While the witness is

23 coming into the courtroom, I'll like to say to Mr. Stringer that I am

24 sorry that there was a misunderstanding and I appreciate his efforts. We

25 all seem to be a little nervous today so that might be the result of

Page 38211

1 that.

2 [The witness takes the stand]

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your Excellency, we apologise

4 for having made you wait, but we had a procedural issue which will be

5 settled later on today. You have the floor.

6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Witness, you've already been able to conclude from my

8 examination, and you are a lawyer and well educated man occupying leading

9 post, that I am dealing with the HVO authorities' attempts to uncover the

10 perpetrators of crimes and that's something that I'll carry on with.

11 Now, would you please look at document P01803, which is the next

12 document in the binder. And it is a SIS document for the Rama Brigade

13 dated the 4th of April, 1993.

14 Would you look at the last page of that document, please. And

15 because I have very little time I'm going to para-phrase what it says

16 there in the third and fourth paragraph from the end, that the document

17 describes various crimes and impermissible behaviour on the part of

18 individuals and groups, and after that in the penultimate paragraph it

19 says the following: The security service are in all the aforementioned

20 cases, gathers certain data and registers individuals or notes down

21 information on individuals so criminal charges can be brought against

22 them if there is a case to answer.

23 Tell me, please, the SIS Rama Brigade, acting in this way as

24 described in the penultimate paragraph, was that in keeping with their

25 authorisation and powers.

Page 38212

1 A. I think it was, yes.

2 Q. May we now look at another set of documents which I think was

3 shown by my learned friend Ms. Nozica, it is the next document, P02544.

4 I first of all like to apologise to the witness because it's not the next

5 document, it's the document after that. P02544 is the number, and we'll

6 go back to the other one in due course.

7 So P02544 is the document I'd like us to look at, and it is also

8 a Rama Brigade SIS document dated the 28th of May, 1993. And it is an

9 official note. The testimony of the witness whose name I won't mention,

10 you can read it for yourself and bear it in mind, about an event that

11 occurred on the 26th of May, 1993, in a place called Klck. Have you had

12 a chance to look at the document and memorize the name of the victim?

13 Now, let's go to the previous document, P02597 [Realtime

14 transcript read in error "P02957"], which is a Rama Brigade SIS document

15 again. And it is a report on events in the village of Klck and Krancici.

16 And in the first paragraph, it says that it is about an event that took

17 place on the 27th of May, and in the middle of that page we have the

18 names of the victims, and the last name is the name that we saw in the

19 other document. Do you remember that?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And it says further on in the document that after -- it is the

22 sixth paragraph, after that the Rama Brigade SIS undertook further

23 investigation and immediately arrested the suspects, or suspicious

24 individuals, and then we have a list of their names. Would you retain

25 the name of Jozo Glibo, please. And at the end of the text on the last

Page 38213

1 page, last paragraph, it says that the detained Jozo Glibo, son of Mirko,

2 and Zoran Petrovic are being questioned by the Rama Brigade SIS, and then

3 it says what happened to the other three members which I'm not going to

4 deal with.

5 Now, let's go back to the first page of this document. My

6 colleagues have told me that it says P02957 where it should be P02597.

7 As I was saying, let's look at the beginning of the document, and the

8 number up there, there's a number, and it is 03-02-40/93. Perhaps you

9 could keep that page open when we move on the other document because it's

10 the number that's important as far as I'm concerned.

11 Now, would you look at the next document which is 20 -- 5D02069.

12 Sir, you were an operative, and I see that it says at the top of the

13 document that it says OA PAUK or spider, so I think that's Operation PAUK

14 or spider. And it says, "General Data on the perpetrators of a Criminal

15 Act," that's title. Can you explain to the Court what kind of document

16 this is? What is this document, in fact.

17 A. Your Honours, counsel, I don't know precisely who compiled this

18 document, but I am aware of Operation PAUK which was introduced because

19 of the many crimes that were taking place, and I think the year was the

20 end of 1994, beginning of 1995. I'm not quite sure, but operation PAUK

21 is something that is familiar to me and it was written about by the

22 media.

23 Q. Now, when general data like this are compiled, it is compiled in

24 order to process a -- persons identified as the perpetrators of crimes;

25 is that right?

Page 38214

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, let's look at what it says in the written -- handwritten

3 part of the document which is at the end. There's a handwritten note,

4 and we can see there that we are dealing with events previously described

5 in the Rama Brigade SIS document. We see the name Jozo Glibo mentioned,

6 whom we saw earlier on, and down at the bottom it says, Rama the 1st of

7 June, 1993, and then the number, 03-02-40/93. Now, can that be

8 interpreted as being the number of the criminal report under which the

9 document was filed?

10 A. I think that this number, counsel, links up the note, official

11 note, by SIS with the actual case. That would be my comment, because

12 judging by the general information and general data, they wanted to draw

13 attention to the other reports or notes where these -- this person was

14 mentioned.

15 Q. All right. Fine. Now, after having looked at those documents, I

16 want to ask you whether they indicate the practical application of the

17 SIS of the brigade's acts to do everything in their power to see that the

18 perpetrators of crimes who have been identified at some point in time be

19 taken to justice; am I right?

20 A. Yes.

21 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could I be told by the

22 Registrar how much time I've got left, please.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, please. It's very

24 complicated because you have to reckon in the seconds as well.

25 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, as per our

Page 38215

1 estimates, I may have some seven minutes still. I would need ten to 15,

2 so if this will be a problem, I beg for another minute or two.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have six minutes left.

4 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Sir, let's take a look at the next document. I'll be explaining

6 the document, their contents, otherwise I will not be able to do it in

7 time [as interpreted].

8 This is a document, P04177. This is another Rama Brigade SIS

9 document which describes certain criminal offences, criminal activities,

10 and as possible perpetrators troops, civilians, and some elements of the

11 military police are being referred to. It concerns the events in the

12 villages Podgradje, Lapsunj, Duge. Those are of interest to me. The

13 report does not specify perpetrators' names, there's no mention of them.

