Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 48353

 1                           Thursday, 14 January 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you kindly call

 6     the case, please.

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

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

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

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.  Today is

11     Thursday, the 14th of January, 2010.  I would like first of all to greet

12     the accused, Defence counsel, all the honourable members on the team of

13     the OTP, and all the people assisting us in the courtroom.  And I should

14     also greet the witness once he enters the courtroom.

15             I believe Mr. Kovacic wanted to take the floor.

16             MR. KOVACIC:  Yes, good morning, Your Honours, good morning

17     everybody in the courtroom.

18             [Interpretation] I thought practical reasons it would be a good

19     idea to resolve immediately the issue of protection of the next witness

20     because technical preparations are needed, and we shouldn't do that at

21     the 11th hour.  That witness --

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, we'll move into

23     private session.

24             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I wanted to avoid mentioning

25     names, but this is safe.

Page 48354

 1                           [Private session]

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 48355











11 Pages 48355-48357 redacted. Private session.















Page 48358

 1     (redacted).

 2                           [Open session]

 3             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.  Thank

 4     you.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. West, you have 42 minutes

 6     left.

 7             MS. WEST:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 8                           [The witness takes the stand]

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Colonel, please take a seat.

10     One moment, Mrs. West, I have a question arising out of my thoughts

11     during the night.

12             Please have a seat, sir.

13             Colonel, I have a small follow-up question for you.  Yesterday,

14     as you saw, we looked at a document relating to this famous meeting which

15     took place in the month of November.  You were seizing the political

16     authorities during this meeting of a number of issues, and I had called

17     your attention to item 6 that related to the line of command which you

18     wanted to be unique.  Since then I have thought about it some more, and I

19     must tell you this:  There is a discussion on the fact whether there was

20     or not a single line of command at the time.  General Praljak himself

21     explained to us that after the events on the 9th of May of which he knew

22     nothing at all, he had a discussion with Mr. Tuta.  I shall not go into

23     the details of this discussion.  Other elements lead us to believe that

24     there might have been a line of command with Boban, Naletilic, a direct

25     line of command between the two, without the minister of defence being

Page 48359

 1     advised of it at all or the Chief of Staff for that matter and even the

 2     commander of the operational zones or the brigade commanders.  Since you

 3     were an officer on the ground, you met your colleagues from time to time,

 4     you held meetings with your superiors.  Did you have any knowledge of the

 5     existence of any other chain of command, non-traditional chain of

 6     command, since as definitions go the real chain of commands goes from the

 7     head of state right down to the lower levels in a traditional manner.  It

 8     seems that the line of command went from the chief of -- head of state to

 9     a specialised unit and then other factions.  What did you hear at the

10     time about the existence of a dual chain of command?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, my position as chief

12     of artillery in the military district did not give me great opportunity

13     to acquire information of that sort, but to the extent that I know, and I

14     had some information which I believe was correct, and that is that there

15     was a direct line of command between Mr. Boban and that unit.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are telling us something

17     important.  You learned that there was a chain of command that

18     established this line between Boban and the head of the units.  Does this

19     mean that in military terms that the minister of defence was sidelined,

20     the Chief of Staff, and the commander of the operational zone were

21     sidelined?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Precisely.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24             Yes.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, I would like to insist a bit on this.

Page 48360

 1     You have been very cautious in your answer.  First you've said this is

 2     not something that you had much opportunity.  I quote your position:

 3             "... did not give me great opportunity to acquire information of

 4     that sort ..."

 5             And then you add that, I quote again:

 6             "To the extent that I know, and I had some information which I

 7     believe was correct, and that is that there was a direct line of

 8     command ..."

 9             Now, could you tell us where you had received such information

10     and what it consists?  Could you explain us on what this putative

11     knowledge, I think it can be called, of yours is based?  Did Mr. Praljak

12     tell you?  Did Mr. Naletilic tell you?  Did Mr. Boban tell you?  Was this

13     a subject of conversation among your colleagues?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a number of members of

15     this unit share the same birthplace with me, and of course I had occasion

16     to run into them from time to time.  And from contacts with them I

17     concluded that they were receiving orders directly from the president.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Which unit would that be you're talking about?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm talking about the unit that was

20     named a moment ago as Tuta's unit, but originally it was called the

21     Convicts' Battalion.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  And were there -- among these people

23     were there any higher officers of that unit, or were -- was it simple

24     soldiers that told you?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if we take the middle level

Page 48361

 1     of that unit, officers not of the highest rank but still officers whom I

 2     trusted at the time.  I trusted their information.

 3             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. West.

 5             MS. WEST:  Good morning, Mr. President; good morning,

 6     Your Honours; good morning, everyone in and around the courtroom.

 7                           WITNESS:  VINKO MARIC [Resumed]

 8                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 9                           Cross-examination by Ms. West: [Continued]

10        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Maric.

11             Sir, I just want to take up where Judge Trechsel left off, and I

12     just want to clarify a little bit of what you just said.  Should we

13     understand then that you've never seen a document evidencing this direct

14     line of command between Boban and the Convicts' Battalion?

15        A.   I personally did not see a document that would confirm that, but

16     I said a moment ago that I had information from people who were quite

17     important in that unit.

18        Q.   Let's talk about those people.  Are those just two people or more

19     than two people?

20        A.   Specifically it's one of the commanders who unfortunately lost

21     his life while liberating Rastani on the 24th of August, 1993.  He was a

22     commander in that unit, and he's from the same neighbourhood as I.

23        Q.   So you've had -- this information is based on a conversation with

24     only one person; is that right?

25        A.   No, no.  If you give me time I can remember some more names of

Page 48362

 1     people who told me the same thing.

 2        Q.   Go ahead, what are the other names?

 3        A.   One platoon commander who also lost his life in a hunting

 4     accident, Mr. Stojcic, a platoon commander in that unit.

 5        Q.   That's two people.  Is there a third?

 6        A.   I could recall, although it was a long time ago, for example,

 7     Mr. Sopta, but not the general.  There were more than one person called

 8     Sopta in that unit.  And some more soldiers of lower ranks in the same

 9     unit.

10        Q.   This --

11        A.   Perhaps a confirmation of what I'm saying could be that I as a

12     chief never had the opportunity to plan any use of artillery in direct

13     support to that unit, and it's hard to imagine that in three years of war

14     I would not have to do that.

15        Q.   Mr. Maric, the individual you called Mr. Sopta, what's his first

16     name?

17        A.   His father's name is Vinko.  We called him Dok.

18        Q.   And where -- go ahead.

19        A.   I've already said that in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in our part of the

20     world, nicknames are used a lot more than real names, like additional

21     names for certain neighbourhoods --

22        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ...

23        A.   For instance, a particular neighbourhood can be called three

24     different names.

25        Q.   Where does Mr. Sopta live today?

Page 48363

 1        A.   This gentleman, Mr. Sopta is no longer alive.  A vast majority

 2     from that unit and from the HVO are dying to this day.  Just before I

 3     left in order to come here, one of my fellow combatants was on his

 4     death-bed.

 5        Q.   Mr. Maric, then you've mentioned three individuals who gave you

 6     this information, but all three individuals, as I understand it, are

 7     dead.  But then you said some more soldiers of lower ranks in the same

 8     unit, is that right, gave you the same information as well?

