Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 46966

 1                           Wednesday, 18 November 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.  Good afternoon,

 8     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 9             This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et

10     al.  Thank you, Your Honours.

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

12             This is Wednesday, and I greet everyone here in the courtroom,

13     the accused, the Defence counsel, our witness, Mr. Kruger, Mr. Stringer,

14     and everyone helping them, as well as all those assisting us.

15             We are starting six minutes late.  We're not to blame, because I

16     was at the door of this courtroom at 2.00 p.m. sharp, but the Gotovina

17     Trial Chamber once again, despite all the warnings we've given them, went

18     beyond the time allotted, as usual.  So all my apologies for this, but

19     we're not to blame for this situation, and I will seize the President of

20     the Tribunal of this problem.

21             Now, I believe that the Registrar has an IC number to give us.

22     He has the floor.

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honour.

24             The Petkovic Defence has submitted its response to the

25     Prosecution's objections to its lists of documents tendered through

Page 46967

 1     Witness Ivan Beneta.  This list shall be given Exhibit IC01115.  Thank

 2     you, Your Honours.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.

 4             Mr. Kruger, you have the floor.

 5                           WITNESS:  BOZO PAVLOVIC [Resumed]

 6                           [The witness answered through interpreter]

 7             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 8             Good afternoon to Your Honours, and good afternoon to everybody

 9     in and around the courtroom.

10                           Cross-examination by Mr. Kruger:  [Continued]

11        Q.   And Mr. Pavlovic, good afternoon to you.

12             Let's start by very quickly just revisiting part of your evidence

13     from yesterday and the day before, and this relates to the 30 June 1993

14     order by General Petkovic for the isolation of all Muslim men in your

15     units, and then military-aged men as well.

16             Now, you were asked about the fact that Brigadier Lasic had

17     forwarded this order to various units under his command, but not to the

18     1st Knez Domagoj Brigade.  Do you recall that?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Now, sir, given the fact that you also testified that elements

21     from this order did come down to you for implementation, wouldn't you say

22     that it's entirely plausible that Brigadier Lasic had also provided this

23     order to Nedjeljko Obradovic separately or by another means?

24        A.   Well, Brigadier Lasic could have sent the order to

25     Colonel Obradovic separately or by some other means, perhaps even orally,

Page 46968

 1     but from the document, as far as I remember, he didn't send him that kind

 2     of order.

 3        Q.   Okay.  Now, let's turn very briefly, then, also to the briefing

 4     that you had in Domanovici on the evening of the 30th of June.  And for

 5     this, I would like you to turn to Exhibit P03038.  It's in your binder,

 6     and it's about the 12th or 13th document in the binder.  3038.

 7             Sir, the --

 8        A.   Could you help me, please.

 9        Q.   Sir, if I could explain.  The tabs that you see are in

10     chronological order, even though they're not in sequence.

11        A.   Okay.

12             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you to the usher.

13        Q.   Now, sir, this document is dated the 30th of June, 1993, and it's

14     a proclamation issued by Dr. Jadranko Prlic, as president of the HZ-HB

15     HVO, we'll see at the end, and by Mr. Bruno Stojic, head of HZ-HB Defence

16     Department, and this was issued on the day of the attack on the North

17     Barracks.  And if we just look at the very first paragraph of the

18     document, it says:

19             "In relation to the new attack carried out by the Muslim forces

20     of the HVO --" or "on the HVO positions and the Croatian people that live

21     in this area, with which continues the war of conquest that started in

22     the territory of Central Bosnia, the Chairman of the Croatian Defence

23     Council, Dr. Jadranko Prlic, and head of the Defence Department of the

24     Croatian Defence Council, Mr. Bruno Stojic, sent the following message to

25     the Croatian people that live in Herceg-Bosnia."

Page 46969

 1             And if we look at the addressees or whom it's submitted to, it

 2     says: All heads of the HVO municipalities; all officers for defence of

 3     municipalities; military police command and civil police administration,

 4     and media.

 5             Sir, on the evening -- well, first of all, let me ask you this:

 6     Are you aware of this proclamation?  Do you recall it from that period of

 7     time?

 8        A.   To be quite frank, no, I don't.

 9        Q.   Let's look at the text of this, and in your version, the original

10     B/C/S version, I think it's the last paragraph on the first page.  And in

11     the English version, it's the paragraph starting with:  "Brothers

12     Croats ..."  It says:

13             "Brothers Croats, in --" sorry.

14             Just before that, the previous paragraph describes what had

15     happened at the Tihomir Misic Barracks and gives an interpretation of the

16     events, and then it says:

17             "Brothers Croats, in this crucial moment for our people, the only

18     thing that can make us survive is the utmost patriotism and higher goals

19     of the Croatian survival, wherever our homes were built for centuries."

20             "We should unite all our forces from every Croatian village and

21     town from the whole Herceg-Bosnia in order to stop the Muslim aggression.

22     Croats from Siroki Brijeg, Posusje, Citluk, Grude, Livno, Tomislavgrad,

23     Capljina, Stolac, and other HZ-HB municipalities.  Mostar was and

24     remained the Croatian town."

25             Sir, wasn't this document also discussed or put -- or made known

Page 46970

 1     at the briefing at Domanovici on the 30th of June, 1993?

 2        A.   Could you repeat that last question of yours?  I was reading.

 3        Q.   Sir, this document, with its appeal, wasn't this discussed or put

 4     to everybody at the briefing of the 30th of June in Domanovici that you

 5     attended?

 6        A.   I can't remember.  And from the addressees, that is, to whom this

 7     document was sent, it could only have been made public through the

 8     information media, because I see that the media was sent a copy.

 9        Q.   Sir, in the piece that we've just read, it also says:

10             "We should unite all our forces from every Croatian village and

11     town ..."

12             From the next day onwards -- well, we've seen documents over the

13     past two days where military commanders are also giving orders to the

14     military police and the civilian police.  From what you read here, if

15     this document was, indeed, issued, or this proclamation, do you think

16     it's entirely possible -- would you agree that it's entirely possible

17     that this is an indication where the authorisation comes from the

18     military to also employ military police and civilian police members or

19     units?

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  I would object on the grounds of speculation.

21             MR. KRUGER:  Your Honour, I'm putting the question, and I think

22     that the witness is entirely capable of answering the question, given his

23     own position and relatively senior position at that time.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, the gentleman has indicated he's

25     never seen the document.  Now he's being asked to speculate as to whether

Page 46971

 1     something in this document could have done something else.  Frankly, the

 2     answer is irrelevant, because he has no basis for the answer.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, this witness is a

 4     senior officer, and he is well able to say, I don't know this document, I

 5     cannot answer your question.  And if he can answer, well, he will.  Let

 6     the witness answer.

 7             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise, because

 8     only part of the document was read out to the witness.  The witness,

 9     himself, said he's never seen the whole document.  On page 2 of this

10     document, there's a portion which could relate to the question asked by

11     the Prosecutor.  So the question by the Prosecutor has been construed

12     with the excerpts read out, and I think that it is very important, when

13     he mentions Mostar as the main city, the last -- or capital city, that it

14     was the international factors who recognised this, and that is in the

15     last sentence.  So the second part of the document can be linked with the

16     military and civilian police, so only a partial reading of this document

17     to the witness, who says he's never seen the document, can lead the

18     witness to give the wrong answer.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, Mr. Kruger.  I must, to some degree,

20     agree with Mr. Karnavas.  I find your question very complex with all, "is

21     there a possibility," "that there is a possibility that maybe."  And I

22     cannot make much sense of it, I must confess, so perhaps you better

23     completely reformulate or go to something else.

24             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honours.  I won't belabour this

25     point.

Page 46972

 1        Q.   I would actually prefer to return to the whole issue of the

 2     Bregava Brigade, sir.

 3             Now, yesterday we concluded the examination, and we were

 4     exploring the notion of whether the Bregava Brigade and its members had a

 5     legitimate expectation or right to operate on the territory of Stolac

 6     municipality.  And we touched upon that Bregava Brigade wanting a larger

 7     role, and my contention to you or what I put to you as well was that it

 8     was actually being side-lined by the HVO, being prevented from assuming

 9     that role.  I'd like to continue looking at this aspect.

10             For this, I don't think we need to turn to this document, but you

11     recall that over the past two days there has been reference to an order

12     by Miljenko Lasic on the 6th of December, 1992, and it was the order

13     assigning certain positions to the Bregava Brigade and then also allowing

14     the Bregava Brigade to establish a headquarters in Prenj.  Do you

15     remember that, that we have looked at that document, that we spoke about

16     it?

17        A.   I can't remember exactly which document that was in, but the

18     Bregava Brigade --

19             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness repeat what he said?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The village of Prenj is at a

21     distance from the front-line of over 20 kilometres, and the -- if you

22     take the road, it's longer, so it's 20 kilometres as the crow flies.

23             MR. KRUGER:

24        Q.   Sir, the interpreter has asked that you repeat the first part of

25     your question -- of your answer.  My apologies.

Page 46973

 1        A.   What I said was that I can't remember what document you're

 2     referring to, but I do know that the brigade, the Bregava Brigade, never

 3     got the village of Prenj as a command post, nor did it -- nor was the

 4     command post ever installed in the village of Prenj.  And the Bregava

 5     Brigade was given a part of the defence line around Prenj, that is to

 6     say, 15 kilometres away as the crow flies, and if you take the road, then

 7     it's over 20 kilometres.

 8             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Sorry, Mr. Kruger.

 9             Mr. Pavlovic, could you explain where the front-line was, maybe

10     at least by naming villages?  Like Djelojevici [phoen], would that be a

11     place where the front-line was?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can confirm -- I can tell you all

13     the places through which the front-line passed in that area, if we start

14     out from Golo Brdo -- Golo Brda, which is before Bijelo Jevici [phoen],

15     those are positions in front of the village of Bjelovici at a distance of

16     3 to 5 kilometres.  And then it passed along Drenovac, in front of

17     Drenovac.  And then the line went further along across a place called

18     Poprat.  It's an area comprising several villages.  And then it passed

19     along the cemetery, had a central position in front of Poprat at the

20     cemetery.  And then it passed by the village of Ravnice, and the village

21     of Basilije, and then the village of Komonje [phoen] Brdo, and between

22     the villages of Lozanici [phoen] and Barane [phoen], through the village

23     of Hodovo or, rather, the outer-reaches of Hodovo, in front of the

24     village of Rotimlje, and then it passed in front of the village of

25     Vranici in the Kameni area, and then Podvelezje.

Page 46974

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you, that's quite helpful.

 2             Please, Mr. Kruger.

 3             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   Sir, let's quickly, then, indeed turn to the document of the 12th

 5     of December, and it is the fourth document in your binder, the fourth one

 6     from the beginning, and it is document P00868.  Sir, you need to look at

 7     the pages on the right -- left side of your binder.

 8             Sir, you're looking at the wrong place.

 9        A.   [No interpretation]

10        Q.   Do you have it?

11        A.   No, I haven't found it.  Would you repeat the number, please?

12        Q.   P00868.  If you close your binder -- thank you, Mr. Usher.

13        A.   Yes, I see.  I apologise.  I've found it now.

14        Q.   Sir, this is the order 6th December 1992 by Miljenko Lasic, and

15     we see that it -- the addressees are:  The Bregava Brigade, Stolac,

16     Southern Barracks, and then copied to the 1st Brigade and the 3rd

17     Brigade.  And we see the order is simply for organisation of combat

18     activities at the battle-field in the municipalities of Mostar and

19     Stolac.

20             "I hereby issue the following order:

21             "The Bregava Brigade is to take over the responsibility for the

22     following defence line," and then gives a location.

23             And then if we look at the second-to-last paragraph of the order,

24     it says:

25             "The unit is to be accommodated in the Prenj locality (school or

Page 46975

 1     any other suitable structure.)"

 2             And it's correct this is what we were talking about earlier and

 3     what you had already said that this was, indeed, accurate, or this order

 4     was issued by Mr. Lasic?

 5        A.   Yes, from this we can see that the order was issued by Mr. Lasic.

 6        Q.   Now, sir, if we turn to the very next document, which is P01402.

 7     And we see that this is a document from about a month later, and it's the

 8     23rd of -- or at least it says at the end the document is -- the order is

 9     to be carried out on the 23rd of January, 1993.  It's an order by

10     Miljenko Lasic, and what I'd like to point you to is point number 3,

11     which says:

12             "The location for headquarters and the reserve unit," and this

13     would be of the Bregava Brigade, "is to be organised exclusively in one

14     of the barracks or in the military building in the area of the

15     Operational Zone South-East Herzegovina and according to the arrangement

16     agreed with the commander of the Operational Zone South-East

17     Herzegovina."

18             My question, sir, is:  This is five, six weeks after the order of

19     the 6th of December, and is it correct that at this stage the Bregava

20     Brigade had still not established a headquarters in Prenj?

21        A.   Yes, the Bregava Brigade never set up headquarters in Prenj.  I

22     can confirm that.  And I can also confirm that the positions stated here

23     are ones that I know very well, because they're located in the place that

24     I was born and where I live today.  And I can also confirm one other

25     thing, and that is my professional military opinion, because I know the

Page 46976

 1     situation from that time, and it is something that became clear to

 2     everybody later on, but at the time when this first order was issued, the

 3     Bregava Brigade was not capable of holding these positions because it was

 4     only a brigade in name, whereas the actual brigade didn't resemble any

 5     other proper brigades either by the number of soldiers or by virtue of

 6     some other attributes that a brigade must have.

 7             And so because it was incapable of taking these positions, as far

 8     as I know, in the area of Kotarznica [phoen], which is a very sensitive

 9     area, a very difficult area to hold, then they gave them some other

10     positions, that is to say, to the left of that area, small positions.

11     When I say "small," I mean an area of 500 to 600 metres, at the most.

12     And the Bregava Brigade held that for a time, and in the action by the

13     Serb forces that we mentioned earlier on, it lost those positions.  And

14     this is yet further confirmation of my observations that the

15     Bregava Brigade at that time was truly not properly capacitated to be

16     able to hold those positions.

17             And if I might be allowed to add -- may I continue, please?  Then

18     I can tell you a few facts which would make the situation clearer to you,

19     the situation in that particular unit.  So may I do that?  Can I go on to

20     explain?

21        Q.   Can I first ask you this, sir:  Is it correct that the

22     1st Knez Domagoj Brigade of the HVO, and the commander,

23     Mr. Nedjeljko Obradovic, that they were actually also opposed to the

24     Bregava Brigade situating its headquarters on the territory of Stolac

25     municipality?

Page 46977

 1        A.   No.  My understanding of the situation dating back to those times

 2     is as follows:  The 1st Brigade, to which I belonged, in part, did not

 3     want nor could it take in any other unit in the central area of

 4     responsibility and be held responsible for the defence lines.  I'd never

 5     allow myself to be in that position, especially if I was certain that

 6     that particular unit could not perform its assignment properly.  And that

 7     unit, in actual fact, at that time was incapable of carrying out its

 8     combat assignment, and I can state the reasons for that to make the

 9     situation clearer to you.

10        Q.   Before you say that, what period are you referring to,

11     specifically, that they were not capable of performing these assignments?