14 It doesn't cite any precise information about which military unit they

15 belong to. My presumption is that the author of the report did not have

16 such knowledge, otherwise he would have written them down. Can this be

17 concluded? I'm late again to explain that those names were in the

18 meantime detected, but had he known he would have placed them in this

19 report?

20 A. Yes, this seems a logical explanation, I agree.

21 Q. The witness does not have this statement in the binder because

22 it's a confidential statement by a witness, that's 3D0049 -- 429. This

23 is a statement by a victim who was heard at this trial. She identifies

24 the perpetrators, persons who molested her, Zoran Calic, and a person

25 known as Mendzo, and this is what I state for the record.

Page 38216

1 Now, let's take this document, 3D00422. This is a document that

2 the witness does have in his binder. I will just say that in the

3 statement that I mentioned, that person said that in the autumn in 1993,

4 that she was visited by HVO military police, that she spoke about what

5 had happened to her, and that no further mistreatment befell her after

6 that.

7 So we are discussing this 3D422. This is a document of the 1st

8 Company of the 2nd Battalion of the military police of Livno. It is an

9 official note, and in the introductory sentence it says, On ground of

10 raping women of Muslim ethnicity, it is necessary to bring in the

11 following persons, and then the previously mentioned gentlemen are named

12 here. Ira Petrovic, aka Mendzo, Zoran Calic, et cetera, and some others.

13 My question is very brief, does this document show that when

14 those persons were finally detected and identified that they were

15 prosecuted; is that correct?

16 A. That's correct.

17 Q. Now, I'm going to ask you a brief question without showing you

18 any documents. My learned friend Nozica showed you a document concerning

19 the situation at Neum. I don't know whether you remember. It's 2D00515.

20 A. Yes, I do.

21 Q. And that document described the situation where some people

22 misintroducing themselves as heads of department of SIS personnel, then

23 you were also shown the document P6908. This is document where a certain

24 member of the Convicts Battalion Reuf Asanovic misintroduced himself as a

25 member of the military police when we came to Heliodrom. Do you remember

Page 38217

1 this document?

2 A. Madam counsel, it's possible that the document was mentioned, but

3 I can't recall this name. I know that name Reuf Asanovic.

4 Q. I just refer to those documents for the records. I do not have

5 time. But the crux of my question is this. Have you heard of any cases

6 where during the war, different criminals would offer false identity as

7 members of certain military units or members of the military police or

8 people holding certain functions or positions? Have you ever heard of

9 such cases?

10 A. There were such cases. You are right, Madam counsel.

11 Q. And finally, I'm not sure whether these documents are under seal,

12 I would like to seek my learned friend's Stringer's assistance to tell me

13 whether they are, I have two documents, P03096, and P03988. These are

14 Prozor prison warden's report. If they are under seal, I would be very

15 grateful for their assistance to tell me whether they are or not. I can

16 proceed without retrieving those documents.

17 So when my learned friend Nozica showed you those two documents,

18 you have them in your binder, from her examination I concluded that you

19 were not familiar with the contents of those documents, that you used

20 them to explain the ways that those were submitted, the reasons for them

21 suppression, [as interpreted] et cetera, is that correct?

22 A. Yes, you are correct, Madam counsel.

23 Q. Can I conclude that you cannot confirm that the contents of those

24 documents are credible and accurate if you are not familiar with the

25 contents?

Page 38221

1 MR. PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Good morning, Mr. Bandic.

3 A. Good morning.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are right. Well, the

5 Judges can put questions for the time that remains. And as soon as there

6 is an opening provided, we put our questions because you are in charge of

7 the time you have. Mr. Praljak, you have the floor.

8 MR. PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Witness, on several occasions, you stated that the extent of

10 chaos at the time and in that area was humongous; is that correct?

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. Witness, sir --

13 MR. STRINGER: I apologise for the interruption. Could we get a

14 specification of what area, if there is a specific area that he is asking

15 about, I think that would be helpful. What area of chaos he is referring

16 to.

17 MR. PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

18 Q. I refer to the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina which was not occupied

19 by the Republika Srpska army and the JNA and by the time not only of the

20 signing of the Washington Agreement but also the Dayton Accords, but

21 beyond that point up until today. But let's limit ourselves to the time

22 before the Washington Agreement.

23 Is it known to you that there was much chaos reigning in that

24 area at the time.

25 A. Yes, you are right, Mr. Praljak.

Page 38222

1 Q. Thank you. Mr. Bandic, please tell us whether in your work

2 whenever you knew that there was a crime when you investigated, when

3 records were kept in Prosecution or processing of such cases, have you

4 ever instructed by anybody not to do it, to do it in a different way,

5 were you obstructed in any way in attempts to investigate, record, and

6 prosecute all forms of crime irrespective of the colour of skin, gender,

7 ethnicity, et cetera?

8 A. Well, the basis of our work was that. You are right,

9 Mr. Praljak, we had no limitations imposed on us by anybody in this

10 respect.

11 Q. Did you have support under the circumstances prevailing to

12 proceed in this manner?

13 A. Yes, we did have support.

14 Q. Thank you. Now, let's discuss your role at the Main Staff at

15 Grude. I do not want to contravene your opinion about that, but let's

16 explore how things looked from the other side. So my question would be

17 this, you said you were never formally appointed for that function?

18 A. I never seen it.

19 Q. Can you agree that I never seen your appointment document?

20 A. I can agree that you've never seen it, Mr. Praljak.

21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, witness, how can you affirm what

22 someone else never had? Why do you say this, did you search all his

23 papers, or what's the basis of this answer? Or do you simply say so

24 because Mr. Praljak says so?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have not seen this

Page 38223

1 document, therefore I can leave the possibility open that Mr. Praljak had

2 never seen it either. That would be my view of the matter.

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: All right. Your question is then -- your answer

4 is not: I know he never had it, but I do not know whether he had it or

5 not; correct?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's right. I leave that

7 possibility open.