 9        A.   Well, I could probably remember if I gave it some more thought.

10     I could remember some names of persons at lower ranks.  However, the fact

11     remains that this unit was very rarely in contact and in the zone of my

12     interest.  So I did not have the duty to take care of the members of that

13     unit --

14        Q.   Mr. Maric --

15        A.   -- so it is hard to remember -- yes?

16        Q.   Mr. Maric, can you give us any one name of a soldier in that unit

17     who's still alive today that gave you this information?

18        A.   Robert, I can't remember his last name.

19        Q.   So again, I'll repeat my question.  Can you give me a first and

20     last name, a first and surname, of any person alive today who gave you

21     that information?

22        A.   Names, yes; surnames, not really.

23        Q.   Okay.  So you cannot fully identify anyone who is alive today who

24     gave you that information?

25        A.   Your Honours, I tried to remember after 17 years -- even if I try

Page 48364

 1     to remember the names of the people who were closest to me, even with the

 2     best of intentions, I need a lot of time to remember their names unless I

 3     have certain documents from that time before me --

 4        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Maric.

 5        A.   That is one matter.  Secondly, please take into account the fact

 6     that my health is seriously impaired, and you must trust me that I have

 7     indeed forgotten certain facts regarding names and surnames.

 8        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Maric, we'll move on.  Yesterday when we --

 9     towards the end we were talking about -- yes.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.  We will move on

11     to something else, but you gave us a technical detail that was quite

12     interesting.  You said that throughout your period of command you were

13     never associated to a support to the unit commanded by Naletilic, and

14     that was a bit surprising for you.  Does this mean that Naletilic's unit,

15     as far as weapons are concerned, had its own artillery, mortars, and so

16     on, and maybe they were well equipped?  And because of that, notably if

17     they were acting outside the chain of command, didn't need to have

18     logistical support and artillery support provided by an artillery unit

19     that would be in the line of command under the chain -- the staff or that

20     would be also an artillery unit that depended from the operational zone?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All manoeuvre units that were

22     established in the HVO were not of extremely large capacity.  But in

23     relation to infantry units and brigades, they were, within the military

24     districts, better equipped, and they had their own resources for support.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

Page 48365

 1             Mrs. West, you may move on.

 2             MS. WEST:

 3        Q.   Mr. Maric, yesterday we were talking about the Old Bridge and

 4     some orders in regard to it.  And specifically we were talking about a

 5     November 8th packet order from Petkovic, and in turn a November 8th order

 6     from Lasic to shell the town of Mostar selectively on that day.  And that

 7     was the day before the bridge finally came down.  I noted in my questions

 8     to you that there was no specific targeting language in the November 8

 9     orders, and you gave an explanation.  And you're going to see that on

10     your screen, on the Sanction screen in front of you.  This is from

11     transcript 48349, if you look right in front of you.  I was looking at

12     the orders and I said that the order said:

13             "'Shell the city of Mostar selectively at different time

14     intervals.'"

15             And I said:

16             "Is that language familiar to you?"  And I believe we were

17     looking at the Lasic order.

18             You said:  "Yes."

19             And I said:

20             "Because it appears that Lasic just took the Petkovic order and

21     forwarded it down the chain of command; correct?"

22             Your answer was:  "Yes."

23             And then I asked:

24             "... whether this order specifically articulated targeting the

25     bridge or not, and isn't that exactly what happened on November 8th?"

Page 48366

 1             You said:

 2             "I don't see a reference to the bridge as a target."

 3             And I said:

 4             "No, that's exactly right.  You don't see specific language of

 5     the bridge as a target, but isn't it a fact, yes or no, that on

 6     November 8th the Old Bridge was targeted by the HVO?"

 7             And your answer was this:

 8             "Under item 2 it says selectively shelling."

 9             You said:

10             "At that moment the HVO knew about military targets and their

11     nature, and that referred exclusively to those military targets which

12     were under the war doctrine served for the purpose of military units.

13     They were used for the planning and conduct of combat activities and

14     operations."

15             So, Mr. Maric, my question today for you is:  Yesterday when you

16     said this, were you suggesting that these orders that say "selective

17     targeting," the reason they said that was because those military targets

18     were already so well known by the HVO that there was no reason to list

19     them?  Is that right?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   Don't you agree that such ambiguity in language, such unclear

22     language, could potentially lead to confusion as to what the target was,

23     yes or no?

24             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honour, to the

25     term "unclear language."

Page 48367

 1             MS. WEST:  Your Honour, I don't accept the objection.

 2     "Ambiguity" means unclear.  I think the witness can determine what I mean

 3     by that.  I'll ask it again.

 4        Q.   Sir, don't you agree that such ambiguity in language, such

 5     unclear language, could potentially lead to confusion as to what the

 6     target was, yes or no?

 7        A.   There can be no confusion --

 8        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Maric --

 9        A.   -- that is a period when -- yes?

10        Q.   Now, this would -- language in an order like this would have been

11     out of the ordinary, would it not?  It would have been unusual?

12        A.   Your Honours, the logic of military thinking is probably rather

13     different from the logic of legal thinking.  The logic of military

14     thinking --

15        Q.   Mr. Maric, that's not my question.  Excuse me, that was not my

16     question.  Let me say it again, and you can answer.  Let's try it again.

17     So my question was --

18        A.   Yes, please go ahead, do repeat your question.

19        Q.   -- would this language in the order, would this have been out of

20     the ordinary, would it not, it would have been unusual?  The answer to

21     that question is:  Yes, no, or I don't know.

22             MR. STEWART:  Your Honour, that's not really fair.  The answer to

23     a question of that nature can perfectly reasonably require some

24     explanation.  The witness is being asked by a lawyer about a military

25     document, and his answer, the introduction he was giving, is his answer

Page 48368

 1     as a military person giving evidence, and it's entirely reasonable that

 2     he should preface and give his explanation and answer to Ms. West's

 3     question in this way.  And the interruption of his answer a few minutes

 4     ago was inappropriate.  He should have been allowed to continue.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. West, you are a lawyer,

 6     you know the law.  I'm sure that the colonel has some inkling of the law,

 7     but he's not a legal expert himself.  So if your question has legal

 8     aspects, and he says, No, I'm not -- don't think so, you can ask him some

 9     additional information.  If he answers, No, and then you go on to move on

10     to something else, any reasonable trier of fact will think that he is

11     right because you're not going into details, you're not pressing on,

12     which is why Mr. Stewart actually rose to his feet.

13             MS. WEST:  Thank you, Mr. President.

14        Q.   I'm going to ask you a another question instead, Mr. Maric, and

15     we're going to go to some more of the testimony from yesterday.  I asked

16     you a question in regard to that very same language I was asking you

17     about, selective targeting and whether targets should be listed in

18     orders.  And I said --

19             MS. WEST:  If we can just have a moment, please.  Thank you.

20        Q.   So yesterday I was talking about the same order, and I said:

21             "It said:

22             'Shell the town of Mostar selectively at various intervals.'

23             "Mr. Maric, in your experience in military -- well, in your

24     experience, when orders were issued regarding offensive operations, did

25     they normally include a specific targeting information?  We've seen a

Page 48369

 1     couple."