12        A.   Well, they weren't able to carry out the assignments from their

13     very establishment, from -- until they were established first and until

14     they were disbanded, because they didn't engage in those assignments at

15     all.  It was just a pretext for something else that they were doing.

16     Now, if you would like me to tell you, I can.

17        Q.   Actually, I do want to explore this, but perhaps I'm going to ask

18     you questions and we'll see if we get the information you want to

19     provide.

20             You mentioned -- a part of your testimony yesterday and the day

21     before yesterday was that the Bregava Brigade -- you had intelligence

22     reports indicating plans of the Bregava Brigade to break off co-operation

23     with the HVO and to start combat actions with the HVO.  You remember your

24     evidence to that effect?

25        A.   I'm not sure what exactly this refers to.  Could you please

Page 46978

 1     explain?

 2        Q.   Yes, I'll explain.  And your testimony was specifically that upon

 3     the arrest of members of the Bregava Brigade and the command, documents

 4     were found with the command which completely confirmed the intelligence

 5     reports.  Moreover, those documents proved that the BiH Army planned to

 6     carry out its offensive actions against the HVO in co-operation with HV

 7     soldiers of Muslim ethnicity.  And then you were shown a number of

 8     documents showing an order by Bajro Pizovic on the 5th of April, for

 9     instance, ordering heightened combat readiness, and then a series of

10     documents after that.  Do you recall that testimony of yours?

11             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, but I

12     would like to ask my learned friend to provide a reference to the page

13     where this very answer of the witness was recorded, because I must admit

14     that my recollection of his answer is different.

15             MR. KRUGER:  Your Honour, actually, I was reading from the

16     summary provided, so it is, indeed, a bit of a paraphrasing, perhaps.

17     But I don't think it's contentious that that was the nature of the

18     evidence that he gave or the tenure.

19             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the summary that we

20     submitted to our colleagues in the Prosecution and then the other Defence

21     counsels are my rendering of the events and not the very words uttered in

22     this courtroom, so we have to be vigilant because the witness did not

23     state that.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, if you were

25     unclear, do rephrase your question.

Page 46979

 1             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.  I'll rephrase.

 2        Q.   Sir, a number of documents were shown to you on Monday evening

 3     pertaining to April, and these documents were, for instance:  4D01809.

 4     We needn't look at the document, but it's a 5 April order by

 5     Bajro Pizovic for the Bregava Brigade to increase its level of combat

 6     readiness.  And then there were other orders: 5D03046, an order by

 7     Pizovic on 15 April; there was an order on 16th April, 4D0033.  But the

 8     point that was being made by these documents was that the Bregava Brigade

 9     was planning an offensive against the HVO in Stolac, and where these

10     documents came from was that these documents were obtained from the

11     records of the Bregava Brigade Command, if I'm not mistaken.  Do you

12     recall that or is this a correct rendering of that evidence?

13        A.   I cannot precisely say which documents these are, but I agree

14     that on Monday we saw a series of documents from which it could be seen

15     that the Bregava Brigade was planning to launch offensive actions against

16     the HVO units.

17        Q.   Thank you, sir.  And these documents, would you agree that they

18     generally dated from the period of -- or from April 1993?

19        A.   Mostly, yes.

20        Q.   Sir, I'd like to then turn to the next document, and this is four

21     documents further on in your bind.  It's Exhibit P01804, P01804.  This is

22     a document which is already in evidence.

23        A.   04, one down here?

24        Q.   That's correct, if you turn to the B/C/S version, the translated

25     version.

Page 46980

 1             This, sir, is a media report, and it's dated the 4th of April,

 2     1993.  The headline is:  "Bosnian Croats Demand Muslim Troop Pull-Outs."

 3     You're looking at the English.  If you could turn to the B/C/S version,

 4     sir.  Yes.

 5             At the top, it's "4 April 1993, Sunday."  Headline:

 6     "Bosnian Croats Demand Troop Pull-Outs."  And then it says:  "Body."  It

 7     says, the first paragraph:

 8             "Bosnian Croats on Sunday demanded the withdrawal of Muslim

 9     troops from the provinces designated for Croat self-rule under a UN peace

10     plan, reviving tensions between nominal civil war allies who battled

11     early this year."

12             Now, sir, first of all before continuing, if we look at that

13     paragraph, you wouldn't disagree that this UN peace plan is a reference

14     to the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?

15        A.   Probably.

16        Q.   Okay.  Now, we don't need to read this whole report, but if you

17     go one, two, three, four -- the fifth paragraph of this document, it

18     says:

19             "The HVO set an April 15 dead-line for Bosnian

20     President Alija Izetbegovic to sign a joint communique ratifying the

21     withdrawals, creating a common high command, and certifying there were no

22     Muslim-Croat territorial disputes."

23             And then if we go down two paragraphs further, it says:

24             "'If Izetbegovic fails to sign this agreement by 15 April, the

25     HVO will unilaterally enforce its jurisdiction in Cantons 3, 8, and 10,'

Page 46981

 1     the statement from HVO headquarters in south-west Croat stronghold of

 2     Mostar warned."

 3             And then the next paragraph it says that the Croatian Radio has

 4     reported that Mate Boban had already signed the proposed communique.

 5             Sir, were you aware of an ultimate issued by Mr. Boban on the

 6     4th of April, 1993, to Mr. Alija Izetbegovic?

 7        A.   No.

 8        Q.   Now, sir, Stolac, you don't dispute that that was actually

 9     intended to be part of Province 8 in the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?

10        A.   As far as I remember, it was.

11        Q.   And so if this ultimatum indeed was issued, would you agree that

12     its implication for Muslim units, such as the Bregava Brigade, on the

13     territory of Stolac would be that they would, by 15 April, either have to

14     disarm or perhaps even leave the territory of Stolac?

15        A.   I don't know about such an ultimatum.  This is the assessment of

16     a journalist, and as far as I can tell, he is referring to statements

17     uttered at Croatian Radio Mostar or any other radio station, so I cannot

18     confirm that there, indeed, was an ultimatum, and I haven't heard about

19     it.

20        Q.   Sir, indeed there is other evidence before the Chamber also of

21     this ultimatum, but my question is:  If this ultimatum existed, that

22     would have the effect that by the 15th of April, the Bregava Brigade may

23     have to either totally disarm or leave the territory of Stolac

24     municipality; isn't that correct?

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

Page 46982

 1     objection as regards the factual basis for this question.  If the witness

 2     doesn't know about the so-called ultimatum, and if he is not familiar

 3     with all its elements, then he cannot reply to this question, because the

 4     question does not offer all the options that, according to the

 5     Prosecutor, were part of that ultimatum.  So I believe it would be useful

 6     for all of us if that could be done.

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Objection overruled.  This is a hypothesis which

 8     is absolutely graspable, and it does not ask the witness to make any

 9     factual actual assertion.

10             Please continue, Mr. Kruger.

11             The Chamber has ruled, Ms. Alaburic.  This is a ruling of the

12     Chamber.

13             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, I

14     absolutely accept.  I have no intention of reiterating my objection.  But

15     if you let me explain --

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, we don't want any

17     explanation.  The Prosecutor asked a question of the witness.  The

18     witness answered, and he said he wasn't aware of the ultimatum.  And so

19     he said -- what else do you want?  Now, you're shooting yourself in the

20     foot if you intervene.  He said he didn't know, so the Prosecutor is

21     going to try and make him understand that he's lying, that he knew, or

22     that he doesn't want to say anything, because if you intervene, you

23     weaken the witness's answers.  That's what I don't understand.  You're

24     calling the witness for your own case.  As long as the witness doesn't

25     testify against you, let him do his job.

Page 46983

 1             He said he didn't know about any ultimatum.  Why did you take the

 2     floor, all the more so since you're going to have re-examination and you

 3     can always return -- revisit the issue if you're not happy with the

 4     witness's answers?  By taking the floor, you're just sort of working

 5     against yourself.  I don't understand.

 6             And the Prosecutor is allowed to present his case.  He believes

 7     that there was an ultimatum.  The witness answers that there wasn't any.

 8     So let's go along and see what happens.

 9             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do consider it

10     necessary to say now that I am not objecting to the answers provided by

11     the witness, but I consider it my duty to object to the question.  And if

12     the question is referring to a factual basis and it is incomplete,

13     I think it is my duty to object.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue, Mr. Kruger.

15             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

16        Q.   Sir, could you answer the question, which basically is that:  If

17     this ultimatum was in existence, wouldn't its effect be that the members

18     of the Bregava Brigade would most likely have to disarm and then, even by

19     15 April, have to leave the territory of Stolac?  Wouldn't that be the

20     implication?

21        A.   I'll repeat once more that I truly don't know of such an

22     ultimatum.  If it had been issued in any form, I don't believe that the

23     units in the same combat disposition -- or that had been in the same

24     combat disposition for quite a time, would have disarmed, because

25     weakening the defence line is something that nobody could have ordered.

Page 46984

 1        Q.   We'll look at that in just a moment.  But, sir, the members of

 2     this Bregava Brigade, you'd already said most of them were from Stolac

 3     municipality.  Would you agree, sir, if an ultimatum such as this had

 4     been issued, that those men would rightly have felt very worried about

 5     their immediate future and what would happen to them on 15 April, when

 6     the ultimatum expired?  Would you agree?

 7        A.   I think that those people had no reason to worry at all, because

 8     if they had kept their area of responsibility and if their command hadn't

 9     continuously provoked, they would never have been moved from there.

10     Probably as the brigade would have grown in size and strength, it would

11     have been assigned a greater zone of responsibility.  Nobody would have

12     considered it in their interest to remove a unit which lived up to its

13     tasks.

14        Q.   Sir, I put it to you that an order such as that issued by

15     Bajro Pizovic on April 5 for the heightened combat readiness of members

16     of the Bregava Brigade was a direct response to this ultimatum which had

17     been issued by Mate Boban.

18        A.   No.  That was the response to the constant warnings of the

19     brigade commander that they must leave the zone of responsibility of the

20     1st Herzegovina Brigade, the command post of which was at the Gubavica

21     village, and that they must take the zone assigned to them and return to

22     their command post, which is the Juzni Logor Barracks.  And all orders

23     sent out by the Bregava Brigade commander were about such warnings, and I

24     know of no other warnings but that they were being warned that they must

25     leave the zone of responsibility of the 1st Brigade.

Page 46985

 1        Q.   Sir, let's have a very brief look at what, indeed, happened the

 2     day after the expiry of the ultimatum, and this would have been on the

 3     16th of April, 1993.  And you were shown, in this regard -- or you were

 4     shown on Monday evening two documents, and they are -- and I don't think

 5     we need to turn to them.  You'll recall them because you confirmed them.

 6     Two orders by Nedjeljko Obradovic, P01900 and then P01913.  What these

 7     orders are about, both on 16 April, they're orders to disarm and detain

 8     ABiH members, and ABiH members are not to be allowed into the

 9     Knez Domagoj area of responsibility.  Do you recall those two orders?

10        A.   I believe that this refers to that request and the order that are

11     almost identical.  We spoke about that yesterday.  The "01" sequence was

12     missing in one of them.  And I'm sure that at that moment, nobody went to

13     disarm the Bregava Brigade, but rather that this applied to members not

14     only of the Bregava Brigade, but members of all other units which,

15     without any permission and no approval, entered the zone of the

16     1st Herzegovina Brigade.  And I can confirm some other allegations, too.

17             At that time, we really made efforts for the relations between

18     the HVO and the ABiH to be good, and if you remember my order which I

19     interpreted yesterday, it grew out of the agreement between me and the

20     commander of the Bregava Brigade, Mr. Bajro Pizovic, during his stay at

21     Stolac.

22             To make it clearer to you, above the command, where the forward

23     command post of Stolac was, I believe on the second or third storey of

24     that building - I'm not sure which - in one of the apartments there was

25     the headquarters of the SDA party, and as Mr. Pizovic was one of the

Page 46986

 1     vice-presidents of the party, he called at that place often and he had no

 2     difficulties in going through HVO positions or passing through.  But his

 3     soldiers would leave their positions often without permission, and he

 4     would then send military police from his ranks.  And under the pretext of

 5     collecting his soldiers, he would he would also pick up a dozen or so

 6     young Muslims from the town of Stolac or from the municipality and

 7     mobilise them by force, and their families complained.  Some even came to

 8     our command to complain, and I insisted that Mr. Pizovic stop doing that.

 9     I tried to agree with him, in a gentleman-like fashion, and we said that

10     if a soldier of the ABiH leaves his positions, without the permission of

11     the commander of the Bregava Brigade, and goes into his place of

12     residence, he should issue a request to our command and we will send out

13     military police that will search out that soldier and take him to the

14     Aladinici check-point, where the ABiH will take him over.

15             If anything like that should happen with a soldier of the HVO,

16     the same will apply vice versa.  And this agreement was honoured for a

17     while, but then came a day when that came to an end, and probably the

18     brigade commander saw himself forced to issue such an order.

19             So that's what things were really like.

20        Q.   Now, sir, we'll come back to that in one moment.  Just to

21     complete, then, on this topic:  This is your view now, that actually the

22     HVO was acting reasonably; it was the Bregava Brigade which was acting

23     unreasonably and which was provoking.  I put to you, sir, that actually

24     the orders of 16 April 1993 by Colonel Obradovic were actually in

25     execution of the ultimatum by Mate Boban.  Do you agree with that or not?

Page 46987

 1        A.   I cannot agree with that in any case, but, of course, I cannot

 2     prevent you from having your own opinion.

 3        Q.   Okay.  And just one further item.  Two other orders were also

 4     shown to you, and these were documents 4D00033 of 16 April and 4D00034 of

 5     18 April 1993, and these were calls to Muslims in the HVO to side with

 6     the ABiH.  Do you recall seeing those two documents?

 7        A.   If possible, I would ask you to show them to me, because there

 8     have been many documents and it's difficult to remember everything.

 9             MR. KRUGER:  If I may ask the assistance of the usher to perhaps

10     just show the original to the witness, if we could, perhaps.  I have them

11     here.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I know what it's about.

13             MR. KRUGER:

14        Q.   Sir, the only point I want to put to you on these is that:  If

15     the ultimatum by Mr. Boban indeed existed, then the call by Mr. Pizovic

16     and the Bregava Brigade to Muslims in the HVO to join their side, it

17     actually then is much less sinister than it first looked; isn't that so?

18        A.   I'll repeat once more that at the time I wasn't aware of any

19     ultimatum and that any documents issued by Mr. Pizovic or his

20     assistant - in this case it was probably Mr. Huso Maric - or, rather,

21     declarations or proclamations issued to HVO soldiers had different goals

22     and were not the reaction to any ultimatum.

23        Q.   Let's move back to your earlier point.  You said that you

24     approached Mr. Pizovic as a gentleman.  Let's have a look at an occasion

25     where Mr. Pizovic may have been trying to approach Nedjeljko Obradovic as

Page 46988

 1     a gentleman.  Let's look at Exhibit P01997, and it should be just the

 2     next document on from the one we've just been looking at.  P019997 [sic].