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

9 MR. PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Do you know that according to the establishment of the Main Staff

11 there was no such position?

12 A. Your Honours, Mr. Praljak, I'm not sure. I cannot make any

13 assertions whether that is the way things are according to establishment.

14 However, I do claim that towards the end of 1993 and the beginning of

15 1994 in the Main Staff, there was an officer of the SIS and he was a

16 member of the collegium.

17 Q. I can agree or disagree with you, but I would be interested in

18 the 9th of November, that's what I'm talking about and you'll see why.

19 Tell me, is it also correct that the commander of the Main Staff would

20 have to agree to a proposal, according to the procedure that was in

21 force, to establish who the representative of the SIS would be and the

22 Main Staff, as far as you know?

23 A. I'm not familiar with the procedure. Your position is a logical

24 one, but I'm not aware of the details. However, I do know that there was

25 an officer in the Main Staff and, if you allow me, just a detail. In the

Page 38224

1 beginning of 1994, since I knew Mr. Predrag --

2 Q. Mr. Bandic, up until the 9th of November, I'm talking about

3 myself.

4 A. All right.

5 Q. Tell me, please, did you ever come to me, and if so when, did you

6 ever come to me, did you say, Praljak, I don't have a piece of paper

7 saying that, but I'm your assistant for SIS in the Main Staff. If you

8 remember that, tell me what the date was?

9 A. I do not remember that any such thing ever happened.

10 Q. All right. Tell me, do you remember a single meeting that I held

11 with my assistants that you attended yourself?

12 A. I never attended such a meeting, Mr. Praljak.

13 Q. Thank you. Tell me one more thing from this last area. Do you

14 remember any report that I received on my table that you had signed or

15 somebody else at the time?

16 A. I cannot recall ever having signed such a report and having sent

17 it to you.

18 Q. Thank you very much. Now, since we have established that, let us

19 move on. Do you agree with the fact, we've seen papers to that effect

20 here, that forms of organisation were made in such a way so as to be as

21 democratic as possible, like in democratic countries, but for many

22 reasons this effort to make things happen the way they were on paper,

23 that did not succeed?

24 A. You are right, Mr. Praljak. Objectively and subjectively some

25 things simply could not be carried through.

Page 38225

1 Q. Let us leave chaos aside. Let us see what should have been done.

2 For instance, you claimed that in brigades there were quite a few persons

3 as if they had been SIS, that is to say security, but you had not

4 confirmed them; right?

5 A. That's right.

6 Q. But, for instance, you state - you or your chief or your

7 service - that person A in Brigade E was not appointed according to

8 procedure. So then you send a piece of paper saying person A in Brigade

9 E, we are dismissing you, but then the brigade commander opposes that.

10 Tell me, at what meeting, at what collegium would this problem be

11 presented; that is to say, you or your chief saying that the commander of

12 the brigade is opposed to this? And then in relation to that, who would

13 dismiss the brigade commander? For example, he is disobedient, he

14 doesn't want to carry this through, who would replace the brigade

15 commander? Do you know on the basis of military establishment, although

16 you said that you do not know very much about military establishment?

17 A. Mr. Praljak, as far as this kind of dismissal is concerned, I

18 really don't know. My knowledge of military establishment is very

19 modest. As for the first part, you have correctly identified the

20 problem. At these collegiums, I don't know at what collegium level this

21 would be discussed, and in view of my own position, I did not attend a

22 single one. It was impossible for me to be at these collegiums, so I

23 really do not know at what levels this was discussed.

24 Q. All right. All right. Remember the problem with the document

25 concerning Zara Pavlovic and he was opposing something or whatever. I

Page 38226

1 mean, the man is disobedient, so who is the person who is supposed to

2 handcuff him and take him into custody, into prison?

3 A. The brigade police.

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

5 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think it

6 would be more logical to put a question before this question that was put

7 by General Praljak. Who orders the arrest. If the witness could respond

8 to that question before this.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness. The procedure

10 relating to arrests is quite complicated, since several people are

11 associated and involved. The SIS drafts reports, the military police

12 takes actions. Could you perhaps answer the question asked by Mr. Coric.

13 According to you, who carries out the arrest?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I absolutely

15 understand the context. I absolutely understand the context of

16 Mr. Coric's question. The commander commands that, and that is the

17 brigade commander. However, in respect of Mr. Praljak's specific

18 question, who brings him in, it's the military police. In the brigade in

19 Capljina, the case of that man is one that I am very familiar with, and I

20 know the man very well.

21 MR. PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Orders is a word that is often used here. Orders given to a

23 subordinate. You say that you are not an expert in military matters, but

24 say in a brigade we have three battalions and every battalion has three

25 companies, respectively. So we have nine, and then in the brigade there

Page 38227

1 is one more, so then according to establishment there are ten SIS

2 officials. Ten altogether. The commander of the brigade, can he tell

3 these ten men, Look, this is the order, go to feature such and such, dig

4 a trench this long, and fight there until I order you to do something

5 different? Did he have the right to do that?

6 A. My modest knowledge, Mr. Praljak, tells me that he was in a

7 position to do that.

8 Q. All right. All right. We'll deal with that some other time.

9 Now, P05249. It's an exhibit already. The 21st of September, 1993, is

10 the date. Instructions for work to the SIS centre, Travnik, Vitez. Have

11 you found the document?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. It says here some new changes were made, technical ones that is,

14 in the organisational schematic. Seven centres for SIS were established,

15 but please look at the last paragraph, the centre of the SIS is the

16 highest organ of SIS in its territory, and then it says who is

17 subordinated to who, and it says that there under the battalion

18 commander, it's all explained very nicely here.

19 Just look at this: Cooperation between the head of the operative

20 zone and the commander. The commander of the operation zone is

21 duty-bound to help the chief of SIS in the implementation of his duties

22 and to cooperate with him. And then it says further on, that the chief

23 of SIS is duty-bound to render assistance to the commander in the

24 discharge of his duties, and on behalf of SIS, he attends meetings and

25 the chief of the centre only if he is invited.