 2             And your answer from yesterday was:

 3             "Yes."

 4             Sir, do you remember that testimony from yesterday?

 5        A.   Your Honours, distinguished Prosecutor, I cannot remember

 6     everything I said exactly, but I shall confirm that when planning assault

 7     activity, it is necessary, inter alia, to point out specifically if one

 8     is planning attacks with a view to taking territory of the other side.

 9     Then the directions and objectives are spelled out in very specific

10     terms.  In the documents from this time that are being discussed

11     yesterday and today, there were no concrete orders on attacks; namely, to

12     abandon one's own positions and to penetrate enemy territory.  The term

13     used here is activity against enemy objectives.

14        Q.   Mr. Maric --

15        A.   That is what is stated -- yes?

16        Q.   Yesterday I also showed you a document which was from the night

17     of November 8th, and it was a report from Lasic who had written that at

18     8.10 that morning the HVO tank had been firing from Stotina that whole

19     day, and it fired 50 projectiles on the Old Town.  Now I want to show you

20     another document, and it should be directly in front of you.  It's

21     P09992; I opened up your binder to that page.  P09992.  This is a report

22     from November 9th, so the day the bridge came down, and it's a report

23     from 1900 hours that evening, and it's from Lasic.  Number 1 is combat

24     activity of the enemy, and then number 2 is entitled "our forces."  And

25     it says:

Page 48370

 1             "Defenders firmly hold their positions.  And on provocation

 2     coming from the Muslim army, they returned fire from time to time.  They

 3     did not return fire at the Chetniks."

 4             But then the next paragraph says:

 5             "In addition to the fire from infantry weapons at around 10.00 --

 6     1000 hours our tank fired few projectiles at a target which was

 7     determined earlier.  At around 1015 hours our reconnaissance people from

 8     Hum reported that the Old Bridge was torn down, and they could not say

 9     anything about the cause of its destruction."

10             Sir, I want to focus on the language here that says "a target

11     which was determined earlier."  This is unusual language in a report like

12     this, is it not?

13        A.   Your Honours, distinguished Prosecutor, I shall go back a day or

14     two or several hours --

15        Q.   Mr. Maric --

16        A.   -- to a response I gave to one of the Prosecutor's questions

17     where I was --

18        Q.   Apologies for the interruption.  Mr. Maric, excuse me, stop.

19        A.   Yes?

20        Q.   My question was quite clear, and the answer in this case

21     certainly is a yes or no.  Let's try it again.  I want to focus on the

22     language here which says "a target that was determined earlier."  This is

23     unusual language in a report like this, is it not?  Sir, can you answer

24     that question yes or no or I don't know.

25        A.   Your Honours, on the 9th of November at 4.00, I went to

Page 48371

 1     reconnoitre --

 2        Q.   Sir, this has nothing to do with --

 3        A.   -- the southern part of the --

 4        Q.   Excuse me, sir, I have refrained from asking for an order for you

 5     to be responsive.  I have refrained from doing that.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Colonel, I understand that you

 7     want to give us additional information to explain.  I understand why

 8     you're doing this, but this is a specific procedure.  Here the Prosecutor

 9     is entitled to put questions, but she needs an answer yes or no.  A yes

10     or no answer, and if you don't agree, just say no.  And if Ms. West wants

11     to know why you are saying no, then she can press on and put another

12     question to you.  As I told you earlier, if she's not pressing on, I will

13     infer from this that you're telling the truth.  So it's up to her to

14     conduct the game.  She puts questions to you, answer by yes or no, and if

15     she wants to contradict you because she doesn't agree with your answer,

16     negative answer, then she has to provide you with additional information,

17     and then you can develop what you want to say.  I know that you want to

18     explain yourself.  In my own procedure in my own country, there would be

19     no problem with that, and we would spend hours on all of this.  And the

20     trial would have been over ages ago.  But this is another type of

21     procedure, it's very lengthy, even though we're supposed to have a quick

22     trial according to the Security Council.  So, please, we have to follow

23     the procedure.  So answer by yes or no, and if Mrs. West wants to press

24     on, she will.  Anyway, I will have a question later on.  So please

25     answer.

Page 48372

 1             MS. WEST:

 2        Q.   Mr. Maric, isn't it true that the target determined that's

 3     referenced here was the Old Bridge?

 4        A.   No.

 5        Q.   And would you agree that the target determined earlier could have

 6     been the subject of discussions between Lasic, the author of this report,

 7     and Praljak at the meeting that took place 48 hours earlier on

 8     November 7th?

 9        A.   Your Honours, no.

10             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm sorry, witness, I have a question regarding

11     your previous answers.  You were asked whether the target that was

12     determined was the Old Bridge.  Now we're talking about an order given to

13     tanks, and you have told us that tanks are not part of the artillery.

14     How do you know what kind of order was given?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know what kind of order was

16     issued to them, but if the order was given from a higher level to the

17     level where I operated, then I would have to have that order before me at

18     some point in time, either immediately or later.  Because professional

19     organs had the possibility of seeing all orders that came from higher

20     instances and also all orders that were elaborated at military district

21     level and that went further down the line.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm afraid I don't find that a very clear

23     answer.  Isn't it a fact that you do not really know what was the

24     previous target that is mentioned in this report?  Have you seen the

25     order?  You have explained that it should come down and you should have

Page 48373

 1     the possibility to see it.  That's not enough.  That's not enough.  You

 2     have clearly said no, you don't know -- no, it was not that target, and I

 3     want to know on what this was based.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I base my answer on the fact that I

 5     did not see such an order and that I did not hear of such an order.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Well, wouldn't then the correct answer be:  I

 7     don't know?

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I don't know, if that's the

 9     best -- I don't know, I'm not a lawyer; I'm a soldier.  I don't know.  I

10     don't know what's best for lawyers.  I don't know.

11             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  It's not a matter that you have to be a lawyer

12     to understand.  Either you don't know, then you can say it was not this;

13     or, as it turns out now, you cannot positively know, and then you should

14     not give the answer that you think would be the desirable answer, the --

15     what would have been the right thing.  But you have to say "I don't

16     know."  Otherwise it's not the truth, what you're saying.

17             MR. STEWART:  Your Honour ...

18             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, if you

19     just look at the question that was put by my colleague, Ms. West, her

20     question was:  Isn't it true that, et cetera ...  so the witness was

21     responding to the question as it had been put, and he answered from his

22     point of view, namely, that it is not true.  Had the -- had my colleague

23     put the question in a more open-ended way, perhaps his answer would have

24     been:  I don't know.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Colonel, in the document that

Page 48374

 1     is on the screen, there is a culpatory element.  It says, and I quote:

 2             "In addition to the fire from infantry weapons, at around

 3     1000 hours our tank fired few projectiles at a target which was

 4     determined earlier."

 5             You're black on white -- black and white it is written that the

 6     Old Bridge which must be the target, because in the following sentence

 7     there is mention of the Old Bridge, was determined as a target or had

 8     been determined as a target.  Maybe the officer in charge of drafting

 9     this report did a poor job.  But still when you read all this, as

10     Mrs. West is submitting, it seems that there was a plan to fire at the

11     old bridge, and here we have a report saying that this has been done.