 3             Now, sir, this document, if we look at the back, it's by

 4     Commander Bajro Pizovic, and it's addressed to the Command of the 1st

 5     Herzegovina Brigade on 20 -- and it's unclear which date it is, but

 6     I think we can assume that this is the 20th of April that this was

 7     written.  And I'd like to point you to the first paragraph.  It says, the

 8     last sentence of the first paragraph:

 9             "Also, I felt the need to address you as my neighbour and the man

10     who commands the HVO forces in this area, in our fight against the common

11     enemy."

12             "We are aware of the task which was given to the HVO forces and

13     to units of the HV Army in this area against the forces of the Army of

14     Bosnia and Herzegovina and against the Muslim people which is,

15     unfortunately, against our wishes, and we hope also against your wishes,

16     in conflict.

17             "Acting in accordance with your activities, and especially after

18     your provocations towards us, using military force, even tanks, in order

19     to provoke us to enter into a conflict, I, together with my soldiers and

20     with people, do not want a conflict."

21             Now, sir, from this would you agree that Mr. Pizovic is actually

22     saying that it is the HVO which is provoking a conflict, not the

23     Bregava Brigade?

24        A.   May I have a few moments to just finish reading it.

25             Mr. Pizovic here is saying -- or, rather, is stating some facts

Page 46989

 1     as if he were the one who was attacked.  However, he also says that the

 2     HVO attacked him, units of the Croatian Defence Council.  I might use a

 3     rather harsh term now, but this is quite stupid, as far as I'm concerned,

 4     because at that time there were no units of the Croatian Army in the

 5     area, which leads me to think that the other facts stated here have --

 6     are incorrect and have been fabricated, because I don't remember that

 7     there were any similar situations like that.

 8        Q.   Sir, I put it to you --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please, Counsel.

10             MR. KRUGER:

11        Q.   I put it to you, and then we'll step off the topic, that it was

12     the HVO which was provoking the Bregava Brigade because the Bregava

13     Brigade created -- or was an obstacle to incorporating Stolac into the

14     HZ-HB.  They wanted to get rid of the HZ-HB.  They didn't want it on the

15     territory of Stolac.  Would you agree?

16        A.   I don't agree that the Bregava Brigade could have put up any

17     obstacles to anyone, because as I said a moment ago -- well, I described

18     the unit to you.  It was a unit which was incapable of standing up to

19     anybody, and even the positions that we assigned to it, which it was

20     supposed to hold and a company could hold it, they weren't able to do

21     that, let alone to appear as some kind of authority able to defend

22     Stolac.  So I can't agree with that, no.

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  May I, Mr. Kruger.

24             Mr. Pavlovic, I seem to detect a certain contradiction in what

25     you have told us this afternoon, because in the first line of questions

Page 46990

 1     the Prosecutor has put it to you that the HVO wanted to get rid of the

 2     Bregava Brigade, which ought to have left the area, and you say, Oh, no,

 3     that could never have been the case because we need them for the defence.

 4     It's impossible to take them away, because that would weaken the defence.

 5     And now you say, and you have hinted at that before, They were worthless,

 6     they were completely useless.  So I wonder whether you can clarify.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did not say -- or

 8     perhaps you didn't understand me properly.  I did not say that the

 9     relations between the units of the Croatian Defence Council and the

10     BH Army, up until the time -- or, rather, until the spring of 1993, were

11     not good.  I didn't say that.  They were at a high level, at an enviable

12     level, and we can see that from any of the documents.  Relations were

13     good.

14             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me.  I wonder whether you've understood

15     my question, because I didn't refer to anything like that.

16             You have first said it would have been impossible to remove the

17     Bregava Brigade, not ABiH in general, because it was needed to hold the

18     lines.  No reasonable commander would have withdrawn troops.  Now you

19     also say, and you have said so before, The Bregava Brigade was of no use.

20     So it could not at the same time be necessary for the defence and of no

21     use, no power to stand up against anybody.  This is the contradiction I

22     seem to detect.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  If I may, Mr. President -- I mean, Your Honour, if

24     you can clarify the latter part.  When you say "of no use," I understand

25     what you're getting at, but I may --

Page 46991

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I can, I can, although it's actually the

 2     question of whether the witness understands, not whether you understand,

 3     and I'm amazed that you don't know.  But the witness has just said that

 4     the Bregava Brigade was so weak it could not stand up against anything,

 5     it could not be an obstacle.  So if it can't even be an obstacle, what

 6     use can it be in defence against the Serbs?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I've

 8     understood your question better now.

 9             What I mean to say is this:  I said that nobody wanted to remove

10     the Bregava Brigade, but they wanted to have the Bregava Brigade act

11     within its assigned area of responsibility.  Now, when I gave my last

12     answer, my last interpretation, I said, and it was the truth, that the

13     Bregava Brigade lost that area of responsibility that was assigned to it

14     and dealt with other things, altogether other things, and not what had

15     been assigned to it, its prime tasks.

16             And at the beginning, it's true, we wanted this brigade to be

17     part of the defence system, to grow, and we had very proper relations

18     with it.  However, on a daily basis, as time went by, it began dealing in

19     other affairs and not the assignments and tasks given it.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  It might be helpful if you could tell us a date,

21     maybe approximate, when the Bregava Brigade lost its area of

22     responsibility.  When was that?

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That happened in February.  And

24     I think in the documents we looked at, we'll be able to find the right

25     date, but I think it was in February 1993.

Page 46992

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  And what did they do afterwards?

 2     What was their task afterwards?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Their tasks were to see to an area

 4     of responsibility that had been restricted.  They were kept at the same

 5     positions, but given a smaller area of responsibility, because they lost

 6     control of Feature 690, for example, which was of enormous strategic

 7     importance for the entire area.  And in Operation Bura, because of taking

 8     control of that feature, we lost dozens of soldiers and some of our

 9     legendary commanders as well.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

11             Excuse me for the interruption, Mr. Kruger.

12             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, in April, could you

14     tell us whether you were commanding the 1st Brigade of the HVO?

15             THE WITNESS:  No.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We have a document

17     on the screen.  Could you tell us who it was sent to, according to you?

18     You didn't know of this document, did you?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You'd never seen it before?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, never.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I wanted to put

23     this on the transcript.  This document was seemingly handed to the OTP on

24     August 16, 2000, by Mr. Bajro Pizovic, himself, and the investigator of

25     the OTP was probably a French speaker because this letter was translated

Page 46993

 1     into French, because I have a French version.

 2             But, Witness, you do not know this document.  I note that the

 3     Prosecutor believes that it is dated April 20th, but in the B/C/S

 4     document we see that the date is "20.0" blank, period, so we don't know

 5     whether it's a "4" for "April."  But, you might confirm, Mr. Prosecutor,

 6     you might confirm that there is no mention of ultimatum here, and there

 7     is no mention that weapons must be surrendered or that there is a need to

 8     be subordinated or re-subordinated to the HVO.

 9             Witness, can you tell us whether there is mention of all this?

10     Is there mention of an ultimatum, a re-subordination, in this document,

11     in the original version in B/C/S?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I haven't had time to read it all,

13     except for the paragraph that I was asked about by the Prosecutor.  So

14     might I take a moment to read through it, and then I'll be able to answer

15     your question.  But as things now stand, I can't do that.

16             I don't see any mention of an ultimatum here.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Assuming that this

18     document was actually written in 1993, assuming, because we -- this

19     document was handed over in 2000, so everything's possible, let's assume

20     this is a genuine document, it would seem that at that moment there are

21     soldiers of the Bregava Brigade or ABiH soldiers who were arrested and

22     detained.  What's your take on this?  Is it true, is it false?  At the

23     almost last paragraph, there is a request for a liberation -- a release

24     of these soldiers.

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's highly possible that at that

Page 46994

 1     time there were commanders or, rather, members of the Bregava Brigade who

 2     had been arrested and detained precisely for the reasons that we

 3     mentioned earlier on, because they often came to the positions and left

 4     them without anybody's authorisation.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question.  You knew

 6     Pizovic, didn't you?  I think yesterday you told us that you knew this

 7     person.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When reading this letter by

10     Pizovic, I note that the tone is very moderate, it's full of respect

11     towards the HVO, and the impression you get from this letter is that

12     Mr. Pizovic does not like conflict and is trying to find a solution.  Is

13     it true, is it false?  Does this correspond to Mr. Pizovic's personality?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a letter is one thing,

15     and the situation on the ground is something quite different again.

16     Knowing him personally, as I do, and knowing the situation on the ground

17     as well, I am really rather astonished that he wrote such a fine letter.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  This is what I

19     wanted to know, and this letter is very courteous.  Does this correspond

20     to Mr. Pizovic's personality?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't want to give you my

22     personal, subjective opinion alone.  We've seen many documents here that

23     are quite different in tone from this letter, so that's how I see him.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  So if he was

25     British, you could say he's a gentleman?

Page 46995

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it's precisely written in a

 2     gentlemanly fashion.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

 4             Mr. Kruger.

 5             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 6        Q.   Sir, I'd like to very briefly touch upon the next document, not

 7     spend much time on it, and that is document P02790, and it's about four

 8     or five documents on -- further on in your binder.  P02790.  And, sir,

 9     this is a document -- do you have it?  This is a document --

10        A.   Yes.  You mean the report?  It's a report; right?

11        Q.   That's correct.  It's a report of 15 June 1993, and it's signed

12     by Mr. Zarko Pavlovic, chief of the Security Service of the Knez Domagoj

13     1st Brigade.  My first question is:  This Pavlovic being referred to is a

14     different person; it's not mistakenly you referred to in the document?

15        A.   Just the same surname.

16        Q.   Okay.  Now, sir, what this document is about -- I'm not going to

17     go through the whole document, but what it is about, we'll look at the

18     first paragraph:

19             "Having gathered information on the movement or intentions of the

20     BH Army, that is, the Bregava Brigade, about their location to

21     Bivolje Brdo or the Stolac hospital (patients were there only until the

22     Bregava Brigade arrived, and then the hospital should cease to exist), we

23     thought it was the last moment to use force to make them leave to

24     Gubavica."

25             And then the next paragraph relates to the arrest of members of

Page 46996

 1     the Bregava Brigade on 19 April 1993.  It says that the commanders fled

 2     Gubavica, only to be caught two days later at Osanici, and that's

 3     correct, that's what happened?  You don't dispute that; is that correct?

 4        A.   That is correct.  Yes, several days later.

 5        Q.   And the document continues in saying that:

 6             "On the 13th of June, the mopping up of the remaining army area

 7     at Rotimlje started," and describes that.

 8             And then, sir, what I'd like to go to is the very last

 9     paragraph -- or, well, near the bottom.  It says:

10             "By searching the terrain in depth of the brigade's zone of

11     responsibility, we will have a real picture of the strength of the line

12     of the Chetniks and facing the BH Army."

13             And then this part:

14             "Our aim is to create a situation in which the Muslims will not

15     trust one another, which will make them easy to control."

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Correction, or question.  In the transcript, you

17     read, and I've heard you say so "we'll have a real picture," page 31,

18     line 10, "a real picture of the strength of the line of the Chetniks,"

19     and I read in the document "a strength of the line facing the Chetniks,"

20     which would be the other side.

21             MR. KRUGER:  My apologies, Your Honour.  You are, indeed,

22     correct.  The text is "the strength of the line facing the Chetniks."

23             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

24             MR. KRUGER:  "... and facing the BH Army."  And then, sir:

25             "Our aim is to create a situation in which the Muslims will not

Page 46997

 1     trust one another, which will make them easy to control."

 2        Q.   My only question to you on this document, sir, is:  Isn't this --

 3     doesn't this describe the attitude of the HVO towards the Bregava Brigade

 4     throughout?  They were trying to neutralise them, as such, in all their

 5     actions since they were created; isn't that correct?

 6        A.   This document indicates -- or, rather, shows the opinion of an

 7     officer of the Security Service, how he views the situation.  Now, I

 8     really don't know how that Security Service worked, so that many of the

 9     things written down here are ones that I can't confirm.

10        Q.   But my question remains.  Wasn't it the basic premise of the HVO,

11     then, looking at those words, to at least control or neutralise, then,

12     the Bregava Brigade in Stolac?  Would you agree with that or not?

13        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, we talked about the efforts made by the

14     Bregava Brigade throughout our discussions here, and it's quite normal

15     that if you know that somebody is going to attack you imminently, that

16     you have to prepare for the attack and prepare for your defence.  And

17     what I see here is that this particular person was preparing facts and

18     information gathered by his service.

19        Q.   Let's look at the document just previous to this --

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]

21             [Interpretation] Witness, the Prosecutor is putting a question to

22     you, but there is part of a document that he did not mention, and I

23     believe that it was a very important part.

24             If a reasonable Judge looks at the transcript without looking at

25     the document, he might make a mistake.  And why is it?  Well, the

Page 46998

 1     Prosecutor is using this document because he believes that it's a genuine

 2     document, since he's using them, and in this document I see that

 3     Pavlovic -- Zarko Pavlovic is saying that the HVO arrested 183 ABiH

 4     soldiers, and by looking at the documentation in the archives, there was

 5     confirmation of the fact that the estimation made earlier by the

 6     superiors was correct, because the Bregava Brigade had indeed prepared an

 7     operation in order to occupy the area of responsibility of the 1st

 8     Knez Domagoj Brigade.  So according to this document, which is used by

 9     the Prosecutor and which has probative value in the eyes of the OTP, it

10     seems that the arrest of these 183 soldiers was linked to a preventive

11     action, because the ABiH intended to later occupy the area of

12     responsibility.  And so the potential aggressor was not the HVO, but the

13     ABiH.

14             Now, you were on the ground, so is that what you experienced,

15     i.e., that 183 of your fellow Muslim soldiers had been arrested, but

16     they'd been arrested because they were plotting an action against the

17     HVO?  Is this what this document is actually saying or, according to the

18     Prosecution's version, is it because -- did you arrest them because that

19     was in line with the ultimatum made by Mate Boban and this had nothing to

20     do with the action that was being planned by the ABiH?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it's precisely as you

22     described it.  That's what I'm saying.  That's how I claim it was.  They

23     had to be disarmed as a preventive measure.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger.

25             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 46999

 1             Just before the break, if I may ask just one more question,

 2     Your Honour?

 3        Q.   Sir, in light of your earlier evidence, however, where you said

 4     that the Bregava Brigade was not strong, and as it was also mentioned by

 5     Judge Trechsel - I don't know if those were the precise words - but they

 6     were pretty much worthless, according to your evidence, so any assertion

 7     that they would try to take over the zone of responsibility and -- from

 8     the Knez Domagoj Brigade or take on the Knez Domagoj Brigade, according

 9     to your own evidence, that would be a laughable proposition; do you

10     agree?

11        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, it's not a laughable proposition at all, because

12     they took over the area of responsibility beforehand and lost it, so

13     these were irresponsible soldiers.  And most probably they would have

14     taken over our zone of responsibility, but what would have happened to

15     the zone is something we can only speculate about.

16             MR. KRUGER:  Your Honour, I have one further document on this

17     topic, and do we have time?  It's a brief document.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, finish with it.  It's

19     better to finalise this topic.