Page 38228

1 Now, this is what is said, The chief of the SIS centre does not

2 have the authority to issue orders to anyone outside the SIS. And then

3 there's something that I'm particularly interested in, While discharging

4 his duties, a SIS official has the right to ask for identification, SIS

5 officials, and other citizens. And then, as far as crimes are concerned,

6 belonging to the jurisdiction of military courts that are done in the

7 course of official duty, then SIS officials can arrest a person and,

8 without delay, take the said person to the investigative judge or the

9 police. Then a SIS official can arrest --

10 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could we please have the

11 document displayed in e-court. Thank you.

12 MR. PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

13 Q. So this is something that is done in the course of official duty.

14 Then this person has to be handed over to the investigative judge or the

15 military police unit involved. Then we have this technical matter of two

16 days in detention and whatever else, and then what you spoke of, persons

17 who are supposed to be brought into custody can try to resist arrest, and

18 physical force can be applied by SIS officials. And then the next page

19 refers to that and that's what the document says, you've read it out.

20 Mr. Bandic, isn't it clear that a SIS official is -- or, rather,

21 the SIS centre is a person who is in charge, according to the law, to

22 investigate and to apply force if necessary in order to bring persons

23 into custody, suspects into custody?

24 A. That can be interpreted only partly in that way, Mr. Praljak.

25 This is a special situation in central Bosnia. And this is one of the

Page 38229

1 many efforts to establish a centre --

2 Q. No, no, Mr. Bandic. Allow me to say this to you, just a moment,

3 please. We've left chaos aside. We've said enough about that. Now, we

4 are just looking at what this was. Wasn't this the ideal legal framework

5 as to how things should have been done?

6 A. Yes, exactly, if you'll allow me, Mr. Praljak.

7 Q. Go ahead, answer.

8 A. You said for crimes that are prosecuted in the line of official

9 duty, these are grave crimes. These are serious criminal offences, and

10 the minimum sentence is three years. As a lawyer, I simply have to say

11 that.

12 Q. Of course, and there are other sentences involved in the case of

13 other crimes. Of course. Tell me, when you're in a particular area --

14 will you agree with me that I was out in the field a lot, that I spent a

15 lot of my time out in the field, and that I know full well what the

16 problems were? Do you agree with that?

17 A. I fully agree with that.

18 Q. Tell me, rape, arson, or something like that happens in an area

19 where we were, and then someone comes to report that, or somehow one find

20 out, the brigade commander find out, what does the brigade commander do

21 at that point in time? What will he do?

22 A. Your Honours, Mr. Praljak, what was the duty of the brigade

23 commander then was to issue an order to his security organs in the

24 military police to establish whether a crime was committed involving all

25 the facts that were there.

Page 38230

1 Q. All right. But, for example, if the brigade commander is not

2 there perhaps, if he is fighting somewhere else, he is running all over

3 the place, he is on the front-line, then who is supposed to act in

4 official terms?

5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the second part of

6 the sentence.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: This is not understandable. I think you started

9 again. You started asking who was responsible and the answer was yes.

10 That is not helpful.

11 MR. PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

12 Q. I'll repeat, the brigade commander, if he found out, he called

13 his SIS assistants, and he said, Now investigate that, you investigate

14 that, call the military police. The military police of the brigade, we

15 will agree, does not have the technical ability to handle this, it

16 doesn't have its own crime investigation service; right?

17 A. Mr. Praljak, I really don't know. I really don't know whether

18 they had a crime investigation service within the brigade.

19 Q. All right. At any rate, my question is, if the brigade commander

20 is not there, if he is out in the field, and one does find out about

21 something that happened, a crime, the assistant commander for SIS, does

22 he take over himself the investigation and everything else and order

23 whatever is necessary to find out who the perpetrator was interpreter?

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We can no longer hear the

25 witness, too many microphones are on.

Page 38231

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, in the question put to

2 you by Mr. Praljak, one element is missing and I'm going to mention that

3 element. When the brigade commander isn't there, when he is absent, as

4 far as you know isn't there another officer who can then perform the

5 tasks as an acting commander for the brigade because the commander is on

6 the front-line, on leave, sick, in Geneva, or God knows where? In the

7 system you were familiar with, wasn't there always an officer who could

8 replace the person who usually performs the task?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President,

10 absolutely that is the logic, that there is a person standing in for him.

11 My response to Mr. Praljak's question as to whether the SIS officers and

12 the military police could do that on their own, collect all of this, my

13 answer was yes, I think they could have done that. As for the actual

14 chain of command, it is certain that if the commander was absent for any

15 reason, there had to be someone who would deputise for him.

16 MR. PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

17 Q. All right. All right. Let us now look at document 2D00948. Now

18 look at -- sorry, what was that? 2D00948. Yes, that's what's written

19 here. Yes, yes, yes. That is a fine what is says on the screen. It is

20 the 26th of June, 1993, Lucic writing to Colonel Blaskic. Obviously,

21 there is some kind of misunderstanding involved, and he is explaining

22 something to him. And look at the number 1, it says the role and tasks

23 of the centre are defined in such and such a way. The centre is headed

24 by a chief who is responsible to the chief of the SIS administration for

25 his work and then it says further on, so there is no need for you to know

Page 38232

1 what he is doing -- what they are doing or are you responsible for their

2 work.

3 Then number 2, the objective of establishing the centre is to

4 improve the security situation in the area assigned to them for

5 operations, to inform the administration about all types of organised

6 crime within HVO units, et cetera. And then it says, I cannot enumerate

7 all of this to you. It does say you are the most responsible person, the

8 reference is to Blaskic, for the situation in the operative zone of

9 central Bosnia, especially in terms of the establishment and activity of

10 our units, but I believe that you do know that from the security point of

11 view, we are responsible and how.