12     There were shots, projectiles were fired, and the Old Bridge fell down,

13     was torn down.  Then the person drafting the report says, We know nothing

14     about the cause of the destruction.  Now, militarily-wise, I'm not

15     looking at -- thinking about liability or responsibility here.  I'm just

16     thinking about what happened in terms of military -- in terms of

17     military.  Can a tank fire at a bridge if this objective has not been

18     predetermined?

19             MR. STEWART:  Your Honours, I was actually -- we try not to do a

20     double act, but my point is a separate one from the one that Ms. Alaburic

21     made, which of course I support.  But when Judge Trechsel put at page 20,

22     line 19, to the witness:  Well, wouldn't then the correct answer be:  I

23     don't know?  Which is a perfectly normal way of cross-examining, and I

24     don't mean that offensively, that is the sort of question which might be

25     put in cross-examination of a witness.  But with respect it's not really

Page 48375

 1     fair in the light of what the witness has said, because what the witness

 2     is saying - and that's a clear -- I'm not arguing the case.  I'm simply

 3     pointing out what's on the transcript.  He's saying that he bases his

 4     answer on the fact that he did not see such an order, and I did not hear

 5     of such an order, but that has to be linked with what he has clearly said

 6     a few lines above, which is if there had been such an order, he would

 7     have seen it.  And on that basis the answer:  No, there was no -- no such

 8     order, that wasn't the position, is perfectly fair.  Now, Your Honours

 9     may or may not accept in the end, that's for Your Honours' judgement, the

10     ingredients that go into the witness's answer.  Your judgements as to

11     whether he is or isn't telling the truth on particular points is

12     ultimately Your Honours' judgement.  But the way that Judge Trechsel,

13     with respect, then put the -- and it is a cross-examination point to the

14     witness, really did not take proper account of what the witness had given

15     fairly and squarely as his answers.

16             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Just one point, Your Honours.  I

17     would now like to say something about the translation.  I must say that

18     I'm not sure whether the translation is good or not, so I would like to

19     ask our colleagues from the interpretation booths to look at the

20     formulation.  In the Croatian text we have a neutral formation, as it

21     were, where a verb is used, and it is stated around 1015, Our

22     reconnaissance from Hum informed us that the bridge was destroyed.  The

23     formulation was not that someone destroyed the bridge or that the bridge

24     just collapsed on its own.  It is indefinite.  But the -- the translation

25     is "was torn down."  I'm a lay person as far as the English language is

Page 48376

 1     concerned, but it seems to me that the English version suggests that

 2     someone tore down the bridge, whereas the Croatian version keeps this

 3     neutral formulation, that the bridge was destroyed, but that we don't

 4     know -- we don't know who destroyed it or how.  If I could ask Sinisa and

 5     the lady to help us out with that.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me return to my question

 7     because the interventions from the two lawyers threw us a little bit

 8     astray.  So in your language it seems that the tank is firing at a target

 9     which was determined earlier.  Militarily-wise, when a tank is firing a

10     projectile, is it firing at predetermined targets or is -- can the tank

11     crew just fire anywhere?  Are they free to fire anywhere?

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As a rule, fire is opened at

13     targets that had been set.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.

15             Mrs. West.

16             MS. WEST:

17        Q.   Sir, we're going to move to P06564.  Sir, it's in your binder.

18     It's marked on top 0564 [sic], and we're going to go to page 2 of the

19     English, and it's -- the page of the B/C/S, it's the only page.  P06564.

20             MS. WEST:  Thank you, Mr. Usher.

21        Q.   This is a report from November 10th, 1993, signed by Lasic.  And

22     it begins:

23             "On November 9th between 1015 and 1020 the Stari Most,

24     Old Bridge, fell into the Neretva River.  And I'm hereby sending you the

25     information that we have in connection."

Page 48377

 1             And there's number 1 which talks about the damage, number 2 talks

 2     about the Serbs.  Number 3 says the Old Bridge was in the vicinity of the

 3     line of separation.  Number 4 talks about the bridge not being marked.

 4     But then we come to number 5, and it talks about targeting.  And let's

 5     read that.  It says:

 6             "HVO units never targeted the Old Bridge, and destroying it was

 7     not the aim.  Defending themselves against numerous attacks by the MOS

 8     from the direction of the Old Bridge towards Podhum and the Franciscan

 9     church where there were many breakthroughs of the defence line, units

10     fired at the enemy's manpower and materiel near the bridge.  The

11     Old Bridge was destroyed as a consequence of combat operations because

12     that area has been the scene of fierce clashes since the beginning of the

13     conflict."

14             Mr. Maric, doesn't it appear here, doesn't it appear to you, that

15     Lasic is denying that the bridge was targeted, but at the same time gives

16     an excuse as to why the HVO brought it down?  Claimed it was an accident,

17     claimed it wasn't deliberate, claims that it was the result of units

18     fired at the enemy's manpower and materiel near the bridge; isn't that a

19     correct summary, sir?

20        A.   Your Honour, the question by the distinguished Prosecutor implies

21     that Lasic said that they had destroyed the Old Bridge, which I cannot

22     see in this document.  I also have to say I'm seeing this report for the

23     first time because on the 9th, after I returned from command

24     reconnaissance in the southern theatre, 50 kilometres away from Mostar,

25     in view of my injuries and later health problems, I was bedridden for the

Page 48378

 1     next 12 days -- 20 days.  And if I have to look at a document for the

 2     first time, I agree to analyse it from the military point of view, but I

 3     was not a witness to these events.  I didn't even see the documents at

 4     the time because, as I said, I was in a bad way.

 5        Q.   Mr. Maric, don't you agree with me that it appears from

 6     paragraph 5 that Lasic admits, concedes, indicates, that the HVO brought

 7     down the bridge but he just didn't put it on paper that the HVO had

 8     actually targeted it?

 9        A.   Your Honours, I'm reading what it says here.  I don't know what

10     Commander Lasic was thinking or what he meant.  I don't see it written

11     that the HVO had destroyed the bridge.  Madam Prosecutor, I heard from

12     you in the last three or four hours of examination a number of terms that

13     I could have reacted to, spending more than 30 minutes of your time.  And

14     trying to understand you, I tried to answer as best I could.  But reading

15     someone's thoughts 17, 20 years later is very hard --

16        Q.   Thank you.  Let's just focus on the second sentence here.  He's

17     saying:

18             "Defending themselves against numerous attacks," and there he's

19     talking about his own units, "from the direction of the MOS ... there

20     were many breakthroughs of the defence line."

21             And then he says:

22             "Units," HVO units, "fired at the enemy's manpower and materiel

23     near the bridge."

24             You would agree with me that what that refers to is units, HVO

25     units, firing at materiel near the bridge; correct?

Page 48379

 1        A.   Your Honours, in operations against the Army of Republika Srpska,

 2     especially when crossing the bridge, I lost one man who did not belong to

 3     my unit, but I know that one soldier was hit -- killed there --

 4        Q.   Mr. Maric, I can't begin to imagine how the beginning of that

 5     sentence could be responsive to my --

 6        A.   One sentence, and then you will have your answer.

 7        Q.   Please give it.

 8        A.   Thus, at certain moments the Old Bridge could have been

 9     identified as a legitimate military target.  And it's possible that fire

10     was opened at it in order to neutralise certain parts of enemy manpower.