20             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21        Q.   Sir, if we could quickly look - I think it's two documents

22     earlier in your binder, and that is document P02640, P02640.  Yes, you

23     have that document.

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   Sir, this document, if I look at it, it is a document by

Page 47000

 1     yourself.  Is that your signature at the bottom?

 2        A.   [No verbal response]

 3        Q.   You shake your head.  Is that a Yes?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Thank you.  And this is a document dated 5 June 1993 to the

 6     military police in Stolac.

 7              "Subject: Search warrant."

 8             "This warrants the search of homes and property of the following

 9     HVO members.  All weaponry and military equipment found is to be

10     confiscated, saved that belonging to the HVO."

11             And then following -- 28 names follow.  Is this indeed a document

12     prepared by you?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   The names of these 27 [sic] people, looking through them quickly,

15     these are all people of Muslim ethnicity; would you agree?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Sir, yesterday you mentioned that prior to the attack on the

18     30th of June on the North Camp, you were totally surprised, that you had

19     no indication previously that such an event could occur.  In light of

20     that, isn't this an indication that actually you were suspicious of

21     Muslims even before that time?  This is three weeks before that period.

22        A.   Mr. President, as I wrote this document myself, I know what it's

23     about.  None of these soldiers here was taken into detention.  We, for

24     security reasons, searched them, searched the hamlet, or village,

25     whichever you like, and it was the village of Borojevici, in fact,

Page 47001

 1     because we had received certain information telling us that at that time,

 2     in that particular village, there were people coming in who had a

 3     destructive effect and that they were members of the BH Army, that they

 4     were passing through the village or spent time in the village, and that,

 5     anyway, in that particular village weapons and ammunition were being

 6     hidden.  And so we had to take this kind of action.

 7             And as you can see here in the last five words of the

 8     introduction, it says "military equipment should be confiscated, except

 9     for that issued by the Croatian Defence Council and belonging to the

10     HVO."  So our soldiers were not under threat in any way, and we acted

11     properly towards them to the very last day, in the way that I have

12     described during my testimony.

13        Q.   Sir, I put it to you that it was actions such as this, aimed at

14     Muslims in Stolac, which raised the tension and the fears of the Muslims

15     that they were being targeted by the HVO.

16        A.   All I can tell you is what I know, which is that none of these

17     people protested, and there was no fear, except in individual cases,

18     except in individual cases.  Yes, certain individuals, yes.

19        Q.   My final question, sir --

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.

21             Witness, there's something I can't understand.  The order you

22     signed seems to be very kind, because should these soldiers have materiel

23     that they acquired illegally, for instance, military equipment that they

24     were not supposed to have, well, you should have ordered for them to be

25     arrested.  But here, you're not saying that they should be arrested.  And

Page 47002

 1     you even add in this document that if they have equipment belonging to

 2     the HVO, they should keep it.  So I don't understand.

 3             This document is used by the Prosecutor in support of its case,

 4     and if you look at the document from a purely military point of view,

 5     I think that this is very kind towards these soldiers, who could be

 6     offenders because they have weapons that they acquired under apparently

 7     illegal circumstances.  So why didn't you demand them to be arrested in

 8     this document?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, until you find

10     something in somebody's possession, you cannot charge him with anything.

11     So if we had found something here, we would have taken appropriate

12     measures.  But ordering our soldiers to take measures against them,

13     without knowing that they had actually offended, was certainly nothing

14     that we wanted to do.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I fully agree with you,

16     Witness.  But why did you fail to say the following:  If equipment that

17     was acquired illegally is discovered, arrest the people holding them,

18     draft an indictment, and pass it on to the military prosecutor?  Why did

19     you not say that in this document?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, according to the

21     report received from the unit that carried out this task, I would have

22     ordered such measures.  But as far as I remember, to my recollection,

23     nothing was found on that occasion, apart from materiel issued by the

24     HVO.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. -- sorry.  Mr. Pavlovic, on a legal level,

Page 47003

 1     what you ordered was a measure that's normally in the hands of the

 2     judiciary because it's an interference with a fundamental right;

 3     protection of home.  On what did you base your authority to take such an

 4     order?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I based it on intelligence that I

 6     received, because I must act in a preventive fashion.

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Well, I mean, you are not a lawyer.  I will not

 8     insist, but intelligence is certainly not a legal basis to interfere with

 9     fundamental rights.  On the opposite, fundamental rights are protected

10     formally.  But I will not insist.  You are not a lawyer.  Thank you.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, be quick because we

12     should have a break.  If the other Trial Chamber had not taken six more

13     minutes, we would have been done by now.

14             MR. KRUGER:

15        Q.   The last question.  Number 9 on the list, Mr. Mustafa Obradovic,

16     is that the Mustafa Obradovic who was later killed in Gabela Prison; do

17     you know?

18        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know the man personally, nor do I know

19     anything about that.

20             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.  If --

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's have a 20-minute break.

22                           --- Recess taken at 4.00 p.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 4.23 p.m.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may proceed, Mr. Kruger.

25             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 47004

 1        Q.   Sir, the next exhibit that I'd like to refer you to is

 2     Exhibit P08637.  Your binder's already open at the document.  P08637.

 3     And, sir, this document is a Security and Information Service's report of

 4     8 January 1996, and the report is -- and I'll read the first bit:

 5             "We submit to you the list of HVO military commanders (with their

 6     personal data) who were performing their duties during the mass exile of

 7     Bosnian Muslims from the region of Stolac."

 8             And then number 1 refers to:

 9             "Bozo Pavlovic, son of Ante, born 24 October 1966 ..."

10             And that's you, isn't it?

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   And it says that:

13             "At the above-mentioned time, he was the commander of defence of

14     the town of Stolac.  At the end of June he was replaced by

15     Veseljko Raguz.  Still, he remained there and he was present during the

16     exile and while arrests were carried out."

17             Is that correct, accurate?

18        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, from the documents that we have seen so far it is

19     plain to see how long I was at Stolac and what my duties were there.  I

20     cannot accept this kind of assessment, the assessment of the author of

21     this document.  I cannot accept it at all.

22        Q.   Sir, he refers to "exile," he uses the word in B/C/S I see it's

23     "progona."  You wouldn't disagree with a statement that Muslims were

24     removed from Stolac municipality and that -- and to use his word, this

25     exile, that it was affected by the HVO?  Would you disagree with that,

Page 47005

 1     sir?

 2        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, I cannot prevent the author of this document from

 3     calling it whatever he pleases, but I can say that these last words after

 4     the comma are false, because I wasn't in the area at that time at all,

 5     and it can be seen from other documents where I really was.

 6        Q.   Sir, but aside from where you were at that period, is it correct

 7     that the HVO exiled the Muslims from Stolac, the Muslim inhabitants?

 8        A.   I can't find the right word for this qualification because I do

 9     not know what happened there at the time.  How the Muslim people left the

10     area of Stolac isn't anything that I can confirm.  I can only relate

11     rumours that reached me.

12        Q.   Sir, three months after July 1993, in September 1993, do you know

13     that Andjelko Markovic informed President Tudjman that not a single

14     Muslim remained in Stolac?  Are you aware of that?

15        A.   I've only heard it from you now.

16        Q.   Before stepping off this document, number 33, right at the end of

17     the document, is a reference to Mr. Andjelko Markovic, and it says he is

18     a doctor by profession and he worked in the orthopaedic hospital in

19     Stolac at the time.  That orthopaedic hospital in Stolac, is that the

20     "kostana" hospital?

21        A.   Yes, until the start of the war, as far as I know, because I

22     didn't live in the area of Stolac then, but I know that Mr. Markovic is a

23     medical doctor.  And as far as I know, until the beginning of the war, he

24     worked at the "kostana" hospital, the bone hospital.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, obviously back in

Page 47006

 1     January 1996, following the Dayton Agreements or Accords, there were

 2     investigations that were carried out to find out who did what, and here

 3     we have 33 individuals being listed who may have played a part with

 4     relation to the issue of Muslims in Stolac, and you are under number 1.

 5     Therefore, as far as you know, in 1996 or thereafter were you called by

 6     the police services to be interviewed as to your possible part or were

 7     you never called?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I state under oath

 9     that this is the first time anybody has asked me to speak about these

10     things.  I have never been interviewed by anyone.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I think that you

12     already answered the next question I was going to ask you, but I still

13     ask it for the record.  In the following years up to today, were you ever

14     called or interviewed by the OTP or were you never asked anything?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no service either in

16     or outside Bosnia-Herzegovina has ever demanded that I give any kind of

17     statement about wartime events.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  At least this is a

19     very clear answer.

20             Mr. Kruger.

21             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22        Q.   Now, sir, there is a document in evidence, and I'm -- it's in the

23     binder, but I'm not going to let you look at it.  I'll simply refer you

24     to what's in the document and then go on from there.  The document I'm

25     referring to, for the record, is P02215.  It's already in evidence.  And,

Page 47007

 1     sir --

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  Why shouldn't the witness

 3     be allowed to look at the document?  I mean, because he may be taking

 4     something out of context.  I find this rather incredible.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, yes.  Mr. Kruger, sorry,

 6     why don't you want the witness to see the document?

 7             MR. KRUGER:  Your Honour, it's a simple question of time

 8     economics, that if --

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see.  But just say, well, you

10     have the document, and then you can ask your question.  If he wants to

11     look at the document, he can.  But at any rate, the Judges check

12     everything.  Rest assured, nothing will escape my notice.

13             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

14        Q.   Sir, the document I'm referring to was an order by

15     Mr. Nedjeljko Obradovic on 7 May 1993, and it contained the following

16     segment, which was bullet number 13, and it said:

17             "The commander of the Stolac Forward Command Post shall

18     immediately block admission of new patients into the osteopathic hospital

19     and the taking out of material and technical equipment from it."

20             My question to you, sir:  Did you ever receive an order with

21     regard to the "kostana" hospital in May 1993?

22        A.   If I could be shown the second page of the document, because

23     I can only see items 1 through 7 and you were referring to item 13.

24        Q.   The document, if we -- there, it's on your screen now, sir.

25        A.   Thank you.

Page 47008

 1        Q.   It's number 13.

 2        A.   Yes, yes.  Yes, I received this order.

 3        Q.   And, sir, the patients in the osteopathic hospital or the

 4     "kostana" hospital, were they also removed from the hospital?

 5        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, at that time, the time when I arrived at Stolac,

 6     I cannot claim to be precise, but I'm sure that there weren't even ten

 7     patients in that hospital.  And when this order was drafted, there are

 8     statements about there being over a hundred patients in the hospital, and

 9     the commander of the brigade ordered me to provide security to that

10     hospital and to prevent them from taking in new patients.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Colonel, something is not clear

12     in my mind.  It may be a problem due to translation.

13             I understand that you say that there were 10 seats and that there

14     were 100 patients, because in the English version it looks like there are

15     10 patients and then 100.  So what did you mean to say?  Did you mean to

16     say that there were only 10 beds and then that there were 100 people, so

17     you could not admit everybody?  So what did you mean to say, exactly?

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.  Here's what I

19     said:  When I took over my duty at Stolac in July 1993, there were --

20     don't take my word for it, but fewer than 10 patients in the hospital.

21     And at the time when this order was drafted, the hospital had over a

22     hundred patients.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, now it's clear.  Now

24     I understand, because when you took over the command, there were only 10

25     patients, and when Obradovic issued that order in May, there were 100

Page 47009

 1     patients.  Fine, everything's clear now.  Thank you.

 2             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3        Q.   Mr. Pavlovic, I'd like to refer you to the next document, and

 4     it's towards the end of the binder, Exhibit P11098.

 5             And if I may state up front, Your Honour, it's a new document and

 6     it's being shown to the witness as a matter of credibility.

 7             11098.  Now, sir, this document is an ECMM report from the legal

 8     adviser, and the subject is:  "A possible war crime."  And it's dated 2

 9     June 1993, and it says:

10             "In Stolac," the second paragraph:

11             "In Stolac, on 9 May 1993, HVO captured the orthopaedic centre,

12     threw out about 100 people, some seriously ill, and the rest of the

13     following doctors and nurses from the staff:  Dr. Mehmet Kadic, Mustafa

14     Pasarla [phoen], Dinka Seta," et cetera, et cetera, and then it says:

15     "The suspected perpetrator is supposed to be commander of Stolac HVO,

16     Commander Bozo Pavlovic."

17             Do you know about this?

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.  Witness, my fellow

19     Judge draws my attention to something which is quite right.  You're a

20     witness, so you answer questions.  But at your level, if you feel that

21     the answer might incriminate you - one never knows - you can say that you

22     don't want to answer, and if he insists, he has to go through the

23     Trial Chamber, and based on the Rules the Trial Chamber may grant you

24     immunity, if you are of the view that in answering the question, you

25     might incriminate yourself.  Well, I don't know, but you have to see for

Page 47010

 1     yourself.  This is something I was bound to tell you.  I know it's quite

 2     a complex rule, and I thank my fellow Judge for reminding me.

 3             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 4        Q.   And so, Witness, are you prepared to give us an answer to that?

 5     Did you know about this?

 6        A.   Are you going to put to me a question or do you just want my

 7     opinion on this document?

 8        Q.   Did you know about the fact that you were, in some circles, being

 9     viewed as a potential war criminal?

10        A.   Yes.  Actually, I can tell now, only having seen these documents.

11     I didn't know it at the time.  But I can explain.

12             Here, I have said that when I came to Stolac, there were fewer

13     than 10 patients in the hospital.  They were seriously ill, with

14     disabilities, and they were there when the war started.  It was an

15     osteopathic hospital, one of the best known of its kind in all of the

16     former Yugoslavia.  There were some patients from Serbia and other

17     faraway places, and their families were unable to evacuate them, so the

18     situation came about that the hospital management and the hospital staff

19     started collecting old women from the streets of Stolac and taking them

20     to the hospital because they wanted to receive humanitarian aid on

21     account of that, and the international community indeed provided such aid

22     in large quantities.

23             It is very important that I finish, if you allow me.

24             On one occasion, I don't exactly recall the name of the

25     gentleman, but he was an EC monitor, he called at my headquarters

Page 47011

 1     frequently and then he would continue to the hospital, and I received

 2     information that the director of the hospital, Dr. Kapic, was putting

 3     forward very serious accusations against me and the HVO, even though I

 4     was in good relations with him at the time and now, nowadays too.  And

 5     when that gentleman from the international community came the next time,

 6     I expressed my desire to go to the hospital with him, and we sat down

 7     with Dr. Kapic together.

 8             After the informal introductory conversation, the gentleman from

 9     the international community asked me to leave him to speak to Dr. Kapic

10     in four hours, and I said, No problem, but I would like to ask a few

11     questions of the doctor before I leave you.  And then I did so, because I

12     had heard that we were treating the patients badly, and I asked him

13     whether our command had offered him to provide food to the hospital, fuel

14     for the ambulances, and all other provisions that our services had, and

15     the doctor answered in the affirmative.  I asked him whether there had

16     been any problems between us, and he answered in the negative.  And I

17     asked him how much food he was receiving for the hospital - this is very

18     important - and where that food was ending up, and how many meals the

19     patients were receiving, because I had information that the patients were

20     only receiving two meals, but there was food for four meals, and there

21     was much fuel for the hospital, but the radiators in the hospital were

22     cold.