12 And under number 4, it says that he sent a communication to the

13 chief of the centre requesting him to consult Blaskic in the event of any

14 activities which might have major consequences, et cetera. And that

15 Blaskic's approval was necessary. Is that what it says?

16 A. Yes, that's what it says, Mr. Praljak.

17 Q. Very well, thank you. Tell me now, please, an example. You are

18 in the field somewhere on assignment, and you happen to come across an

19 event, an occurrence, which is a crime, rape, et cetera. As a SIS

20 officer with your ID card, would you undertake to arrest the perpetrators

21 or would you take out a pistol and shoot, would you have the right to do

22 that, and would you indeed resort to that kind of action?

23 A. In that hypothetical situation, Mr. Praljak, that is what I would

24 do. I would act that way. I did have the authority to do so. But

25 luckily, I was never in a position of that kind. I never witnessed

Page 38233

1 anything like that.

2 Q. Allow me to say that unluckily I was never in a situation like

3 that.

4 Mr. Bandic, you said that the SIS did not start functioning, and

5 I agree with that, of course. Now, tell me what did start functioning?

6 What department, the military police, the Defence Department, the

7 military setup, mobilisation, the financial sector, information, what did

8 function down there? And if it's -- something did function, how far was

9 it operational during the war and with all the dead and wounded and so

10 on?

11 A. Mr. Praljak, that position of yours is true to a large extent,

12 but we would need a lot of time and a lot of data and information to

13 explain it. There were certain segments that were operational and did

14 function, for example, within my service. There were parts which

15 functioned very well. In other parts it functioned with great

16 difficulty, so that it depended on the situation and the area in question

17 and the time-period.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, I'm told that you

19 have gone beyond the time that was granted to you.

20 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] How much more time do I

21 have?

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have exceeded the time that

23 was allocated to you by at least three minutes already. If you have one

24 last question, please proceed, one to summarise, perhaps.

25 MR. PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Well, what can I say.

Page 38234

1 Q. Recapitulation, before I do that, did the SIS officers -- could

2 they wear civilian clothes and military clothes in going about their

3 business, when they were on assignment?

4 A. The possibility did exist for us to be in civilian clothes as

5 well, yes, Mr. Praljak, but that was the exception, when there was a very

6 highly sensitive situation.

7 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, let's go back to document 2D00948

8 for a moment, please, and I've been told to ask whether you know whether

9 the assistant head was Mr. Ivica Lucic, that that was the post he

10 occupied?

11 A. Yes, that's right, I am aware of that. That was his post at the

12 time. And you see once again, it says assistant to head and chief of

13 SIS. We see those terms used again.

14 Q. Now my last question. Tell me, please, when -- well, I can't

15 show you the documents for this, but I will mention it, P07035. A

16 document referring to a particular event, so the document is an exhibit

17 already. But anyway, expressions like "the investigation is underway"

18 are used, "the perpetrators were unknown," and so on and so forth, "the

19 whole case was handed over to the military police," and so on and so

20 forth. And this brings me to the last question now.

21 In the performance of your duty, whether it was the military

22 police or a part of the army, a military man, did they ever refuse to

23 provide with you assistance, or let me put it this way, any reported and

24 recorded crime, was the maximum done to deal with it as much as resources

25 allowed for, material, technical, and whatever, either in the Ministry of

Page 38235

1 Defence, the Main Staff, whatever? Did you always have help in

2 performing your duty to investigate every recorded crime, every single

3 reported crime?

4 A. Mr. Praljak, yes, absolutely assistance was there but the

5 question is was it sufficient.

6 Q. Now, in the distribution of the crimes that we had over there,

7 the people who perpetrated those crimes, for example --

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you said it was

9 your last question and now you are moving on to the next one and the

10 following one. You need to be more disciplined, just as counsels are.

11 THE ACCUSED: Praljak [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I do

12 understand that, but now I come to my last question and then I'll finish

13 there.

14 Q. The distribution of those crimes. Was it nationally speaking

15 different, were there different types of crimes, did you see as many

16 crimes against Croats, arson, rape and so on, et cetera; is that correct?

17 A. Yes the ethnicity wasn't important.

18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Bandic.

19 Your Honour, Judge Antonetti, may I ask you once again, if the

20 examination-in-chief is going to be conducted with one or two witnesses,

21 then the time allotted to the Defence teams, if they don't use up their

22 time, they should not return their time to the Court. They should return

23 it to the Defence because the Defence is there to present their case

24 because some teams might examine witnesses for three hours, and if you

25 divide that up with six, and then you might have one Defence team have

Page 38236

1 just 15 minutes. And then if you need to respond to allegations made

2 against a particular person, then you would need to use that time.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we will see that amongst

4 ourselves. Mr. Karnavas.

5 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President on page 66, I believe it

6 was line 11 and 12, there was a question by General Praljak, the

7 gentleman had previously answered the question, but then General Praljak

8 said but what -- were the resources sufficient for the gentlemen to

9 conduct the various investigations that were required. And to that

10 question, as I took it as a question -- as a follow-up question or

11 clarification of the previous question, we did not receive an answer from

12 the gentleman. So perhaps he could be asked that question to clarify

13 whether he had sufficient resources at the time to cover all the

14 investigations that were necessary.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Witness, one of your

16 answers was not recorded. Could you perhaps reply. General Praljak

17 asked you whether you had all resources available to you to conduct your

18 own investigations or to take action when necessary.

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I have said several

20 times already that the great problem was that we did not have the

21 material, resources, and the manpower that we would wish to have had for

22 us to be able to undertake all that work.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I had a question for you. I

24 was wanting to put it to you yesterday. I saw this document which

25 mentions the members of the SIS that could conduct their work in military

Page 38237

1 uniform or in plain clothes, and General Praljak put the question to you

2 again this morning. But I would like to address this from a different

3 angle. Since in your department you collected information and you go and

4 seek out this intelligence, this information, and in certain cases people

5 are paid for this and people are prepared to give information if they are

6 being paid.