11        Q.   So you agree with me that there's a real possibility that all

12     these orders indeed do talk about targeting the Old Bridge, sir?  Is that

13     the conclusion you're giving the Court?

14        A.   No, that's not the conclusion.

15        Q.   You just said it's a real -- you just said that it's possible

16     that fire was opened at it in order to neutralise certain parts of enemy

17     manpower.  Fire was opened at it.  It is possible, you just said, that

18     fire is opened at it.  When you said "it," you meant the Old Bridge ;

19     correct?

20             MR. STEWART:  I think we have to be careful because the question

21     put is not the same.  There's much more in the question that Ms. West

22     just put to the witness than what he had already said.  So to suggest

23     that all her question is doing is reflecting what he's already said,

24     which would raise another question as to why we're wasting our time going

25     over the same ground again, is actually not fair.

Page 48380

 1             MS. WEST:  I'm sure this can be addressed on re-direct.

 2        Q.   Mr. Maric, I'll continue.  The next sentence is:

 3             "The Old Bridge was destroyed as a consequence of combat

 4     operations."

 5             Sir, when you look at all of paragraph 5, you read the whole

 6     thing, don't you agree that what Mr. Lasic is saying here is that the HVO

 7     brought down the bridge, whether it was targeted or not?

 8        A.   I do not agree that one can conclude from this sentence that the

 9     HVO destroyed the bridge.

10        Q.   Thank you.

11             MS. WEST:  I'm going to move to another subject unless the

12     Chamber has any questions.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Colonel, according to this

14     document which I'm looking at, Mr. Lasic provides an explanation, the

15     following explanation.  He says that the Muslim units, let's say the

16     ABiH, were by the bridge and that was -- and that there was equipment

17     there.  And then he said that there were clashes since the beginning of

18     the conflict, and this was a clash seen.  He then adds that the ABiH,

19     because the bridge was seemingly located in the geographical area of the

20     ABiH, they did not hoist the flag of UNICEF, because had they hoisted the

21     UNICEF flag, things might have been different in that case.  He then says

22     that the HVO never targeted the Old Bridge and destroyed it.  And then he

23     added that they needed to defend themselves against numerous attacks of

24     the Muslims coming from the Old Bridge.  This is what he says.  I, and as

25     I'm sure you did also, we watched the videos.  There were videos of this.

Page 48381

 1     When I see that tank firing, we can also see tracer bullets.  I believe

 2     the tracer bullets don't come from the tank.  There are tracer bullets

 3     and there are projectiles which hit the Old Bridge.  But during this

 4     scene I didn't hear shots coming from the ABiH.  I don't have the feeling

 5     that there was any exchange of fire then.  I believe it is the tank that

 6     is firing.  There is no fighting ongoing which Mr. Lasic describes.

 7     Perhaps this was actually happening and perhaps the video was not very

 8     comprehensive.

 9             Let me get to my question now.  When one needs to use the

10     artillery, whether it be small pieces of artillery or heavy artillery,

11     does one need to open fire because someone fires at you?  Or can one fire

12     because it has been planned militarily, when targets have been set, prior

13     to firing; and in that case one states:  At 1500 hours, at 1530, we

14     shoot, we fire, and that all this has been planned beforehand because the

15     ammunition needs to be loaded, the cannons need to cool down.  And for a

16     number of reasons the shots are spaced out.  So my question is a very

17     simple one:  Is a cannon, artilleryman, or a tank -- member of a tank

18     group just shoot?  Or is he entitled to shoot outside the shooting

19     targets or times if necessary?

20             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I'm sorry, before your answer, I would like to

21     already say that on page 28, lines 4 and 5, there is a mistake in -- on

22     the screen that -- I believe that Judge Antonetti spoke not about the

23     UNICEF, which is the United Nations Children's Fund, but he spoke about

24     UNESCO, the flag of UNESCO, et cetera, et cetera, it is just for the

25     correction of the record.

Page 48382

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If my colleague had looked at

 2     the text, he would have seen that the text actually mentioned UNICEF and

 3     not UNESCO.  It should have been the UNESCO flag, but we are dealing with

 4     legal matters here, and what we have in the document is UNICEF not

 5     UNESCO, but my fellow Judge did not see the document.  So this is

 6     confusing, and when a question is summarised like this and I'm

 7     interrupted, I lose track.  Well, anyway, would you like me to put the

 8     question again?

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would prefer it if you could

10     repeat.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, right, so I shall repeat

12     my question.  Generally speaking my questions are very long because I'm

13     very cautious.  I must be very careful about what I say.  In the document

14     we have before us a flag is mentioned, a flag which the Muslims should

15     have hoisted, a UNICEF flag, it should have been a UNESCO flag, but that

16     is a point of detail.  But Mr. Lasic then indicates that fighting has

17     taken place and that the Muslims who were near the bridge were firing and

18     that there were clashes.  Therefore, Mr. Lasic concludes in paragraph 5

19     that the Old Bridge was never targeted as a target as such, and it was

20     not destroyed with an aim and with a view to destroying the bridge, but

21     fighting took place.  So one can therefore conclude that the destruction

22     of the Old Bridge is a consequence of the fighting.  So if we go beyond

23     that, I would like to put the question to you which runs as follows.  So

24     when a tank fires, when an artilleryman fires with a heavy weapon, does

25     one fire at targets which are predetermined, preset targets?  Or does one

Page 48383

 1     fire according to the events unfolding?  And I would like to add that I

 2     told you on looking at the videos, one has a feeling that the tank crew

 3     fires at regular intervals, and on the video one cannot hear shots fired

 4     from the Muslims.

 5             Have you understood my question?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know exactly what you can

 7     see and hear in that footage.  I didn't see it many times.  I just don't

 8     like to watch it.  But according to the rules, one opens fire at certain

 9     targets if your own life is threatened from that direction.  Units or

10     assets always have to be manned, regardless of whether it's an artillery

11     weapon or an infantry weapon.  So this fire targeting the area around the

12     Old Bridge was certainly provoked by certain actions of the other side,

13     and the bridge as a predetermined target did not exist.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. West.

15             MS. WEST:  Thank you, Mr. President.

16        Q.   Mr. Maric, we're going to go to P03899, P03899, and the pink

17     tab -- sorry, the yellow tab's at the top, we'll give you that.  This is

18     a letter, August 2nd, 1993, signed by you.  P03899.  Do you recognise

19     this, sir?

20        A.   I do, Your Honours.

21        Q.   This is a resignation letter, sir.

22        A.   It's a letter whereby I, among other things, offered my

23     resignation.

24        Q.   Thank you.  In the first paragraph, it's a bit of an introductory

25     paragraph, but right in the middle you say:

Page 48384

 1             "I'm very worried about the way in which a large number of

 2     commanders, chiefs, assistants, clerks, and other important officials at

 3     all levels have been going about their assigned tasks and duties.  I can

 4     no longer tolerate their total irresponsibility and indifference in the

 5     face of the alarming situation both in the operation zone and further

 6     afield."

