1 Wednesday, 18 March, 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Prlic not present]
5 [The accused Pusic not present]
6 [The witness takes the stand]
7 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
9 the case, please.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
11 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
12 the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 Today is Wednesday, the 18th of March, 2009. I greet the accused and
15 their counsels. Mr. Stringer and all his colleagues. As well as
16 Mr. Usher and all the people who assist us in the courtroom.
17 I think that Mr. Registrar as an IC number to give us, I give him
18 the floor.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. The Prosecution has
20 submitted its response to Stojic Defence objection to the Prosecution's
21 list of documents tendered through witness Hamid Bahto, this list shall
22 be given IC954. Thank you, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
24 Ms. Alaburic, you have the floor. I think you have a bit more than 20
25 minutes left. 23 minutes to be precise, I believe.
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
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
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
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
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,
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?
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.
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
1 order to be as cautious as possible that we move into private session.
2 [Private session]
11 Pages 38176-38184 redacted.
3 [Open session]
4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. In the last paragraph --
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session for the
7 record. Thank you, Your Honours.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. It is said, Mr. Bandic, that General Blaskic said that in June,
10 1993, a new problem arose in the parallel chain of command by the
11 establishment of the SIS centre at Vitez and that new organisation was
12 not in any connection with the operation zone and functioned independent
13 from the SIS assistant of the operative zone. Tell us, did you know
14 about that as being a problem and the opinion of Mr. Blaskic?
15 A. Yes, it was known to me.
16 Q. In the first part of this report it is said that as late as the
17 beginning of 1994, a re-organisation was carried out by disbanding
18 certain special purpose unit and by establishing Guards Brigades, and
19 only then Mr. Blaskic had full control over units in the area of central
21 A. Yes, it was known to me.
22 Q. The next document, 4D1320, another report from the Blaskic trial,
23 I'm interested in a part of a sentence in the sixth paragraph, it's very
24 short, before it appears on the screen I will read it out loud, And parts
25 of the proofs illustrate the existence of parallel lines of command over
1 special purpose units which led Grude and Mostar; in other words, to the
2 leading people of Herceg-Bosna, Dario Kordic and Ignac Kostroman, which
3 bypassed Blaskic. Please tell us, Mr. Bandic, whether you know anything
4 about this thesis by General Blaskic that there was a parallel line of
5 command which bypassed him?
6 A. It is known to me this thesis, but Mr. Kostroman and Kordic were
7 there in central Bosnia
8 Q. Fine, I will show you another article from Globus magazine
9 entitled --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your time is up already,
11 Ms. Alaburic, so this will be your last question.
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] This is not a thesis of
13 General Petkovic Defence, but I must stress that, first of all --
14 Q. -- but I would like to ask you about the thesis about special
15 purpose units in Herceg-Bosna being under special influence of
16 Bruno Stojic. My question is, and I repeat this is not General Petkovic
17 thesis, but tell us, Mr. Bandic, that -- whether you know that this was a
18 thesis of General Blaskic's Defence and Ante Nobilo Mr. Blaskic 's
19 Defence counsel, still maintains that the second line of command emanated
20 from the Ministry of Defence of the HZ HB; do you know that?
21 A. Madam counsel, this is one of the many thesis. It's very
22 arbitrary. It is known to me because I read it in the media.
23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since my time is
24 out, I would like to conclude my cross-examination. Thank you for my
25 extra time and thank you, Mr. Bandic.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 it was sometime around my birthday, 17th of November, and I believe that
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
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
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:
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
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.
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
25 A. Yes.
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
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.
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.
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
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
1 said person to the military remand prison Ljubuski, immediately notify
2 the officer of the criminal investigations service in Ljubuski, Ivica
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
1 A. I'm not familiar with the contents. I wouldn't doubt their
3 Q. Do you know why I'm asking you? I'll be specific. In P03906, in
4 the introductory paragraph, it is said that certain individuals --
5 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, counsel, we've checked, the two
6 documents are confidential or under seal, so perhaps shouldn't read them
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Avoid reading it out and just
9 state this document states this or that.
10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, but I'll
11 have to deal with a detail, a very brief question, but I have a very
12 important detail contained therein.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We can move into private
14 session in that case for a few minutes.
15 [Private session]
19 [Open session]
20 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
21 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
22 We've already made a public -- clear that if we do not use the time that
23 were given by the bench, we are going -- giving it back. We explained it
24 for principled reasons, and we would like to thank the ambassador and the
25 Chamber. We have no further questions for this witness.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Pinter.
2 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
3 General Praljak will conduct the cross-examination, thank you very much,
4 and I believe that you gave one hour to the Defence, and I believe that
5 the remaining time is at the disposal of General Praljak.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, except that it's a little
7 bit more complicated than that since Mr. Pusic's Defence has given its
8 time to the Chamber. I would have liked to have this time for myself to
9 put some further questions. Now, what about General Praljak. You can
10 only address military issues, of course.
11 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] General Praljak has 18 minutes --
12 only military matters, yes, yes, absolutely. And events where General
13 Praljak was involved directly or had immediate contact with the witness.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, you have the
16 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I
17 would just like it to note, if allowed, that this giving back of time,
18 well, it can happen that examination-in-chief lasting three hours could
19 refer only to one person, and if all the Defence teams were to give back
20 the time, then that Defence team would be given only one-sixth of the
21 one-and-a-half hours available. It would seem to me logical for the time
22 to be owned by the Defence, and if the Defence team does not use it, then
23 it should be transferred to the last remaining Defence team. I need at
24 least half an hour. And Chamber can ask questions anyway.