23        Q.   Thank you for that.  I'm afraid I have to move on.  Our time is

24     running out.  What I --

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  May I ask just one small question.

Page 47012

 1             Can you approximately give a date of that visit of yours to the

 2     "kostana" hospital?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't give you the exact date,

 4     but I know that it was in spring 1993.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 6             MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.  I would

 7     like to point out something.

 8             Since the same document under number P02612 is under seal, this

 9     should be considered to prevent possible problems in the future.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Did you know that

11     it was a document under seal?  I asked myself that question, but you seem

12     to be so confident that I thought I must have been wrong about it.

13             MR. KRUGER:  If I can just check my situation for a moment.

14     I think I have the answer.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the meantime, Witness, based

16     on this document, well, the source is the (redacted)

17     (redacted).  He mentioned -- he reported the

18     event.  When you were on the ground, did you have any contacts with

19     SpaBat, and with this captain in particular?

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was a SpaBat in our area, but

21     I don't remember any individual by name.  I probably wouldn't recognise

22     anyone if I were to see one here.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  But there's a minor

24     problem.  This operation apparently took place on the 9th of May in the

25     hospital, and we know that there were some events that took place in

Page 47013

 1     Mostar on that same date.  It may be a mere coincidence, but as far as

 2     you know, as far as you can remember, but this may be a difficult

 3     question, was there an overall plan by the HVO on the 9th of May to take

 4     control of positions held by the ABiH?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know of any such plans.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, Mr. Kruger.

 7             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you.

 8             Your Honour, just to respond, the first part of the document

 9     which is being shown outside the courtroom is, indeed, not under seal.

10     The second part of the document, which essentially says the same, is

11     under seal and shouldn't have been included in the binder.  That is my

12     mistake.

13        Q.   Sir, just to conclude on this topic:  You won't dispute that the

14     Muslim patients who were held in -- who were in "kostana" hospital ended

15     up in the Grabovina Barracks and from there they were ultimately expelled

16     to ABiH territory at a time later.  You don't dispute that?

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, an objection to the

18     fact that he said Muslim patients.  We haven't made that distinction yet.

19     All we spoke about was patients in general terms.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Sustained.  I was going to make the same

21     observation.

22             MR. KRUGER:

23        Q.   Sir, the patients in the "kostana" hospital, those who couldn't

24     be taken by their families, they ended up in Grabovina Barracks in

25     Capljina; is that correct?

Page 47014

 1        A.   As far as I remember, that is partially correct, yes.

 2        Q.   And, sir, there's evidence before the Chamber by a person who

 3     drove a truck a while later with patients on the back of that truck

 4     from -- turned out to be from the "kostana" hospital and who were taken

 5     to ABiH territory.  You won't dispute that that happened to certain of

 6     those patients?

 7             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have to object

 8     once again.  The question doesn't contain the time that the Prosecutor is

 9     referring to.  I know the time-frame that the witness mentioned, but the

10     fact is:  Was this witness there at the time?

11             MR. KRUGER:  Your Honour, I'm simply putting to the witness that

12     he doesn't dispute that that ultimately happened to these patients, and

13     it was a matter of two or three months after they were taken to Grabovina

14     Barracks, if that long.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor, as far as I

16     remember, in that hospital the real patients that were unable to move,

17     and that's what the hospital was basically used for, incapacitated

18     patients, they were mostly of Serb ethnicity.  Now, all the others, up to

19     a hundred of them, were people who were able to move around and they

20     didn't need to be hospitalised.  Now, the Serb patients there --

21             MR. KRUGER:

22        Q.   Sir, if I may, but do you -- do you dispute that fact or don't

23     you, or don't you know what happened?  Whether that's true or not, my

24     question.

25        A.   What time-frame does that refer to?

Page 47015

 1        Q.   This would have been in June 1993, 'round about June 1993,

 2     perhaps early July.

 3        A.   That could not have happened in June.

 4        Q.   And in July?

 5        A.   As for July, I can't say anything about that because I wasn't

 6     there at the time.

 7        Q.   Sir, let's step on to another topic, which I will touch upon very

 8     briefly.

 9             I'm going to refer you to a Defence document that was shown to

10     you, and we'll just look at it on the screen.  It's 4D02000.  It's not in

11     that binder.  4D02000.  And you will recall this was the letter by

12     Mr. Markovic and yourself to Mr. Boban on the 22nd of May, 1993.  You

13     recall that, that letter?  It's --

14        A.   It's the letter that I see in front of me here.

15        Q.   Now, I'm just going to refer to one part of that letter, and it's

16     on the second page in the English translation.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, so you can work

18     correctly and so you don't waste time, let me tell you that you have just

19     30 minutes left, 3-0, 30 minutes.

20             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21        Q.   At the beginning -- or close to the top of the second page, it

22     says:

23             "During the Serbian aggression, almost all Catholic places of

24     worship were destroyed, and not a single Islamic place of worship was

25     seriously damaged.  Since the liberation of Stolac, there has been no

Page 47016

 1     destruction of Islamic religious buildings, apart from that caused by

 2     Serbian artillery attacks."

 3             Sir, that's correct, at least on the 22nd of May, 1993, all the

 4     mosques in Stolac were still standing?

 5        A.   Yes, this is an authentic letter.

 6        Q.   And if we say "all the mosques in Stolac," would that also

 7     include the mosques throughout the municipality and not only those in the

 8     town of Stolac?

 9        A.   Well, I think -- I think the answer to that would be yes.

10        Q.   And, sir, early in July, when you were still the commander of the

11     Stolac defence, were all those mosques and Islamic religious buildings

12     still standing?

13        A.   Until my departure, yes.

14        Q.   And, sir, you are aware, coming from Stolac, that the town of

15     Stolac had an old Turkish market in the center of town, surrounding the

16     Sultan Selim Mosque; is that correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   And that was also still standing at the time that you left Stolac

19     early in July 1993?

20        A.   Of course.

21        Q.   And, sir, is it also correct that shortly afterwards, all four of

22     the mosques in the town of Stolac as well as the entire Turkish old

23     market at the Tepa [phoen] was totally obliterated and destroyed?

24        A.   200 per cent, yes.  I think they all were, but --

25        Q.   And, sir, do you disagree --

Page 47017

 1        A.   -- two -- I'm certain that two were.

 2        Q.   And, sir, do you disagree -- or you can't disagree that it was --

 3     the destruction that took place that we're talking about now was caused

 4     or perpetrated by members of the HVO?

 5        A.   I really can't know who the perpetrators of those crimes were.

 6        Q.   And at the time when you left, in the town of Stolac there was no

 7     fighting; correct?

 8        A.   There was no street-fighting, but there could have been shelling.

 9        Q.   Sir, let's move on to my final topic, which deals with forced

10     labour.

11             And if I can very briefly refer you, just to set the tone, to

12     Exhibit P01765, P01765, and it's about six or -- seven or eight documents

13     into your binder.

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

15     permission, I'd like to have it down on the record that we're entering a

16     new area which wasn't contained in the examination-in-chief, so I'd just

17     like the Trial Chamber to rule on whether or not they're going to permit

18     Mr. Kruger to broach a new area.

19                           [Trial Chamber confers]

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, this is a new

21     topic.  Why do you want to deal with it?

22             MR. KRUGER:  Your Honour, with respect, it's a very relevant

23     topic, that the documents that will be shown to the witness in this

24     regard are documents which many of them bear his name, so he was

25     intimately involved in the whole process, and I think from that point of

Page 47018

 1     view he can really assist the Chamber in understanding the issue of

 2     forced labour, insofar as he was involved in the process.

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  If I may, Your Honour, because this issue has come

 4     up before, and in anticipation of that I even brought the Federal Rules

 5     of evidence from the United States, Rule 611(B) is the one that this rule

 6     has been inspired by this Tribunal -- this Trial Chamber and others, it

 7     says:

 8             "Scope of cross-examination.  Cross-examination should be limited

 9     to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the

10     credibility of the witness.  The Court may, in the exercise of

11     discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct

12     examination."

13             That's Rule 611(B), and that's what has been applied against the

14     Defence, and so I do think that this is a matter that is outside the

15     scope of cross-examination.  I leave it to your discretion to determine

16     to what extent this matter fits within the credibility of the witness.

17     But from what I understand from Mr. Kruger, he sees these documents as

18     being interesting for the Trial Chamber and not for the credibility of

19     the witness.  Thank you.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me consult with my fellow

21     Judges and ask them whether they allow for these questions to be put.

22                           [Trial Chamber confers]

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, you may put the

24     questions to the witness, notably since we have a document where there is

25     mention of his name.  So I'm sure he will tell us why his name is on the

Page 47019

 1     document and why prisoners had to go and work.  It might be interesting.

 2             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

 3        Q.   Now, sir, you have the document there.  This is the stamped

 4     log-book of approvals for engagement of detainees and work from 2 April

 5     1993 to 8 March 1994, and it is in evidence.  I'd like to refer you to

 6     line 82 in the document, entry 82.  Do you have that?

 7             And it says:

 8             "Request for taking 10 detainees needed for work, 10 August

 9     1993."

10             Reference number:  "Third Brigade, Bozo Pavlovic."

11             Is it correct, sir, that you authorised people to take detainees

12     for labour, members from your brigade?

13        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, this is a request probably signed by me, and

14     those detainees most probably went to work, but I can't see where;

15     perhaps in the barracks somewhere or something like that, because when I

16     leafed through it, through these documents briefly, I see that there are

17     another couple of people from the 3rd Brigade that are mentioned here.

18     For example, Ivica Matinovic, and that was a gentleman who at that time

19     was in charge of the Quarter-Master Service, and probably they needed a

20     warehouse somewhere, or a kitchen perhaps.

21        Q.   Sir, I've gone through this document, and I've found entries

22     similar to this one in line 94, line 103, line 104, line 148, line 199,

23     and then entries from number 223 to 232.  For time take, I'll refer you

24     to entry 230, line 230.  You have that towards the end, and it says:

25             "Request for taking 10 detainees needed for work."

Page 47020

 1             Again:  "Bozo Pavlovic."

 2             It's 21 of July.  That's the day after you assumed command of the

 3     3rd Brigade; correct?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   And, sir, is it safe to say that for the three months that you

 6     were in the command, or was it -- from July to October, throughout that

 7     whole period you authorised members of your unit to take detainees for

 8     forced labour, or labour, at least?

 9        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, the members of the 3rd Brigade unit at that time

10     on a daily basis used detainees or prisoners in order to perform the

11     daily jobs and work that had to be done on the territory of the

12     3rd Brigade.  And I wish to stress here that the 3rd Brigade itself at

13     that time was holding positions behind which there were many military

14     facilities which were left over from the Yugoslav People's Army.  We had

15     to maintain those facilities and use them.  The Heliodrom complex, for

16     example, was a vast military facility, and life went on, on a daily

17     basis, quite normally there.

18        Q.   If I can interrupt you and refer you to a related topic, then.

19     Is it correct that detainees escaped at times while performing labour for

20     members of your unit?  And for this I'll refer you to Exhibit P03788.

21     It's about 10 documents on in your binder, P03788.

22             Now, sir, the document is from Mr. Stanko Bozic, the warden at

23     Heliodrom.  It's dated 29 July 1993, and it's a report sent to Mr. Coric,

24     Mr. Mijo Jelic, Zvonko Vidovic, and yourself, Mr. Bozo Pavlovic.  It

25     says:

Page 47021

 1             "28 July, the request of 24 July from 3rd Brigade relating to

 2     work until further notice, signed by Brigadier Bozo Pavlovic.  The

 3     request was satisfied."

 4             And then there's a report that a detainee, Ahmet Trbonja, was not

 5     brought back, and the aforementioned soldier explained that he had

 6     escaped while working at the Buna work site.

 7             Very briefly, sir, the Buna work site, was that on the

 8     front-line?

 9        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, as far as I remember, that could only have been

10     about people working on the bridge that was being built across the

11     Neretva River, in the settlement of Buna.  The bridge was shielded by a

12     hill, which is the start of Gubavica, and it's away from the front-line

13     at a distance of two to three kilometres, in fact, from the front-line,

14     and so those detainees were not under any threat at all, working in the

15     area.  The bridge was under intensive construction at the time, and

16     construction work went on for several months.

17             Now, you asked me before that whether there were cases where the

18     detainees fled, tried to escape.  There were lots of cases like that,

19     because the relationship of the people in our unit towards these others,

20     people working together with them, was really a little strange, because

21     they didn't feel themselves to be prisoners at all.  I would come by and

22     see them all sitting down together, drinking, on that same bridge, to be

23     quite frank.

24        Q.   Sir, I have a number of other documents which also are similar to

25     this one in showing that detainees had escaped, but let's turn it up a

Page 47022

 1     step and see about detainees being wounded.  And for this, I'm going to

 2     show you a new document, and this does relate to credibility, and it is

 3     Exhibit P11094.  It's towards the end of your binder, P11094.

 4             You have the document.  Once again, it's an official note dated

 5     24 July.  It's from Mr. Stanko Bozic, warden of the Heliodrom Remand

 6     Prison, and it's addressed to Mr. Coric, Josip Dodik, and to you,

 7     Mr. Bozo Pavlovic.  It says 22 July, on the basis of a request, once

 8     again by the HVO 3rd Brigade, "prisoners were provided for work at the

 9     Buna Bridge.  Mr. Mate Baric took charge of the detainees.  They were

10     returned from work with a statement that detainee Hasan Becirovic was

11     missing, having been wounded by BH Army and transferred to Metkovic

12     hospital for treatment."

13             Sir, did you know or were you aware of this instance where a

14     detainee had been wounded while performing labour?

15        A.   That was two days after I took up my duties, but this is the

16     first time that I see this document.  I've never seen it before, and I

17     don't know that this person was wounded.  But quite possibly he was

18     wounded by an enemy shell.

19        Q.   Sir, I put it to you that -- I can't show them all to you, due to

20     time constraints.  I have a number of other documents similar to this

21     indicating detainees being wounded while performing labour.

22             MR. KHAN:  Mr. President, my learned friend will no doubt forgive

23     me.  Before he puts his next question, may I once again seek the

24     assistance of the Court Officer to request technical assistance?  Once

25     again, it seems that gremlins have bedevilled the LiveNote transcript of

Page 47023

 1     the Defence, and perhaps somebody could come into court to assist.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar is going to take

 3     care of this.

 4             Witness, you didn't come here to talk about forced labour, but my

 5     question is going to go to the crux of the problem.  As far as you know,

 6     were detainees forced to work on the front-line or, according to you,

 7     were they sent to do other kind of work, like bridges or kitchen duty?

 8     In 394 [as interpreted], you'd asked for two women.  I guess that was for

 9     kitchen duty.  So according to you, were these prisoners placed on the

10     front-line to dig the trenches and to fortify the front-line or were they

11     sent elsewhere to do other kind of jobs?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am speaking about

13     the time that I spent in the 3rd Brigade, and during that time the

14     prisoners, who were mostly from our unit who were disarmed, they worked

15     on facilities and features such as the kitchen.  At least 10 or 15 people

16     worked in the kitchens on a daily basis, and in the washer rooms.  They

17     cleaned the premises.  They worked in the warehouses and in the various

18     craft shops.  They maintained roads, built bridges.  And that's all that

19     I can remember for the time being.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

21             There's a mistake on the transcript.  Line 16, it wasn't "394,"

22     but "94."  It was number 94.  In entry 94, there is a request for two

23     women.