 7             And in the next paragraph you wrote:

 8             "I cannot accept the fact that personal interests, cars, flats,

 9     and other personal concerns should be deemed more important than our

10     principal and fundamental task of defending our homes and the territory

11     of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  I can no longer accept to see

12     by my side certain individuals, with whom I supposedly share the faith in

13     our final success, whose moral and professional qualities are doing more

14     harm than good to the common goal that we are fighting for."

15             Now, I'm going to stop right there and ask you a little bit about

16     your language.  You had said, "our principal and fundamental task of

17     defending our homes and the territory of the Croatian Community ..."

18             Sir, when you wrote "homes," did that include the protections of

19     Muslims and their homes?

20        A.   Your Honours, I will avail myself of this opportunity to take

21     just ten seconds to answer Madam Prosecutor, a question that I didn't

22     answer a few days ago, namely, the names of some Muslim families in my

23     neighbourhood.  So as part of this answer let me say that in my

24     neighbourhood, which is 90 per cent populated by Croats, there lived and

25     there still live, and they participated in the defence as part of HVO

Page 48385

 1     units, several Muslim families, including family Palavdzic, which I

 2     mentioned before, and two other families, Hazirovic, by name.  Those

 3     families are still in their homes, in their houses.  At that time and

 4     still today they had the same views as I on the defence of Bosnia and

 5     Herzegovina.

 6             Now, as regards this letter, Your Honours, when I came back home

 7     in the afternoon I was met by my wife, who is a colleague of yours, a

 8     lawyer, and she read -- she read a copy of this letter.  And she said

 9     verbatim:  Dear husband, from this moment on I have so much more love and

10     appreciation for you because of what you have written, that I will never

11     leave you until the day we die.  But as a lawyer, I do find fault with

12     certain formulations that can be ambiguous.

13             I realise that I'm a soldier by training.  I have no legal

14     knowledge, and perhaps I put some things here that may sound ambiguous

15     for somebody who's not a soldier, but at that time I was feeling like a

16     man who was aware that the time was coming when he would have to leave

17     his home and his town, and not alone but together with many other

18     families because the military situation was so bad, our manpower levels

19     were so low, we were under such threat on many defence lines, that it was

20     perfectly clear that we might soon lose large swaths of territory in the

21     environs in Mostar.

22        Q.   Thank you, Mr. Maric, and I think when I asked you when you wrote

23     "homes" did that include the protection of Muslims and their homes as

24     well, and I think your answer is yes.  So I'd like to move on in this

25     letter --

Page 48386

 1             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  May I -- no, no, I'm sorry, I thought you were

 2     going away from the letter.

 3             MS. WEST:

 4        Q.   So I'd like to go -- to continue on, and the next paragraph is:

 5             "I cannot understand certain individuals who are complacent about

 6     their own high ranks, for instance, the rank of colonel and are glad to

 7     be receiving a colonel's salary.  They drive around in HVO cars.  They

 8     have managed to get hold of flats and are enjoying all the privileges,

 9     and yet their contribution to our goal remains small or even

10     non-existent."

11             Mr. Maric, when you wrote "they have managed to get hold of flats

12     and are enjoying all the privileges," can you please explain what you

13     meant to the Trial Chamber?

14        A.   Your Honours, Mostar was deep in my heart, and it still is.  And

15     whenever I had the time I toured positions of artillery units and the

16     front lines alike.  Only few people would do that, those who were born

17     there and who knew their lay of the land and the disposition of features.

18     And when I would find a soldier who had been in the trenches for several

19     days with food supplies running late, with equipment supplies running

20     late, they would complain because they had information that in certain

21     departments there were available vehicles in sufficient numbers that were

22     perfectly able to bring supplies to the front line.  And the soldiers

23     were very unhappy because bread, ammunition, or clothing was not

24     delivered in time.  And some people, especially from the logistics which

25     are not known as great fighters, were trying to teach me lessons about

Page 48387

 1     how best to use these assets --

 2        Q.   Mr. Maric, I'm going to stop you there.

 3        A.   And after the departure of a large number of Serb civilians --

 4        Q.   Thank you.  My question was in regard to this sentence which was:

 5             "They have managed to get hold of flats are enjoying all the

 6     privileges ..."

 7             Sir, does that mean that HVO persons were taking flats that did

 8     not belong to them?

 9        A.   I was about to continue, Your Honours.  After the departure of

10     large numbers of --

11        Q.   Mr. Maric, I'm sorry again --

12        A.   -- officers of the JNA --

13        Q.   We can't continue.  You can just answer the question:  Yes, no,

14     or I don't know.  It was a very simple question.  Does that mean HVO

15     persons --

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Colonel, we have less than --

17     Madam Prosecutor has less than six minutes left, so her time is very

18     precious.  She is putting a question to you which you could expand on,

19     but you could also say:  No.  And she will ask you:  Why?  She's asking

20     you whether they occupied flats who belonged to Muslims.  Then you say:

21     Yes or no.

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no.

23             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just wish to say

24     that the question of my learned friend contains a legal formulation,

25     namely, did they take apartments that did not belong to them, and that's

Page 48388

 1     the passage that cause -- causes ambiguity and requires explanation.

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I address you?

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No.  You are in the hands of

 4     Mrs. West.

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wanted to be of assistance.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please listen to Mrs. West's

 7     questions.

 8             MS. WEST:

 9        Q.   Mr. Maric, is your complaint here that people, soldiers,

10     high-ranking soldiers, low-ranking soldiers, were taking over flats in

11     West Mostar that were flats that were originally owned by Muslims who had

12     been evicted?  Is that your complaint?

13        A.   No, that was not my complaint, Your Honours.

14        Q.   Okay.  Sir, I would like to go to P02 --

15             MS. WEST:  Yes, sorry.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I would like to ask a follow-up question

17     regarding this letter.  Did that letter -- first, did you actually send

18     it?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did.  I'm -- I'm glad if I

20     can in response to your question clarify what I wrote in that letter.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I don't need clarification of what you write

22     because I think that the letter is pretty clear.  The question is:  Were

23     there any consequences of this letter?  Did any reaction -- you asked for

24     a reaction.  Was -- did any reaction come forward?

25             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There were certain positive

Page 48389

 1     reactions, and I was satisfied that I had written the letter.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  I think I'll leave it at that.

 3             MS. WEST:

 4        Q.   So, Mr. Maric, we're going to go to P0 --

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A follow-up question.  Those

 6     who had an opportunity in their life to send a resignment letter, you

 7     know, it always takes courage to do so.  And when you write such a letter

 8     you believe that people should understand that you are brave when you do

 9     this.  When sending this kind of letter, didn't you risk anything, to be

10     demoted or maybe expelled from the army?  People would say:  This is none

11     of his business.  What's his problem?  It's -- we should just drive in

12     our nice cars and have our nice flats, and he can be -- go on the front

13     and get killed, and we're in the rear end, and can enjoy our privileges.

14     This is a very human -- this is a reaction that can occur.  You know,

15     people understand that this kind of reaction can exist.  Did you do this

16     because you were totally disparate?  You noted that there were no

17     ammunition, that the political and military plans were not defined

18     correctly, that your own soldiers were living in difficult conditions,

19     when others would be parading in Mostar and elsewhere, in nice

20     limousines, usually German limousines, is that why you were pushed into

21     resigning?