7 At the time in your department, did you have cash which would

8 have enabled you to pay your informants?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, that

10 was one of the ways in which the secret service worked. And I'm trying

11 to recall just now. I'll not quite sure that we did have money earmarked

12 for that kind of thing, but there were occasions where we did assist

13 people, help people out through our sources. People who had helped us

14 come by information or documents or things like that.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A question of a technical

16 nature you don't have to give us any names or specific examples. Did you

17 have any informants who were working for the other side, either Serbs or

18 Muslims, did you have your own informants on the in the other side?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there were such

20 instances, although that wasn't our primary job. It was the intelligence

21 service that dealt with that mostly.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you for your

23 answers. My colleague has a question.

24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Previous translation continues] ... under

25 staffed. Now I would be interested to hear whether you have or Mr. Lucic

Page 38242

1 all about and to know what the expressed opinion there is.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.

3 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

4 Cross-examination by Mr. Stringer.

5 MR. STRINGER:

6 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Bandic.

7 You've got the letter there that we've all been talking about,

8 and you have take the time to look it over. I can assure the Trial

9 Chamber and you that when we get to the relevant part of your testimony I

10 will ask to go into closed session before ask any questions related to

11 your time as a agent with the Croatian intelligence service in the Hague

12 during 1997 and 1998.

13 Now, the Registrar has passed out binders, and, Mr. Bandic, there

14 are three binders there that contain documents that I'm going to ask you

15 to look at during your cross-examination.

16 The first question I've got for you, it might be useful just

17 to -- if you could put those on the floor, and then I can direct you to

18 the specific binders that I'm going to -- that's okay. It's a lot of

19 paper.

20 My first question, and I want to take you back to July of 1993.

21 Do you remember a man named Kasim Kahrimanovic he was a member of the

22 ABiH 8th Mountain Brigade. You'd been attached to the logistics in

23 Split. He was brought by the Croatian intelligence service on your

24 request from Dubrovnik to Neum. He was then transferred to the prison

25 camp at Dretelj where he was beaten to death on the 21st of September,

Page 38243

1 1993. Do you remember that incident?

2 A. Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, I've never heard of this name. It

3 is not known to me and this case is not known to me.

4 Q. Could I ask you to look at Exhibit number P03630, which is in the

5 first binder, the binder that's labelled number 1. 3630. And, yeah,

6 you're going to have to find the document behind the tab that bears that

7 number, 3630. It's toward the back, I think. Toward the back of the

8 binder. Okay. Thank you.

9 Now, this is an official note. At the end of it it's dated 22

10 July, 1993. It's an official note of some individuals with the military

11 police administration, Capljina. And it says here that under item number

12 1 -- do you have the document now?

13 A. Yes, I believe that this is the document.

14 Q. Item number 1, the case of Kasim Kahrimanovic, who was

15 transferred from Dubrovnik to Neum by the SIS of Croatia at the request

16 of Tutic and Bandic, and from there to Dretelj at 1500 hours. Lucic was

17 informed about the arrival of this person. He was placed in solitary

18 confinement until 21 July, 1993. In the course of the day he was beaten

19 up by persons who entered the barracks compound without authorisation, it

20 continues on with their names. It says that Boskovic did not take part

21 in the beating, but military policemen did. The said man died at about

22 2000 hours was buried in Pocitelj during the night. Do you remember this

23 gentleman, this man, Kasim Kahrimanovic, who according to this appears to

24 have been brought to Dretelj at your request?

25 A. Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, I do not recall at all this case, I

Page 38244

1 do not recall the name of the person who suffered, and I cannot recall

2 having absolutely any connection with this case.

3 Q. Where it says here that Lucic was informed about the arrival of

4 this person, do you know whether that would be a reference to your

5 superior Mr. Ivica Lucic?

6 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I'm not sure and I cannot claim that this refers

7 to Mr. Lucic, because there a possibility that this would be him, but

8 there is also a possibility of somebody else being referred to.

9 Q. Is it true that members of the military police administration did

10 report to Mr. Lucic or to yourself, that there was reporting and sharing

11 of information as between these two branches of the security arm of the

12 Defence Department?

13 A. Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, I repeat, I really do not know

14 anything about this case. I've never heard of this name. It is not

15 known to me.

16 Q. Now, at the time of this event in July of 1993, Mr. Bandic, you

17 were, if I understand correctly, chief SIS officer, you were attached to

18 or you were linked to the Main Staff; is that correct?

19 A. Mr. Prosecutor, my position, as you've seen from different

20 documents, carried different labels or titles, but I'm not sure whether

21 during that time I was in the area of Herzegovina or whether I was in

22 central Bosnia, I don't recall where exactly I was at the time. But I

23 reiterate, I do not know anything about this case.

24 Q. Well, I'm asking you about your position at this time, and we'll

25 talk about the variety of labels that apply to your position. I'm asking

Page 38245

1 you whether at this point in time if you recall, were you linked to or

2 attached to the Main Staff as opposed to the SIS administration?

3 A. Mr. Prosecutor, on several occasions, I've said that from autumn

4 1992 I was attached, so to speak, in a manner to the Main Staff in the

5 sense that I was escorting Mr. Petkovic on many occasions. I've never

6 seen an official document whereby I was appointed as assistant for SIS at

7 the Main Staff. I really do not know specifically what my function was,

8 whether I was in the SIS administration or formally was a part of the

9 Main Staff, and I do not know physically whether I was out in the field,

10 whether I was at Mostar or maybe at Citluk.

11 Q. 22 July, 1993, is just about the time where there was a change in

12 the command at the Main Staff. Do you recall that on or about the 24th

13 of July, 1993, Slobodan Praljak became the commander of the Main Staff of

14 the HVO replacing Milivoj Petkovic who up until that time had been the

15 Chief of the Main Staff?

16 A. Esteemed Mr. Prosecutor, throughout my time there, I was never

17 sure who of them was the commander and who was the chief. I remember

18 meeting, now late Stanko Matic on the premises. I'm trying to recall the

19 name of another person who was either assistant commander or vice-Chief

20 of the Main Staff. I was never sure what exactly their titles were, what

21 ranks they held, whether general, major, major general, or general

22 colonel, or whatever the rank was.