24             Mr. Kruger.

25             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

Page 47024

 1        Q.   Sir, this exhibit that we're looking at was also sent to

 2     Mr. Coric.  Did you hear anything from Mr. Coric in regard to this?

 3             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object.

 4     This is a new document, and as Mr. Kruger previously said -- well, this

 5     isn't a question related to the credibility of this witness, but it has

 6     to do with Mr. Coric, himself.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber granted leave

 8     to the Prosecution to put questions, and there is a document that was

 9     addressed to Mr. Coric, as I can see.  So that's all.

10             Mr. Kruger.

11             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

12        Q.   Sir, did you hear anything from Mr. Coric?

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, Mr. Kruger.  I do not quite see how

14     this can help the Chamber to evaluate the credibility of this witness.

15             MR. KRUGER:

16        Q.   I'll need to refer you to a different document which has the same

17     bearing.

18             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, I'd like an answer from the

19     Prosecutor, because he must demonstrate that the gentleman indicated one

20     answer and now he is trying to confront him and challenge the

21     credibility.  That's how it's done.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I think he took my point and is going to another

23     document and is abandoning that line.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  I wasn't aware of that.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Well, we must all listen sharply, but we cannot

Page 47025

 1     always listen with full sharpness.

 2             MR. KRUGER:

 3        Q.   Sir, I'll refer you to document 3939, P03939.

 4        A.   Is it toward the end or --

 5        Q.   It's more to the beginning, about a third of the way into the

 6     binder, sir.  This is a document which is, indeed, in evidence.

 7        A.   3939, but I can't see it here.

 8             MR. KRUGER:  If I may ask the assistance of the usher, please.

 9             Your Honour, if I may inform the Court at this stage, after this

10     document there are only two exhibits that I would still wish to show to

11     the witness.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, so that you don't

13     get lost or drowned in all these documents, you're now pointing to a

14     document, but there is another one, number 3788.  It's the same document,

15     but with a different date.  This is a report by Mr. Bozic, the warden of

16     the military prison, who sends his report to Mr. Coric, Mr. Pavlovic, and

17     another two individuals.  So it could be that the witness does not know

18     that this report was sent to Mr. Coric, so bear this in mind when putting

19     your question.

20             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

21        Q.   Sir, this document is 4 August 1993, signed by Stanko Bozic, and

22     it's addressed -- sent to Mr. Coric, Mr. Jelic, and to you,

23     Mr. Bozo Pavlovic.  And it says:

24             "3 August, request from Mr. Bozo Pavlovic ..."

25             So once again labour approved by you.  It says:

Page 47026

 1             "When the group returned from work, they were all covered in

 2     blood and beaten up.  Three of them had sustained grave injuries.  The

 3     reason given was that they had attempted to escape."

 4             And the Central Military Remand Prison was not happy about this.

 5     They say:

 6             "... for the sake of its function and repute, these matters shall

 7     no longer be tolerated."

 8             Now, sir, from this, it would appear that this is a clear case

 9     where a crime has been committed, prisoners had been beaten up.  Would

10     you agree?

11        A.   Yes, I remember this particular instance.  I can explain it.

12        Q.   If I may ask you, sir, did you hear anything from Mr. Coric or

13     from the military police in regard to this matter?

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Why do you want to intervene,

15     Mr. Coric?  The witness is at the stand.  He's the witness.  If you

16     intervene, you may prompt his answer, so I fail to understand.  Why are

17     you up?  Well, now that you're on your feet, you can speak.

18             THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] I will not go into the usual

19     practice here to suggest an answer to the witness, but I would like to

20     ask the Prosecutor to provide a basis for this question.  I'm not

21     objecting to this question, but it would be logical to ask Mr. Pavlovic

22     whether we were in the same command line, whether we had any contacts,

23     whether we had had any contacts, whether any one of us was superior to

24     the other.  That was all I wanted to suggest.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, but I thought that

Page 47027

 1     the witness was about to answer because he wanted to provide an answer;

 2     that's all the more reason.

 3             The Prosecutor asked you something.  You wanted to answer, and

 4     then we had Mr. Coric, who explained what the problem was about.  Now

 5     please answer the Prosecutor's question.

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I was going to reply along

 7     the same lines as what Mr. Coric said.

 8             Mr. Coric and I had practically no contacts throughout the war in

 9     Bosnia-Herzegovina, apart from meeting each other at some celebrations or

10     festive occasions.  That's where I -- that's how I know him, and those

11     were our contacts after the war, too.  So Mr. Coric and I never spoke

12     about these events, if this is indeed an answer to your question, if I

13     understood your question well.

14             MR. KRUGER:

15        Q.   Sir, I'm afraid I'd like to explore it further, but in the view

16     of time, I am going to move on, ask you one question and then show two

17     documents.

18             The further question:  We've seen that detainees were wounded

19     while on labour.  Is it also correct that there were detainees who were

20     killed while performing labour?

21        A.   As far as I know, in the zone of responsibility of my brigade no

22     one detainee was killed while performing labour.  And I said a short

23     while ago that I can explain this instance and that I gave orders to

24     launch proceedings against the perpetrators of this crime.  And that was

25     the only thing I could do, because this wasn't even a unit of the

Page 47028

 1     3rd Brigade.  It was a unit of the Siroki Brijeg Anti-Aircraft Defence,

 2     and I remember the situation.

 3             On that day, a soldier from that unit heard that his brother had

 4     been killed, and he started mistreating a detainee, but I remember that

 5     the commander of that unit was ordered to launch an inquiry against that

 6     soldier.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, earlier on, in that

 8     document where mention was made of the 30 soldiers building the bridge, I

 9     noticed that they were guarded by one soldier, whose name we have, but I

10     also noted that this was not a soldier from your unit.  He was a soldier

11     from the 7th Brigade.  So how is it that you could require prisoners and

12     that they were being guarded by other soldiers?  Was that something

13     normal, militarily speaking?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm back to the

15     document in question.  Here, this is about a soldier from the

16     7th Battalion, and it belonged to the 3rd Brigade.  We had -- well, the

17     names that were used were a bit odd.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right,

19     7th Battalion, not 7th Brigade.  Sorry for this.

20             Mr. Kruger, please proceed.

21             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Your Honour.

22        Q.   Sir, let's very briefly look at your authority.  Where did you

23     derive your authority to authorise labour by detainees?  And for this, if

24     you can look, it's a few documents earlier in your binder,

25     Exhibit P03592, P03592.  This exhibit is already in evidence, and this is

Page 47029

 1     an order -- I'll wait for you.  3592.

 2             Mr. Usher, if I could impose on you, please.

 3        A.   3592, is that the document you mean?

 4        Q.   3592, that's correct.  Sir, if you see, this is a written --

 5     handwritten document, but if we look at the document which purports to be

 6     by General Petkovic, it's dated 20 July 1993, and it says:

 7             "In view of the fact that the last order to conduct engineering

 8     work is not being observed, I hereby warn for the last time and order:"

 9             And then it says, number 3:

10             "Continue to fortify all positions."

11             4 is:

12             "Engage the prisoners and available machinery in the completion

13     of this task," so "engage the prisoners."

14             Sir, this 20 July is the day that you assumed command of the

15     3rd Brigade; is that correct?

16        A.   Yes, that's the date.

17        Q.   And, sir, is it correct to say that your authority to authorise

18     the taking of detainees for labour actually derives directly from your

19     superior commander, Mr. Milivoj Petkovic?

20        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, to my mind this can be a coincidence, I mean the

21     matching dates.  But as far as I remember, upon my arrival at the

22     3rd Brigade, it had already been common practice for soldiers --

23     detainees, disarmed soldiers from our brigade and other brigades, other

24     brigades of the HVO, can be used for chores that I have already

25     mentioned, and there were many such chores.  And I merely continued the

Page 47030

 1     existing practice.

 2        Q.   Now, sir, let's look at the very last document that I'm going to

 3     show you, and it is Exhibit P05873, 5873.

 4        A.   11 --

 5        Q.   5873.

 6             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, Mr. Usher.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here it is.

 8             MR. KRUGER:

 9        Q.   Now, sir, this, once again, is a document by

10     Mr. Milivoj Petkovic, dated 14 October 1993, and that's the time you were

11     handing over the 3rd Brigade Command to your successor, wasn't it?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   And this order says:

14             "I order -- I hereby prohibit the removal of prisoners to perform

15     any kind of labour in the brigades' respective zones of responsibility."

16             "Should such activity nevertheless be allowed, the permit shall

17     be issued by the HVO Main Staff."

18             Sir, so I put it to you again that the authority that you had

19     exercised previously, and subsequent to this, to authorise detainees

20     being taken for labour, that authority was derived from General Petkovic

21     in the Main Staff.

22        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, I repeat once more that I cannot agree with this

23     qualification.  This is merely a numeric coincidence.  But I claim that I

24     took over the brigade -- the command of the brigade on the 20th of July

25     and continued existing practice.

Page 47031

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [No interpretation]

 2             MR. KRUGER:  Sorry, Your Honour, that wasn't translated.  I have

 3     two minutes?

 4             Thank you, Your Honour.

 5        Q.   Sir, my last question to you:  On this issue of detainees, during

 6     your months as commander of the 3rd Brigade, detainees had appeared --

 7     I'm referring to labour authorised by you.  Detainees had appeared --

 8     detainees were wounded, injured, and I put it to you that there is also

 9     actually one report of a detainee being killed.  But the point I want to

10     ask you about is:  Did you report -- in your hand, ever report to your

11     successor that there were problems with labour and that he should be very

12     careful?

13        A.   Mr. Prosecutor, as far as I remember, there is a complete

14     protocol on the hand-over of duty in which it is recorded that I

15     acquainted my successor with all the problems in the brigade and on the

16     territory where I was, and that I was at his disposal for 10 days

17     subsequently.  And I believe that I gave him good information about

18     everything and enabled him to discharge his duty in a good fashion.

19             MR. KRUGER:  Thank you, sir.  I regret we cannot continue our

20     discussion.  I would have liked to do so, but thank you very much.

21             And no further questions, Your Honour.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

23             We're going to break for 20 minutes.

24                           --- Recess taken at 5.38 p.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 5.59 p.m.

Page 47032

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

 2     We're doing redirect.

 3             Ms. Alaburic, how long do you need?

 4             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Good evening, Your Honours.  Good

 5     evening to everybody in the courtroom.

 6             I announced the redirect examination for Mr. Pavlovic in the

 7     duration of, I think, an hour and a half.  I will do my utmost, although

 8     two very important new topics have been opened during the

 9     cross-examination, but I will try to finish today.  I will start with my

10     redirect examination where the Prosecutor broke off, and that is the

11     labour of detainees.  And the Prosecutor's assertion that

12     General Petkovic, with some orders of his, actually opened the gates to

13     lower-level commanders to use detained persons for some types of labour

14     or work assignments.

15             I would also like to thank my learned friend Mr. Kruger who was

16     careful to be consistent in the use of "detainees" throughout his

17     cross-examination, which will help us to finish off this topic rather

18     soon with you, Mr. Pavlovic.

19                           Re-examination by Ms. Alaburic:

20        Q.   [Interpretation] If you have received the entire set of

21     documents, I would ask you to look at two separate documents, P514, 514.

22     I'll repeat, P514.  That is correct.  It is -- it's an instruction for

23     the operation of the Central Military Prison in Mostar.  Let us

24     immediately turn to page 5 in the Croatian original, and it's page 8 in

25     the English translation.

Page 47033

 1             We see here, under items 1 and 2, the definitions of two

 2     categories of imprisoned persons.  Item 1 defines the notion of prisoners

 3     of war, and item 2 deals with the definition of military prisoners, or

 4     military detainees, in the words of Defence counsel.

 5             Tell us, Mr. Pavlovic, once a soldier of the ABiH is imprisoned,

 6     to which category of these two does he belong?

 7        A.   A soldier of the ABiH is considered a prisoner of war, in my

 8     opinion.

 9        Q.   Prisoner of war?

10        A.   Yes, so item 1.

11        Q.   If you imprison a soldier of the HVO on whichever grounds, into

12     which category does that soldier fall of these two?

13        A.   If I imprison a soldier from my unit, then he is considered a

14     detainee; that is, he falls under item 2.

15        Q.   In all your documents that my learned friend has showed you, if I

16     read correctly, the word "detainee" is consistently used; am I right?  Do

17     you remember that?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   Can you tell us, then, to who did those labour orders of yours

20     apply?

21        A.   I seem to remember having mentioned that already.  The facilities

22     I mentioned -- at the facilities I mentioned, the people who worked were

23     the disarmed members of our brigade, that is, the 3rd, and other

24     brigades.

25        Q.   So they were HVO soldiers; right?

Page 47034

 1        A.   Right.

 2        Q.   Let us look at the following document, P6805, 6805.  And under

 3     item 1 of this document, we can read -- sorry, item 5:

 4             "It was decreed that prisoners could be used for work (arranging

 5     the terrain) with the signature of the commander of the Military Police

 6     Battalion, or the brigade, with the mandatory submission," I can't read a

 7     word, "and a report after the return."

 8             You told us, Mr. Pavlovic, that before you commanded the

 9     3rd Brigade, it had already been practice for detained persons to be sent

10     to carry out some kinds of work?

11        A.   Yes, and I can give you a specific instance.

12             On the 20th of July, when I took over the command of the brigade,

13     the first thing I did was visit the workshop and the kitchen, and I saw

14     detainees working there.

15        Q.   According to these documents - I have no time now to read out the

16     documents in their entirety - it was clearly described that prisoners of

17     war are to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions; in other

18     words, that they must not to be sent to the front-line to perform work or

19     be used for military purposes.  Were you acquainted with that, sir?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And just one more question about this topic.  If you were to

22     approach the prison director to give you a number of detained persons to

23     carry out some work, who was it that selected the persons to carry out

24     that work as requested by you?

25        A.   I truly do not know who decided on who was to go.  Somebody from

Page 47035

 1     the prison.  But I know that after a certain time, those who had filed a

 2     request would ask to be given the same men again because they had, in the

 3     meantime, become friends or at least they were known persons.

 4        Q.   Thank you.  Now let's return to this larger set of documents.

 5             The Prlic Defence showed you document 1D1704.  That is a document

 6     by which Mate Boban's order, dated 15th of September, 1993 --

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Could counsel please repeat these last words?

 8             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

 9        Q.   This order is forwarded to all units of the Zone of Operations

10     North-West Herzegovina.  And the second document is 4D1067, 1067, with

11     which the same order is forwarded to all units of the Zone of Operations

12     of South-East Herzegovina.

13             Please take a look at the third document in this set.  This is

14     Mate Boban's order dated 15 September 1993, and the document number is

15     P5104, 5104.  If you look at items 1 and 2 of this order, Mr. Pavlovic,

16     is there any doubt, to your mind, that these two items referred to the

17     armed forces of Herceg-Bosna?