22             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, at that time I was

23     quite aware of my position and of possible adverse consequences that

24     could ensue.  However, the people to whom I had addressed this letter

25     knew perfectly well who I was and what kind of man I was.  And I was not

Page 48390

 1     afraid of any adverse reactions from them.  As for possible grumbling and

 2     negative reactions of some colleagues whom -- who were the subject of my

 3     letter, no, I was not afraid of them.  That's why I wrote the letter in

 4     the first place.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  I think it's time

 6     for the break.  You have less than five minutes left, Mrs. West.  Maybe

 7     it would be best if you finished, and then we will break.  So please

 8     finish.

 9             MS. WEST:  Thank you.

10        Q.   P02879.  This is a document that is dated June 21st, and this is

11     signed by Mr. Coric.  It's a request to issue decisions permitting

12     occupancy of apartments.

13             "We enclose a list of civilian apartments occupied by members of

14     the military police and request that the corresponding decisions be

15     issued as urgently as possible."

16             Sir, this is several pages long, there are several names, it's

17     137 apartments.  Mr. Maric, would you agree with me that at the time, in

18     the summer of 1993, there was a practice, whereby the HVO evicted Muslim

19     homeowners in West Mostar from their apartment and put their own HVO

20     people in those apartments?

21        A.   Very --

22             MR. PLAVEC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection.  This

23     question and this document pertain to topics that were not part of the

24     examination-in-chief.  Civilian apartments are referred to here, not

25     Muslim apartments, as the Prosecutor had put it in her question.

Page 48391

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. West, in this text there's

 2     no mention of Muslim flats, civilian flats here -- what it says is

 3     civilian flats occupied by members of the military police.  Now, there

 4     was something he said earlier, and you didn't listen.  He said that Serb

 5     officers also had left their apartments.  I had inferred from this that

 6     HVO officers took occupancy of these flats.  You have three minutes left,

 7     so if you could put your question.

 8             MS. WEST:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I put the question in the

 9     words that I thought to be appropriate.  And this gentleman can answer

10     the question in any which way he wants.  And the question was:  Would you

11     agree with me that at the time, in the summer of 1993, there was a

12     practice that the HVO evicted Muslim homeowners in West Mostar from their

13     apartments and put their own HVO people in those apartments?

14        Q.   Sir, what's your answer?

15        A.   The answer is no.

16        Q.   Let's look specifically at 80, and if we can go to Sanction,

17     please.  You see number 80 in front of you.  That street that's

18     mentioned, is that your street?

19        A.   Number 80 is the former name of my current street.

20        Q.   Right, okay.  And number 25 of your street, before the war, do

21     you know who lived in number 25?

22        A.   My number is 202.  That is pretty far away from number 25.  I

23     don't know who lived there.

24        Q.   Thank you, sir.

25             MS. WEST:  I have no more questions, Mr. President.

Page 48392

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  We will now break

 2     for 20 minutes, after which we will have the re-direct, and then the

 3     testimony of this witness will be over.

 4                           --- Recess taken at 10.38 a.m.

 5                           --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.

 7     As far as re-direct is concerned, I believe that we have Mrs. Alaburic.

 8             Mr. Alaburic, you have the floor.

 9             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.  Since

10     many topics were raised during the cross-examination by Ms. West that

11     were not dealt with during the examination-in-chief, I will have a

12     certain set of questions for our witness, Mr. Maric.  Depending on your

13     own interventions, Your Honours, it is my assessment that I should be

14     done in about half an hour.

15                           Re-examination by Ms. Alaburic:

16        Q.   [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Maric.

17        A.   Good afternoon.

18        Q.   I'm going to put a question to you in relation to the last

19     questions put to you by Ms. West.  My learned friend Ms. West showed you

20     your letter dated the 2nd of August, 1993, which is document P3899.  She

21     focused on the subject of apartments.  After that she showed you P2879,

22     which is a letter of the military police administration dated the 21st of

23     June, 1993.  In relation to that, I would like to put a question to you.

24     Did you perhaps notice who the military police administration was

25     addressing in this document?

Page 48393

 1        A.   They were addressing the office for housing and infrastructure to

 2     the attention of Mr. Mario Salavarda.

 3        Q.   Thank you.  We will get to that.  But before that, please tell

 4     us, what was roughly the percentage of the Serb population of Mostar

 5     before the war?

 6        A.   I don't know exactly, but between 20 and 30 per cent.  I don't

 7     even know what the exact percentage of Croats was, never meant much to

 8     me.

 9        Q.   From a Zagreb point of view, it was one-third Croat, one-third

10     Muslim, and one-third Serbs, so let that be our working version.

11     One-third were Serbs.  Tell us in the territory of the municipality of

12     Mostar, were there any significant units, facilities, institutions of the

13     Yugoslav People's Army?

14        A.   In the area of Mostar there were some very important facilities

15     and institutions of the Yugoslav People's Army.

16        Q.   If you were to describe whether there were relatively few or many

17     officers who lived in Mostar and persons who lived in the -- worked in

18     the Yugoslav People's Army, what would you say, few or many?

19        A.   There were many.  Mostar was a Mecca for everyone.

20        Q.   Tell us, at the moment when the operations for liberating Mostar

21     were over, liberating them from the Yugoslav People's Army and the Army

22     of the Bosnian Serbs, how many Serb inhabitants remained in Mostar after

23     that?  Or, rather, tell us, did most of them leave or stay behind?  That

24     would do.

25        A.   Most had left.

Page 48394

 1        Q.   Tell us, these JNA officers and other JNA personnel, did they

 2     stay in Mostar, or did they leave with the army that had been expelled?

 3        A.   Practically all of them had left.

 4        Q.   If you were to answer the question of how many apartments stayed

 5     in Mostar that had previously been inhabited by Serbs, what would you

 6     say, many or a little?

 7        A.   Many apartments that Serbs and members of the JNA lived in,

 8     socially-owned.

 9        Q.   If you were to define the ownership of --

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You added that it was socially

11     owned.  We have -- we know this concept.  I'm sure you know what it

12     means.  An apartment that is socially owned can only be allocated by an

13     administrative entity, be it a civilian or a military entity.  Is that

14     it?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

18        Q.   Tell us, Mr. Maric, were any regulations passed on the way in

19     which these apartments would be allocated, the apartments that were

20     previously in the hands of the Serbs?  Were they given to the military,

21     to civilians, to inhabitants of Mostar generally speaking who did not

22     have apartments?  Let me be very specific, for temporary use?

23        A.   Yes, regulations had been passed for the temporary use of

24     abandoned apartments.

25        Q.   Now I'm going to ask you about this office for housing and

Page 48395

 1     communal affairs.  Was this one of the bodies that made decisions

 2     regarding the temporary use of these --

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Alaburic, you can put the

 4     question, but I believe that my previous question solved the problem --

 5     solved the problem.  If you want to waste time, go ahead, but we've

 6     already mentioned this.  The documents were admitted.  Any legal expert,

 7     even low-level legal expert know exactly what happens.  You want to use

 8     all of your time, but I think you're wasting it right now.