23 Q. Between general Praljak and General Petkovic, you can't say who

24 was in a superior position at this -- at around this period of time in

25 July of 1993; is that correct? You don't know?

Page 38246

1 A. I really do not know who at the time was chief and who was a

2 commander. I don't know.

3 Q. Now, you've indicated that you were regardless of what title or

4 position you may have had or not had on paper, that sort of in a de facto

5 way your role was to accompany General Petkovic as his security officer,

6 is that a correct way to put it?

7 A. That's partly accurate, Mr. Prosecutor. I've just explained

8 because of the nature of the job, the circumstances prevailing, and when

9 there was a need for General Petkovic to go to central Bosnia, I would be

10 the person escorting him back.

11 Q. Okay. Now, based on the position that you held and the functions

12 you carried out, did you have the authority to have people like

13 Mr. Kahrimanovic brought in from outside and placed in one of the HVO

14 camps? Did you possess that authority?

15 A. Mr. Prosecutor, as I understand it and I reiterate, I know

16 nothing about this case. I do not have such powers or authorities to

17 command anybody, particularly in such a case as this, is what is to

18 happen.

19 Q. You say you don't remember this case then. Do I understand

20 correctly that you don't know -- you've never subsequently became aware

21 of the beating death of Mr. Kahrimanovic at the Dretelj camp? You never

22 heard about that?

23 A. I reiterate, I've never heard about this case, unfortunately, so

24 such a drastic case simply has not reached me.

25 Q. And then do you deny the possibility, do you exclude the

Page 38247

1 possibility that you could be the Bandic person referred to here on whose

2 request Mr. Kahrimanovic was brought to the Dretelj camp?

3 A. Your Honours, the Prosecutor, I cannot bring myself in connection

4 with this event in any way and the person concerned. I don't know

5 whether anybody noticed -- mentioned me in any context, but I personally

6 know for sure that I don't know anything about this case.

7 Q. Now, turning to page 2 of this document, Mr. Bandic, there's a

8 reference toward the end where these two military police people,

9 Mr. Kraljevic and Mr. Buntic say as follows, they say:

10 "Beatings of prisoners by members of the military police with the

11 knowledge and in the presence of the commanders are regular in Dretelj

12 prison."

13 Now, as a high level person within the SIS, if I can put it that

14 way, directly linked to and working for General Petkovic, did you at any

15 time during the summer of 1993 become aware of beatings of prisoners that

16 were being carried out by HVO personnel such as the military police?

17 A. Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, again, I repeat, I know nothing of

18 this case or of such cases, particularly at the time while I was together

19 with Mr. Petkovic. We did not discuss these matters. If we had not been

20 informed about them, then we could not have known about them. I don't

21 know now anything about that.

22 Q. Did you ever go to the Dretelj camp, the Gabela camp, Ljubuski

23 military prison, Heliodrom military prison? Did you ever personally go

24 into any of those HVO facilities during 1993?

25 A. Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, during 1992 and 1993, on several

Page 38248

1 occasions I visited those places.

2 Q. Okay. Can you tell me to the best of your recollection when you

3 visited each those facilities?

4 A. Mr. Prosecutor --

5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. I'd like

6 to mention the Prosecutor said "visited" and the witness did not say

7 "visits." He said that he had been there, so he is being put words into

8 his mouth.

9 MR. STRINGER: I'll rephrase the question. Maybe there was an

10 interpretation issue there.

11 Q. I'm asking you, Mr. Bandic, whether during -- I asked you,

12 actually, whether during 1993 - we can limit ourselves to 1993 - did you

13 personally go inside any of the HVO camps at Dretelj, Gabela, Ljubuski,

14 or Heliodrom? And if so, to the best of your recollection, when did you

15 go into each of those?

16 A. Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, I said I was there. I confirm that

17 I went to Heliodrom two or three times, and once I think it was the

18 Grabovina prison, the entrance to Capljina, during the Neum case. Other

19 collection centres and prisons, with respect to them I cannot recall ever

20 visiting any of them.

21 Q. Do you recall approximately when you went to the Heliodrom?

22 A. Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot recall, but there must be

23 written traces, there must have been a note on an interview I conducted

24 or written record of the warden about my visit because I could not have

25 visited those without prior approval.

Page 38249

1 Q. Okay. And this anticipates an issue that we'll talk more about

2 later, but then your purpose in going to the Heliodrom was to conduct

3 interviews of detainees who were of significance, of interest?

4 A. That's correct, sir, Prosecutor. There were two or three

5 instances. I could almost recall the persons I spoke to.

6 Q. And this was one of the functions of the SIS administration, that

7 being to gather information and intelligence from detainees; correct?

8 A. That's correct. That was one of the duties.

9 Q. Now, if I could take you back to page 1 of this exhibit, which is

10 P03630. At the very beginning it says:

11 "A series of undesirable things have occurred following the

12 political decision to detain Muslims in the municipalities of Stolac,

13 Capljina, and Neum, and to set up prisons in Dretelj and Gabela."

14 Do you see that?

15 A. Yes.

16 Q. Do you know what political decision that is referring to?

17 A. Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, I really do not know which

18 political decision is being referred to, and I don't know whether such a

19 political decision has ever been taken. This is not known to me.

20 Q. Is it true that the setting up of prisons at Dretelj and Gabela,

21 that those facilities fell under the jurisdiction, if you will, of the

22 Defence Department?

23 A. Respected Mr. Prosecutor, this is not known to me.

24 Q. Do you know which arm or entity within the HVO structures then

25 was responsible for the camps at Dretelj and Gabela?

Page 38250

1 A. It is not known to me which structure that was, Mr. Prosecutor.

2 There was talk about this that attempts were made to determine who was

3 responsible for which camp or military prisons or collection centres,

4 et cetera.

5 Q. Well, to the extent that the SIS went to the camps to conduct its

6 interviews, would it be fair to say that on that limited point, the SIS

7 was in contact with HVO military police in order to gain the permissions

8 necessary to go into the camps and conduct the interviews?