18             MR. KHAN:  Mr. President, may I just re-emphasise the point to my

19     learned friend.  Of course, she is very experienced and is aware of it.

20     Re-examination, of course, is not a license to lead, and I would ask that

21     she ensure that non-leading questions are asked, and notwithstanding the

22     fact that ostensibly this re-examination arises out of cross-examination.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, please rephrase

24     your question, and be more careful in rephrasing.

25             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, I'm grateful for this

Page 47036

 1     suggestion.  I will do so.  I thought this was notorious, but anyway.

 2        Q.   Mr. Pavlovic, take a look at the -- to the distribution list to

 3     who this order was forwarded.

 4        A.   To the Defence Department, the Main Staff of the Armed Forces of

 5     the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, and the files.

 6        Q.   Let us look at the following document, P4275.  These are the

 7     minutes taken at a working meeting convened on the 18th of August, 1993,

 8     in the -- on the premises of the HVO HZ-HB.  Mr. Pavlovic, please take a

 9     look at the list of persons present.  Was the commander of the Main Staff

10     there, his deputy, or anyone from the Main Staff or any unit of the Army

11     of the HVO?

12        A.   I can see no familiar name from the Main Staff.

13        Q.   Please look at the following page under Roman numeral II.

14     Conclusions are being listed, and please read to us item 3.

15        A.   "The Defence Department, the Department of Justice and General

16     Administration are charged with undertaking measures and activities

17     relating to organising military prisons and adequate capacity to

18     accommodate prisoners of war, in accordance with international

19     conventions."

20        Q.   Tell us, Mr. Pavlovic, if you cast an eye on this document, is

21     any task issued to the Main Staff of the HVO?

22        A.   Well, to the extent that I was able to read it out in this short

23     time, no, I wouldn't say so.

24        Q.   Take a look at the following document, P4841.  These are the

25     minutes of the working meeting of the Cabinet of the Croatian Republic of

Page 47037

 1     Herceg-Bosna, held on the 6th of September, 1993.  Please take a look at

 2     the list of persons present.  Mr. Pavlovic, is any of these persons from

 3     the Main Staff or any military unit of Herceg-Bosna?

 4        A.   I don't know all these persons, but those I know are not.

 5        Q.   Please read out to us Conclusion number 1.

 6        A.   "Determine locations for the detention of prisoners of war.

 7     Adopt regulations on the conditions and procedure for the detention of

 8     prisoners of war at centres for prisoners of war, which must be founded

 9     on the provisions of International Law of War.  Bring the conditions in

10     the current centres to the required level with maximum observation of the

11     regulations of International Law of War, International Humanitarian Law,

12     and other regulations mentioned above.  Secure equipment and materiel,

13     and appoint staff to run the administrative services at centres for

14     prisoners of war."

15        Q.   Now, please read out to us Conclusion number 3.

16        A.   "In order to improve the conditions of accommodation and diet of

17     detainees, the Office for Expelled Persons, Refugees, and Displaced

18     Persons is tasked to ensure the necessary qualities of food, personal

19     hygiene items, and, if possible," or, "to the extent possible, equipment

20     and materiel needed for accommodation (blankets, mats, et cetera)."

21        Q.   Mr. Pavlovic, you have now read out almost the entire document.

22     Was the Main Staff of the HVO given any task with relation to these

23     detention centres for prisoners of war?

24        A.   That doesn't follow from anything I have read.

25        Q.   Look at the following document, please, P5264.

Page 47038

 1             I don't know whether it's been up-loaded to e-court.  If it has,

 2     we can continue.

 3             It's a report of a French news agency about Bosnian Croats to

 4     close Dretelj prison camp.  It says:

 5             "Bosnian Croat authorities, on Tuesday, are to close down the

 6     Dretelj prison camp in Southern Bosnia, where more than 500 Muslims are

 7     being held.  The 'prime minister' of," now I quote, "the self-declared

 8     Bosnian Croat republic said --" they're referring to Mr. Jadranko Prlic,

 9     and the document goes on to read that:

10             "The dead-line for closing Dretelj is Tuesday afternoon, and that

11     dead-line was agreed between leaders of the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian

12     leaders for the bilateral and unconditional dismantling of all prison

13     camps."

14             My question to you, Mr. Pavlovic, is:  Did you know that Dretelj

15     prison was closed down at a certain time?

16        A.   I know that it was closed down.  But when, I really don't

17     remember.

18        Q.   All right.  Mr. Pavlovic, to the questions of Mr. Coric's

19     Defence, you spoke partly about activities under documents that were sent

20     to the 3rd Battalion, or let us proceed upward, the 3rd Platoon of the

21     3rd Company of the 3rd Battalion of the Military Police.  The question is

22     recorded on page 22 of yesterday's transcript; is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   Tell us, please, was that the brigade military police or the

25     military police?  The brigade police or active military police?

Page 47039

 1        A.   What you've just said now, it was the active military police.

 2        Q.   Tell us, please, who was the commander of that 3rd Military

 3     Police Battalion at the time?

 4        A.   I know who the commander of the platoon and company was, but I

 5     can't remember who the commander of the battalion was.

 6        Q.   And do you know who was the immediate superior to the commander

 7     of the 3rd Battalion?

 8        A.   The military police had its own establishment and it's chain

 9     of -- vertical chain of command, but I really can't say what that was.

10        Q.   Do you know who the chief of the Military Police Administration

11     was at that time?

12        A.   The chief of the administration was Mr. Coric.

13        Q.   Let's now look at the documents we've already discussed once

14     again.  And the first of those is P1913, which is a request from the

15     Command of the 1st Brigade of the HVO, and the second document is P1900,

16     and that is an order of roughly the same contents, issued on the same day

17     by the same person.

18             Now, can you, Mr. Pavlovic, tell us why one of these documents is

19     called "Request" and the other is called "Order"?

20        A.   As far as I can see, they were drafted on the same day, and I

21     really don't know what would come under "Request" and what would come

22     under "Order."  Perhaps the person who wrote this made a mistake and then

23     wanted to put that right or whatever.

24        Q.   Tell us, please, otherwise, according to military establishment,

25     when you table -- when do you table a request and when do you issue an

Page 47040

 1     order?

 2        A.   I issue a request when I am not a superior to that person, the

 3     person I'm issuing it to, and an order is when I am that person's

 4     superior officer.

 5        Q.   Tell me, please, the commander of the 1st Brigade of the HVO, was

 6     he superior to the active military police?

 7        A.   No, except for the unit that was under his area of responsibility

 8     for conducting military assignments.

 9        Q.   Now let's look at the next document, which is P1972.  It's a

10     report from the 3rd Company of the Military Police Battalion, and it

11     relates to the implementation of the order by Nedjeljko Obradovic.  And

12     Mr. Coric's Defence dealt with that in great detail.

13             Now, could you tell me who this report was addressed to?

14        A.   The 3rd Battalion Command, probably means the military police,

15     the Military Police Administration, the brigade command, probably

16     referring to the 1st HVO Brigade.

17        Q.   Can you explain why this military police company is sending a

18     report to the Military Police Administration?

19        A.   I can't explain that.  It would be logical to go down the

20     vertical chain of command through the 3rd Battalion and to send out the

21     report through the 3rd Battalion.

22        Q.   Now let's look at the next document, which is 5D1054.

23             My colleague has just told me that there was a mistake in the

24     binder, because in the binder that document has the number P1054, where

25     it should be 5D1054, which is the document in the binder of the Coric

Page 47041

 1     Defence.  But we can also see it -- look at it on our screens.

 2             Now, on page 35, you, Mr. Pavlovic, confirmed that you had signed

 3     this document and sent it out; is that right?

 4        A.   Referring to this order?

 5        Q.   Yes.

 6        A.   Then, yes, that's right.

 7        Q.   Now I'm going to tell you what a witness said about this order in

 8     the courtroom here.  It was a protected witness who testified under the

 9     pseudonym of C, and his testimony was recorded on

10     page 2257 [as interpreted] of the transcript.  55257 -- 22527 is the

11     number, 22527.  This document that you signed, he commented in the

12     following way.  I'm going to read out in English what he said and what

13     was recorded in the transcript, to avoid mistakes:

14             [In English] "As this is an order to a military police platoon,

15     the one located in Stolac, this order never arrived in the company

16     command.  According to the book of rules which we have discussed just a

17     while ago, all orders relating to combat activities, none of this would

18     have been issued by a commander of a unit on the ground."

19             [Interpretation] And then the question that followed was as

20     follows:

21             "So this order was issued contrary to the establishment of the

22     military police?"

23             And the answer:

24             [In English] "Yes, both contrary to the establishment and without

25     the knowledge of the company command within the composition of which the

Page 47042

 1     Stolac Platoon was."

 2             [Interpretation] Now, may we have your comments, Mr. Pavlovic, to

 3     this?  Is it -- or, rather, was your order really unlawful, as has been

 4     suggested?

 5        A.   No.  The military police platoon, which was in Stolac, I was able

 6     to engage for military police assignments.

 7        Q.   Tell us, please, do you know that the chief of the Military

 8     Police Administration -- whether he ever intervened --

 9             MR. KHAN:  I do apologise.  I notice that the -- despite my

10     respectful admonition or objection, my learned friend has slipped again,

11     perhaps inadvertently, into some leading questions.  I didn't object to

12     the previous one, but any question that starts, "Do you know," I would

13     just remind her to be careful in relation to leading.

14             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to continue,

15     Your Honour?

16        Q.   Mr. Pavlovic, can you tell us whether the chief of the military

17     police, Mr. Coric, ever intervened because of some unlawful act with

18     respect to the military police in the area for which the 1st HVO Brigade

19     was in charge up at the defence lines?

20        A.   I don't know things like that.

21        Q.   Very well.  Now --

22             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just to

23     avoid any misunderstanding, from the witness's answer it's not clear

24     whether he didn't know about those things and thinks that Mr. Coric

25     should have intervened or that, quite simply, he knew nothing about

Page 47043

 1     things like that, nor was he interested in whether Mr. Coric should have

 2     intervened or not.

 3             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I hope that Mr. Khan is going to

 4     intervene with a leading question of that nature.  I hope he'll rise to

 5     his feet.

 6        Q.   But, Mr. Pavlovic, perhaps you can answer that before he does.

 7        A.   I don't know that he intervened, and I didn't know about those

 8     higher echelons at all, what happened at the higher level.

 9        Q.   Tell us, Mr. Pavlovic, had there been any complaints about the

10     military police's conduct in the Stolac area, could you not have known

11     about that?  Was that a possibility?

12        A.   Could you be more precise?  Could you repeat your question?

13        Q.   Is it possible that Mr. Valentin Coric protested over the fact

14     that you issued orders to the military police unlawfully in the Stolac

15     area, without you knowing about it?

16             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we don't

17     know whether Mr. Valentin Coric knew which orders Mr. Pavlovic issued,

18     because Mr. Pavlovic didn't send reports about the orders he issued.  So

19     the basis for this question, that Mr. Coric should intervene, he must

20     have known what was going on.

21             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the speakers kindly be asked to slow down

22     and speak one at a time.  Thank you.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, I think we would make some headway if

24     the gentleman were to first explain to us how is that you have military

25     police under him, directly under him, versus the other military police,

Page 47044

 1     what were -- even the division of labour, and so on.

 2             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm quite aware of

 3     the fact that my colleagues want to take up as much of my time as

 4     possible, but I will readily ask for more time and continue my redirect

 5     as I'd planned to do and carry on tomorrow.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  There seems -- we need some clarity.  That's the

 7     whole purpose of it.  So what is it?  Because as I understand it, he

 8     should not have military police under him, and if he does, somehow either

 9     Obradovic created his own military police for himself and others, plus

10     the other military police, or they're just using them as they will,

11     willy-nilly.  But we need to know what was the division of labour, how

12     did they come into existence, and so on.  And if we go step by step -- if

13     we go step by step, maybe then we can see whether, you know, they were

14     using them illegally or not.  But also if I may -- just one second,

15     Mr. President.  Some of the questions assume facts which are not in

16     evidence.  They assume that this gentleman knows what exactly was being

17     told to Mr. Coric and whether Mr. Coric, based on that information, was

18     reacting.  That's -- that's what's happening over here.  So just step by

19     step.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, as to issues

21     related to the military police, I'm sure that we're going to revisit the

22     topic thoroughly when Mr. Coric calls his own witnesses.  But now that

23     you have ventured into this topic, be careful.  Ask the witness what he

24     knows and what his jurisdiction was over the military police so that

25     everybody just doesn't intervene whilst it is a topic that the Judges are

Page 47045

 1     aware of as to the respective roles of the military police.  We've seen

 2     hundreds of documents on the topic.  So ask him what he knows, exactly,

 3     and then go along as you wish.

 4             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Yes, that's how I asked my

 5     question, Your Honour, does he know that there were any complaints with

 6     respect to the conduct of the commanders in the military police.  That

 7     was all I wanted to know.

 8        Q.   Now, Mr. Pavlovic, you can repeat your answer.

 9        A.   Complaints and criticism to the conduct of the military police,

10     as far as I know, no, there weren't any.  They went about their military

11     police duties, that's all.

12        Q.   And on yesterday's transcript, on pages 25 and 26, and then 28

13     onwards, and in response to Judge Antonetti's questions, you said,

14     Mr. Pavlovic:

15             "If the active military police was attached to an HVO unit for

16     the performance of police duties, then I was able to issue it orders to

17     perform police assignments, but I could engage the military police in

18     combat only on the basis of permission from my superior officer."

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   You remember your answer, do you?  Very well.

21             Now, I am going to put to you what Witness C said on that same

22     topic.  Transcript page 22326:

23             [In English] "If the commands, the orders, referred to the work

24     of the military police, then we could carry them out.  But if they were

25     orders, whether they be written or oral, about tasks to be carried out up

Page 47046

 1     at the front-line, then we would not carry out those orders, and we would

 2     then ask the opinion of the Military Police Administration."

 3             [Interpretation] Can you tell us, Mr. Pavlovic, whether that is a

 4     correct description, or would you correct something in that testimony?

 5        A.   I think that the description is a valid and correct one.

 6             MR. KRUGER:  If I may at this stage perhaps just suggest that

 7     this may be a misleading question for the witness, because this relates

 8     to Dretelj and not Heliodrom, perhaps where his experience may lay

 9     regarding obtaining people for labour.  Thank you, Your Honour.

10             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] No, this hasn't got anything to do

11     with that.  It's a matter of principle, pursuant to the command and the

12     deployment of the military police, so nothing to do with any centre in

13     particular.

14        Q.   What did you tell us, Witness?

15        A.   I said that he's right, although in practice I never had the need

16     to engage the military police, except to perform military police duties.

17        Q.   Now let's take a look at another document which relates to you in

18     the 3rd Brigade.  It is P3770.  That's right, P3770, which is an order

19     from Valentin Coric, chief of the Military Police Administration, who is

20     addressing you as commander of the 3rd Military Police Battalion, and he

21     is re-subordinating a unit in order to secure the line around Heliodrom.