25 Cross-examination by Mr. Praljak:
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
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
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.
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
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
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
1 beginning of 1994, since I knew Mr. Predrag --
2 Q. Mr. Bandic, up until the 9th of November, I'm talking about
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
1 what he is doing -- what they are doing or are you responsible for their
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
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
1 anything like that.
2 Q. Allow me to say that unluckily I was never in a situation like
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 has acted upon this and presented demands for strengthening your service
2 to whomever? Was that done?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, of course we
4 endeavoured to both in the personnel sense and in the technical sense to
5 strengthen the service, and Mr. Lucic certainly did request that for that
6 purpose, but it was very difficult, please believe me when I say that, to
7 find people who would come right up to the front-line in actual fact and
8 deal with such sensitive work and dangerous work. It was a thankless
9 task. And at the same time, we had another problem. We had problems in
10 many other areas where even certain members of SIS would engage in
11 unlawful actions. We had to deal with them too, just as we did our best
12 to deal with all people within the HVO, and if I might be allowed to say,
13 along with the difficult situation as it was, I have to say that I am
14 personally very proud of the work we did with the very limited resources
15 we had and limited manpower we had. I can say this, I was proud.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will
18 deliberate on the procedural issue. We shall come back in 20 minutes
19 time hopefully then I shall read out the Trial Chamber's oral decision.
20 So we'll be back in 20 minutes.
21 --- Recess taken at 12.06 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 12.27 p.m.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber will hand
24 down its decision. Its oral decision. Considering the Prosecution's
25 questions yesterday stating that he would like to ask the witnesses
1 questions about his professional life, considering the objections
2 submitted by Mr. Stojic's Defence team, considering the letter that we
3 have received today, this letter comes from the Republic of Croatia
4 which it is stated that the republic of Croatia
5 testimony to be held in closed session when certain aspects of his
6 testimony are addressed.
7 The Trial Chamber, after having noted the remarks of the parties
8 in question, decides that the Prosecution will cross-examine the witness
9 in open session when it comes to those questions that have been put to
10 him during the examination-in-chief and during the cross-examination of
11 the other Defence teams. However, the Trial Chamber orders closed
12 session when the questions will relate to the professional career of the
13 witness. Part of the witness's professional life that occurred after the
14 period quoted in the indictment.
15 Mr. Stringer, I'm sure you've understood. We are now in open
16 session. If you address those questions that have already been
17 addressed, but when you want to address specific matters we will have to
18 move into closed session. Ms. Pinter, before I give to floor to
19 Mr. Stringer.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would first of all complete the reasoning of
21 our decision because I do not find it in the transcript, it is based on
22 Rule 79 in the public interest.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. That is indeed right. My
24 colleague is right in saying that the decision has been taken pursuant to
25 Rule 79 of our rules.
1 Ms. Pinter.
2 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Since my
3 client during his cross-examination was cut off, and for the record I
4 believe that it would be important to ask another question concerning
5 Exhibit 4D1654, and since the matter revolves around the issue of the
6 Chamber's time, I would like to submit that the witness be asked about an
7 event on the day 9th of November, 1993, where the witness personally
8 escorted General Praljak on his travel to Zagreb pursuant to the
9 aforementioned document 4D1654, or if you may let me to ask the question.
10 It would be important in the light of all the presented evidence
11 and since we have here a person who was present physically when General
12 Praljak departed. It is relevant because of the claim --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Ms. Pinter. What
14 document are you talking about? We've been given two documents, which
15 document is it?
16 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] 4D1652. It is an article published
17 in Globus magazine where Mr. Bandic's interview was published.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Pinter, it was for you and
19 your client to put the question during your time. The Trial Chamber
20 noted that General Praljak put a number of questions of different kinds
21 of questions. Had it been extremely important to you, then you could
22 have put the question. I don't see why we should get back to this issue
23 now. Your position is recorded on the transcript.
24 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, but I still
25 want to say that the Defence reckoned rightfully that it had one hour
1 given to the Defence at large and not to individual Defence teams and
2 expected to be able to ask this last crucial question to the witness.
3 Since your decision is as it is, I cannot really deal with the
4 reasonings, but I'm satisfied with it being included in the transcript.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ibrisimovic.
6 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, your presidency.
7 Let me explain the situation. Madam Pinter was maybe not here when I
8 expressed my opinion. My opinion is of a general nature, I do not want
9 to contribute to any shortening of time. It is up to the Chamber, if the
10 Chamber wishes to give extra time to General Praljak's Defence or any
11 other Defence time it is up to the Chamber. But given the circumstances
12 in the [indiscernible] I may change my opinion entirely. Who knows.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.
14 MR. STRINGER: Well, Mr. President, I'm ready to continue. I
15 oppose any other teams on the Defence side continuing cross-examination
16 at this point. If I am able to finish early, I don't have a problem with
17 someone getting the opportunity to tomorrow, but we are eating into my
18 time and I'd like to start.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have the floor since we
20 have time constraints. Ms. Nozica.
21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not going to eat
22 into the time of the prosecution, but I believe it would be fair for the
23 witness to receive the letter sent by the Croatian government. He is the
24 only one not being privy to it. I will ask the usher to show it to the
25 witness. I believe that it is important that the witness knows what it's
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
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
24 request from Dubrovnik
25 camp at Dretelj where he was beaten to death on the 21st of September,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
11 Pages 38255-38265 redacted. Private session.
15 [Open session]
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session, the hearing
18 stands adjourned. We shall reconvene tomorrow morning at 9.00. I wish
19 you all a pleasant afternoon.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.41 p.m.
21 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 19th of March
22 2009, at 9.00 a.m.