9 A. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Prosecutor, that is your

10 question, duty of members of the SIS, if they wanted to conduct

11 interviews, was to address the person in charge of the respective

12 institution, be it the military investigation prison, or otherwise. That

13 means to whoever was the commander or warden of that institution.

14 Q. Okay. Now, you said that you were not aware of or you don't know

15 about a political decision to detain all the Muslims in these

16 municipalities. Mr. Bandic, were you aware, nonetheless, that on the

17 ground throughout these municipalities during the months of July and

18 August of 1993, in fact the Muslim male population was arrested and

19 placed in the camps by the HVO? Were you aware that that was taking

20 place?

21 A. Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, it was known to me because

22 unfortunately that was an event which has caused quite a lot of damage to

23 both the Croatian and Muslim peoples because then conflict broke out and

24 we've discussed the matters of events at Mostar and Stolac and the

25 brigades which had numerous Muslim members or Bosniak members. That is

Page 38251

1 the period I'm talking about.

2 Q. And in that operation, the operation of rounding up the Muslim

3 population, the male population, is it true that the SIS in fact played a

4 role in identifying prisoners and locating the prisoners from the

5 municipalities into the various camps?

6 A. Your Honour, Esteemed Prosecutor, I know that there were

7 different cases when people were brought into custody, either on account

8 of military assessments or security related assessments. The security

9 service tried to follow these developments, collect information about it,

10 and forward it, as far as such developments are concerned.

11 Q. Do you know whether SIS personnel in the field actually

12 coordinated with the SIS administration and the Department of Defence in

13 actually determining where these people would be sent once they were

14 rounded up and arrested? Was there coordination on an institutional

15 level between the SIS and other bodies?

16 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I'm not aware of the extent to which it existed.

17 Of course, members of the security service and the military police tried

18 to follow all of what was happening. Also, in centres, people tried to

19 gather information about this as much as possible and then to notify

20 their superiors of it.

21 Q. The next document I'd like you to go to -- Mr. President, yes?

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, before we move on to

23 the next document, I would like to come back to this specific document,

24 and particularly its first paragraph where I see that two members of the

25 military police, first of all relate all the unfortunate events that took

Page 38252

1 place, deaths, people being beaten up, et cetera. However, what I'm

2 particularly interested in is the following: I see that there's two

3 policemen referred to consequences of political decisions as it were.

4 That's exactly what it says here.

5 As far as you know, were there within the HVO administration or

6 within other bodies, were there elements that would have enabled you

7 within the SIS to become aware of the facts that some people seemed to be

8 in disagreement with what was happening? Because when we read this

9 document, we see that those two members of the military police say that

10 this is all a consequence of a political decision. So at SIS level, were

11 you aware or made aware, I wouldn't say of people challenging, but have

12 you seen documents that were criticising certainly a given action?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. President, in

14 this case, I really don't know what the two policemen mean when they say

15 in respect of political decisions. I really don't know what kind of

16 political decisions these were and at what level these decisions were

17 made. I really don't know. I don't know about that personally, and I

18 also don't know about that being known at the administration, that

19 anything like that had reached the administration, so I really don't know

20 what decisions these could have been.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But the question

22 I'm asking you, sir, relates to another document which I don't have here.

23 I'm quoting it from memory, but there was also a member of the military

24 police who drafted a report where ethnic cleansing is mentioned, ethnic

25 cleansing carried out by Tuta's men, and this document also stemmed from

Page 38253

1 the military police. So if I put the pieces together of the various

2 documents that we have seen, I'm led to conclude that the military police

3 was reporting events at the very least and that's precisely what I'd like

4 to know. Within the SIS, were you made aware of facts stemming from

5 reports made by the military police?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In part, yes, Your Honour. There

7 was such information too, but in this specific case this you referred to,

8 if what is being said that ethnic cleansing is taking place, either by a

9 regular or irregular unit or a part that is out of control, these were

10 free interpretations, highly so, and what was meant by that. What I can

11 say to you that at that time in June, July, August, in the territory of

12 Herzegovina, there were large scale conflicts, or, rather, major problems

13 between the HVO and the BiH Army.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The floor is -- you

15 have the floor, Prosecutor.

16 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.

17 Q. Mr. Bandic, you can set aside that binder. The next exhibit is

18 in the little binder, the smaller one, yes. And it is P10890. 10890.

19 And what this is, sir, is last week we went and we found your resume on

20 the website of the Croatian government, and that's what this is, and I've

21 got a couple of questions about your CV. And what I want to do is go to

22 the second page of it, and I'm actually going to start at the bottom of

23 it and work upwards.

24 My first question is when I looked at this, I saw that one of

25 your hobbies is karate and that you are a karate master. And I know that

Page 38254

1 one of our accused Mr. Coric is also a karate master. And looking into

2 this further, I had the impression or the understanding that you and

3 Mr. Coric have some form of close family relation, I'm not sure whether

4 you were the best man at his wedding or perhaps the Godfather of one of

5 his children; is that correct.

6 A. Your Honour, Mr. Prosecutor, if that is relevant, of course I can

7 confirm my very close friendly relations with Mr. Coric, that date back

8 to a time long before the war and, inter alia, Mr. Coric was my trainer.

9 As for our kum relations, if that is necessary, I can explain that too.

10 His wife was Godmother to my children, as well.

11 Q. All right. Now, moving upwards on this page, I want to ask you a

12 few questions about the time when you were at the, as indicated here,

13 Ministry of Interior Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that's indicated for the

14 period of 1987 to 1992. Do you see that?

15 A. Yes, that's right.

16 Q. And if I understand correctly, this is a period of time when you

17 were with the Yugoslav state security office, that is the security

18 apparatus or a security apparatus of the former Yugoslavia; correct?

19 A. That's right, Esteemed Prosecutor. That was my third job and it

20 had to do with the secret service of the then state.

21 Q. Okay.

22 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I think we're at the point where

23 we're going to need to go into closed session.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Closed session, please.

25 [Private session]