22     He's re-subordinating two platoons made up of 32 military policemen.

23             Now, Mr. Pavlovic, did you receive at that order to that effect?

24        A.   From this we can see that, yes, I did.

25        Q.   This name, Ivan Ancic, does it mean anything to you?

Page 47047

 1        A.   Yes.  He was commander -- I'm not sure whether it was a company

 2     at the time, but, anyway, a commander from the military police.

 3        Q.   Very well.  I would now like us to clarify an answer that you

 4     provided to Judge Trechsel's question.  It's about document P3135.  This

 5     is a document drafted on the 3rd of July, 1993, by the commander of the

 6     1st Brigade of the HVO, and he is referring to his unlimited authority

 7     over civilian and military structures, in accordance with the extension

 8     of the zone of responsibility.

 9             If I may be allowed to draw my own conclusions, then

10     Judge Trechsel wasn't too happy with your answer, so let me ask you on

11     which day --

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I owe it to my status to protest.  I am not

13     "content" or "not content" with an answer.  I'm not contrary to the

14     parties.  I do not want to solicit a specific answer when I ask a

15     question, but I just want to know.  So thank you.  Excuse me.

16             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] It's all right, but it seemed to

17     me that it required some additional explanation because there was the --

18     the answer was provided with a certain smile.

19        Q.   So let me ask you, when did your responsibility in the 1st HVO

20     Brigade end?

21        A.   On the 3rd of July.

22        Q.   And that is the day on which this order was issued; correct?

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   I will now return to the Prosecutor's cross-examination.

25             Mr. Pavlovic, you tried to explain, on transcript pages 18

Page 47048

 1     through 24, about the possible disarming of the Bregava Brigade, and that

 2     you never thought of disarming a brigade, because that would mean

 3     weakening the defence line.  And a little later, you said that the

 4     Bregava Brigade did not hold the defence line at the features assigned to

 5     it very well.  And Judge Trechsel asked you whether you could give an

 6     example, and you said that it was about Feature 690, which was lost in

 7     February 1993.  Do you remember that reply, Mr. Pavlovic?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   It should be toward the end of this binder.  Take a look at

10     document 4D1521.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this will be very

12     brief.

13             I was amazed when you mentioned 690, Feature 690.  I was amazed.

14     What a fabulous memory, I thought.  How is it that you remember that

15     feature?  Did you just keep it in mind, or do you remember, by the meter,

16     how a feature is?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I must inform you now

18     that Feature 690 is a place that I visit very often, and it is 300 metres

19     away from my own farm.  I own a piece of forest there, and I go hunting

20     there, et cetera.

21             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

22        Q.   And you cook, also?

23        A.   Yes.  It may be funny, but it's true.

24        Q.   Let us look at the first document, 4D1521.  It is

25     Miljenko Lasic's order.  Let us look at item 2.  Tell us, Mr. Pavlovic,

Page 47049

 1     which feature was the Bregava Brigade supposed to hold?

 2        A.   TT-690.

 3        Q.   Please repeat your answer.

 4        A.   TT -- that is trigonometric point 690.

 5        Q.   Let us now look at document 4D477.  477, correct.  This is a

 6     report by Mr. Slavko Puljic, based on the command issued by the commander

 7     of the Main Staff.  He visited the positions of the 1st HVO Brigade and

 8     the Bregava Brigade in some zones, including Feature 690.

 9             Tell us, Mr. Pavlovic, how did it happen that an HVO officer also

10     went to inspect the positions of the Bregava Brigade?

11        A.   I believe that I mentioned this before.  The control in the zone

12     of responsibility of the Zone of Operations South-East Herzegovina can be

13     conducted by an officer sent to do so by his commander or a superior

14     officer, and since the Bregava Brigade was there, he had the right to

15     inspect that unit.

16        Q.   In item 1, Feature 690 is described as deserted for good.  Was it

17     really that way, Mr. Pavlovic?

18        A.   Yes, it was.

19        Q.   Let us look at the third -- last-but-three item.  It says that:

20             "Redistribution of the responsibility areas of the brigades must

21     be conducted, since Bregava Brigade turned out to be unreliable."

22             Is that a fair assessment?

23        A.   Yes, it is fair and correct.

24        Q.   Mr. Pavlovic, today, toward the end of the first session, when my

25     learned friend Mr. Kruger examined you, you said that the Bregava Brigade

Page 47050

 1     was relatively weak and unreliable, and we see corroboration of that here

 2     where Feature 690 is mentioned.  Then the Prosecutor put it to you that

 3     it would be ridiculous to assume that such a weak brigade of the ABiH

 4     could take -- could assume an entire zone of responsibility of an HVO

 5     brigade.  Do you remember that?  I'll ask you a question about it.

 6             According to the plans that we saw, should the Bregava Brigade

 7     have assumed Capljina, Stolac, and other towns in this municipality or

 8     should it have done so in co-operation with someone else?

 9        A.   The plans that they made, and that are available to us, and of

10     which we knew at the time, were made in that operational unit, but

11     probably the brigade should have been reinforced by substantial units in

12     order to carry out these tasks.  And it is -- it can clearly be seen

13     there that it planned to perform these actions after being reinforced

14     with Muslims in the HVO.

15        Q.   If really all Muslims from the 1st HVO Brigade had joined the

16     Bregava Brigade, would it have made it a respectable military force, in

17     terms of numbers, at least?

18        A.   Yes, absolutely, because the 1st Brigade at a certain time had as

19     many as four and a half thousand men, and as far as I know, it was manned

20     by Muslims, who made up about 50 per cent of the brigade.

21        Q.   And now I'll ask you a question about the osteopathic hospital.

22     The document shown to you by Mr. Kruger -- I will now refer to documents

23     which are already in evidence.  P2612, 2612.  Mr. Pavlovic, did we speak

24     about the document during the proofing?

25        A.   This is a document which contains that item 13, as far as I

Page 47051

 1     remember.

 2        Q.   Item 13 is a document by Nedjeljko Obradovic, and this document

 3     is a report of the EC monitors which mentions the evacuation of the

 4     hospital and states Bozo Pavlovic as the possible perpetrator of that

 5     evacuation.  Well, never mind.  We have no time.

 6        A.   I don't remember that document.

 7             MR. KRUGER:  Your Honour.  Sorry, if I may interrupt, the exhibit

 8     being displayed at the moment is the one which is under seal, so if the

 9     other page can be displayed.  Thank you, Your Honour.

10             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I wasn't going to show the

11     document, because I only have one question about it.

12        Q.   Mr. Pavlovic, you haven't told us the whole story about the

13     osteopathic hospital, and that's why I'm going to ask you now.

14             In that document, you were tasked by Nedjeljko Obradovic, under

15     item 13, to prevent the entry of new patients and to control the

16     hospital; is that correct?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Tell us, did you ever receive an order from Nedjeljko Obradovic

19     to evacuate the patients from the osteopathic hospital?

20        A.   I did not, and I never did so.

21        Q.   So if the statement in the document of the European Monitors,

22     that you are the probable perpetrator of the evacuation of the patients

23     from the osteopathic hospital, is it true or false?

24        A.   It is more probable for the sun to start shining now.  It is most

25     certainly false.

Page 47052

 1             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I thus finish with my examination.

 2     Thank you, Mr. Pavlovic, for coming here and for replying to questions.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On behalf of my fellow Judges,

 4     I thank you for appearing on behalf of the Petkovic Defence to contribute

 5     to justice being done.  Have a safe trip back home, and the usher is

 6     going to escort you out of the courtroom.

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may, Your Honours, take one

 8     more minute.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If you just want to say that

10     you're very happy, fine, but you don't need to speak as to the merits of

11     the case.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I just wanted -- because I was

13     unable to greet anybody at the beginning, I just wanted to give my

14     regards to everybody in the courtroom and thank you.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  You can leave.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17                           [The witness withdrew]

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next week, we are supposed to

19     have a witness.  There's no need to go into private session.  The Trial

20     Chamber is going to issue an oral ruling on motions for protective

21     measures.  All this is going to be filed shortly, as early as tomorrow.

22     Therefore, you will have the entire and exhaustive decision.

23             Mr. Stringer, did you want to speak?  You may proceed.

24             MR. STRINGER:  Yes, Mr. President.  Thank you.

25             It's too late and I definitely don't want to venture into this

Page 47053

 1     territory now, but it may be that at some point next week, or in one of

 2     the next witnesses, the Prosecution would like to make submissions to the

 3     Trial Chamber on the issues of new documents used in cross-examination,

 4     and also now on the issue of the scope of the cross-examination.  It's

 5     our view that there are interventions which we think are not justified,

 6     and would, at the very least, like to seek the clarification of the

 7     Trial Chamber on how it's handling new documents presented on cross

 8     versus tendered into evidence, et cetera.  It's a complicated issue, but

 9     it's one that we could benefit for some guidance.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As you will very well imagine,

11     the Trial Chamber is aware of all these problems, and in our guide-lines

12     we expressed ourselves very clearly.  The Appeals Chamber confirmed our

13     point of view.  Now you revisit the issue.  Since we often have Judges'

14     meetings, we are going to address the issue once again, but I cannot

15     preempt on the Trial Chamber's decision, but as far as I can see,

16     everything is crystal clear.  Two issues have to be settled, credibility

17     or new topics.  And I thought we had addressed all these issues already,

18     but we heard you, my colleagues have heard you, and we are going to take

19     all this on board.

20             Are you happy?

21             MR. STRINGER:  Well, Mr. President, we certainly accept and don't

22     propose any revision or changes in the Trial Chamber's rulings, as well

23     as the Appeal Chamber's.  It's our view that the procedure that seems to

24     be creeping in, which is that there are interventions every time a new

25     document is presented to a witness on cross, it's our view that that is

Page 47054

 1     inconsistent with the guide-lines and the decisions that we have, and

 2     that this distinction between using a document on cross-examination

 3     versus subsequently tendering the document into evidence is being

 4     blurred, it's giving rise to interventions which, in our view, are not

 5     justified or in accordance with the current decisions that we recognise

 6     apply.  So that's something that we think is becoming more and more of an

 7     issue.

 8             It's more and more troublesome to us, in terms of the

 9     Prosecution's constantly being asked -- or it's being asserted that the

10     Prosecution has to justify using this or that document simply by

11     presenting it to a witness in cross-examination.  We don't think we have

12     to do that.  We think that certainly additional justifications and

13     explanations are required if we tender the document, but that's what the

14     issue is about.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one thing, Mr. Stringer.

16             If the document has not been included in the 65 ter list, you

17     have to show good cause why you want to use the document.  And if you

18     present it, you basically -- it boils down to adding it to the 65 ter

19     list.  And the Appeals Chamber was very clear.  You have to justify, to

20     show reasons that there was no lack of diligence on your part, because it

21     would be incredible that you would have had a document for four or five

22     years and you get it out at the last minute.  So, I mean, every

23     Appeals Chamber decision is logical, is reasoned.  I can speak about it

24     for hours.  It seems very clear to me, but not obviously for the

25     Prosecution, who has problems with it.

Page 47055

 1             Yes, Mr. Khan.

 2             MR. KHAN:  Mr. President, I'm most grateful.  I am mindful of the

 3     time, and I'll be brief.

 4             I do note my learned friend had said that he wasn't wishing to

 5     litigate today the issue, notwithstanding the fact he did, of course, go

 6     into quite some detail.  Your Honour has already pointed out that the

 7     Appeals Chamber decision is standing.  This is a contentious issue, and

 8     it's one that is liable to take up quite some court time, if the

 9     Prosecution seek to reopen matters that we thought had been settled by

10     the Appeals Chamber.

11             Your Honours, there's no objection if my learned friends for the

12     Prosecution wish to seek further clarification, but perhaps that can be

13     done by way of written motion, to which the parties can respond.  But,

14     Your Honours, it is a matter that, if it's litigated in court, is going

15     to be quite contentious and, I think, take quite a lot time.

16             MR. STEWART:  Actually, Your Honour, I was going to make a rather

17     different suggestion from Mr. Khan.  It's quite -- by -- Mr. Stringer, to

18     be fair, made it clear at the outset he didn't particularly want to be

19     drawn into submissions this afternoon, but, Your Honour, our position is

20     that we're not accepting what he says this afternoon, but it is apparent

21     that there is some need for clarification.  But where I disagree with my

22     learned friend Mr. Khan is that really it's not going to be resolved by

23     written motions.  That's likely to make it worse.  We've all got our

24     favourite procedures here, but this is an example of something which

25     won't be worked out satisfactorily by written motions.

Page 47056

 1             What I was going to suggest, much more satisfactory, is that

 2     Mr. Stringer - and he usually has no objection to this sort of

 3     suggestion - if Mr. Stringer could just give some sort of note of -- just

 4     a checklist, some sort of skeleton of the particular points that he has

 5     in mind.  We really ought to debate it in court.

 6             Your Honour, as a matter of fact, whether or not that would put

 7     Mr. Stringer under time pressure, probably not, because he's clearly

 8     thought about the matter.  We do have tomorrow, actually.  We really do

 9     have a whole day tomorrow where we could thrash this stuff out.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, but the Judges'

11     time is of the essence, is very precious, because we have to study

12     thousands of pages, hundreds of thousands of pages, umpteen documents.

13     Look at the number of documents through this witness alone.

14             Mr. Stringer raises an issue that has already been settled by the

15     Trial Chamber.  We're going to discuss the issue among ourselves, and we

16     will tell you whether we want to have oral litigation or use the written

17     procedures.  I usually have my answer, but there is four of us, so each

18     of us has to express their opinions.  There's no point in sort of

19     discussing in a vacuum.  If there is a legal problem, we can have a

20     motion, a written decision, and possibly the Appeals Chamber.

21             So let's not waste time on one new document that came up within

22     one week.  So that's the problem.

23             So the Judges are going to discuss the issue, and we will tell

24     you on Monday what we're going to do.  Either we litigate it in court or

25     we'll ask all the parties to file submissions.

Page 47057

 1             MR. STEWART:  Your Honour, may I say something which I say with

 2     the greatest of respect, and it may not come as music to Your Honours'

 3     ears.  But there is a point -- Your Honours refer to the valuable time of

 4     the Judges, but, Your Honours, there is a point at which, when counsel,

 5     and I mean Mr. Stringer here, but also clarification is needed on our

 6     side, there is a point at which when there is an issue which we, doing

 7     our jobs, really wish to have discussed and have Your Honours ruling on,

 8     that Your Honours' valuable time, really, with respect, might be made

 9     available to us to do that.  And, Your Honour, that is what we are

10     asking.

11             What is extremely valuable is --

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, it is now 5 past

13     7.00.  The interpreters have been working since the beginning of the

14     hearing.  We shall, therefore, continue, possibly, but the Judges will

15     issue a decision, because you raise an issue that challenges a decision

16     by the Appeals Chamber.  That's all.  That's the problem you now raise.

17     The Trial Chamber is going to see whether there is any cause for review,

18     and then we'll tell you what our decision is.  We're not going to start

19     the discussion now just because one of you raised an issue regarding one

20     single document.

21             The hearing stands adjourned.

22                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,

23                           to be continued on Monday, the 23rd day of

24                           November, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.