 9             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I hope that you did

10     not want to say through that, that even the worst possible lawyer would

11     be able to handle if he or she were in my position.  I simply want to

12     deal with the document that Ms. West had shown.  I want to be specific

13     because there are many bodies in Herceg-Bosna that were in charge of

14     allocating apartments for temporary use at the -- commissions at the

15     level of the defence department, of the operative zone, and documents

16     that we have admitted into evidence in this regard have to do with that.

17     As far as I can remember, this particular matter had not been dealt with

18     previously, and that is why my question this time had to do with this

19     particular office, namely, whether this particular office had any role in

20     the temporary allocation of apartments.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

22             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

23        Q.   Thank you.

24             To the best of your knowledge, Mr. Maric, the civilian or

25     military authorities of Herceg-Bosna, to the best of your knowledge, at

Page 48396

 1     any level did they organise the expulsion of Muslims from their

 2     apartments so that Croats could move in?

 3        A.   No.

 4        Q.   Do you have any knowledge about some Muslims in West Mostar

 5     having been indeed expelled from their apartments and having a Croat move

 6     into these apartments?

 7        A.   I personally have no such knowledge.

 8        Q.   Have you ever heard of this problem of the Muslims being moved

 9     out, regardless of their numbers in West Mostar?

10        A.   That was at the level of talk, not at official meetings.

11        Q.   I'm asking you now as a citizen of Mostar.  Had you heard of any

12     such thing and -- well, if you haven't heard about it, then I cannot ask

13     you anything else about this.  So we can just move on then.  In relation

14     to the Old Bridge --

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Unless I'm lost, I do not see that there is an

16     answer registered to your last question:  Had you heard of any such

17     thing?  And then you say:  Well, if you haven't heard about it ...  But

18     in between, I think one would expect an answer from the witness.

19             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Yes, it is in line 6, Your Honour.

20     Line 6 of page 43.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Well, I was a bit confused because then you put

22     another question of -- on line 7 which is very similar, I must say.  Then

23     the witness says:

24             "That was at the level of talk, not at official meetings."

25             And then you continue:

Page 48397

 1             "I'm asking you now as a citizen of Mostar ..."

 2             Either that was completely unnecessary, or there must be, again,

 3     an answer.  Our dialogue perhaps now clarifies, but I hope you see what I

 4     mean.

 5             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, basically I withdrew

 6     that question because as I was following what the witness has said, I

 7     realised that, except for a few rumours, he didn't really know anything

 8     about this.  So I kindly ask you to take this as my withdrawal of this

 9     question or my conclusion.  We can clarify this, rather.

10        Q.   Mr. Maric, the question here now is whether you, as a citizen of

11     Mostar, at the time had heard of such a situation that Muslim was

12     expelled from his or her apartment in West Mostar and that a soldier

13     forcibly moved into the said apartment?

14        A.   No.

15        Q.   Now a few questions in relation to the Old Bridge, Mr. Maric.  I

16     am going to refrain from using the notion "Old Bridge" in my questions,

17     so please understand it that way.  What -- do you know what it means when

18     a particular facility or landmark has the status of a cultural monument?

19        A.   Yes, I do know.

20        Q.   If you know about the laws of war and the extent to which you as

21     a soldier know the law of war, can a cultural monument become a

22     legitimate military target?

23        A.   Any facility that is used for planning and executing combat

24     operations by a military formation becomes a military target.

25        Q.   Tell us, the Muslim side in the conflict in Mostar, did they ever

Page 48398

 1     suggest in any way to protect the Old Bridge and to have the zone around

 2     the Old Bridge excluded from any kind of combat activity and be marked as

 3     such?

 4        A.   Apart from the activities of General Praljak in 1992, I am not

 5     aware of any other activities in that direction.

 6        Q.   Can you tell us in a single sentence what kind of activities

 7     these were on the part of General Praljak?

 8        A.   These were activities of engineering protection provided to the

 9     Old Bridge in order to protect it from Serb shells.  I'm surprised that

10     General Praljak did not mention yesterday that before that the bridge had

11     been hit several times already and significantly damaged, that is to say

12     before the HVO units could physically get to the Old Bridge.

13        Q.   Tell us, the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did it ever use the

14     Old Bridge for military purposes?

15        A.   The Old Bridge as a facility was used very often by the Army of

16     Bosnia-Herzegovina for military purposes in order to transport military

17     equipment across it and to cross it in general.

18        Q.   Tell us, did the Old Bridge link the east bank with a small part

19     on the west bank that was under the control of the Army of

20     Bosnia-Herzegovina?

21        A.   Yes, but I don't agree that it's a small part exactly.

22        Q.   Tell us, apart from the Old Bridge was there any other bridge

23     that linked East Mostar with that part of the territories on the western

24     bank that was under the control of the BH Army?

25        A.   In one period of time during the war, a makeshift bridge was made

Page 48399

 1     that was used in order to cross to the right bank of the Neretva River.

 2        Q.   Tell us, could military equipment such as weapons, ammunition,

 3     et cetera, be transported across that makeshift bridge?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Did the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina have its own positions near

 6     the Old Bridge?

 7        A.   Yes.

 8        Q.   Did the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina ever operate from positions

 9     near the Old Bridge?

10        A.   Yes.

11        Q.   Thank you very much.  Now I'm going to put a few questions to you

12     in terms of the relationship between Boban and the Convicts' Battalion.

13     We've prepared a set of documents for Your Honours and for you, Witness.

14     They are a separate file here consisting of four documents, since that

15     was discussed --

16             MS. WEST:  Excuse me, my apologies.  Do you have a set for me?

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honours, we don't.  We

18     have never prepared documents for you for re-direct.  We never prepared

19     documents for re-direct for you, but I'm now asking my case manager to

20     e-mail these documents to Ms. West.  I apologise for the fact that this

21     hadn't been done, but obviously we didn't have enough time to co-ordinate

22     everything.

23             MS. WEST:  Well, I'm -- I mean, I don't have the documents and

24     they weren't on the original list.  So, I mean, I can wait to see them,

25     but I don't know that this is -- I don't have the documents -- thank

Page 48400

 1     you --

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me give you my set.

 3             MS. WEST:  Thank you.

 4             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, indeed, our case has

 5     been on for several months, and we never printed documents for the

 6     re-direct, but we did send to our colleagues the list of documents that

 7     we would use in re-direct.  I am sorry.  I do apologise.  We would have

 8     done that had we realised that our colleague wanted to have the documents

 9     in paper form as well in hard copy.  We can now rely on e-court.

10        Q.   Mr. Maric, please look at the first document, the first document

11     2D925.  This is a brief letter of Mladen Naletilic, Tuta, addressed to

12     Mate Boban.  The date is the 1st of February, 1994, and here in the last

13     line Tuta says of himself, "your personal advisor."

14             Tell us, Mr. Maric, do you interpret that as some kind of a

15     direct link between Mr. Naletilic and Boban, or do you think that this

16     qualification should be interpreted in some other way?

17        A.   A special link.  I have no other explanation.

18        Q.   Let us look at the next document, 4D618.  Mr. Maric, this is a

19     diagram that was prepared by General Petkovic as a witness in the Blaskic

20     case.  That was about ten years ago.  Before my question, tell me,

21     Mr. Maric, while preparing for your testimony did we ever discuss the

22     Convicts' Battalion and Mladen Naletilic, Tuta?

23        A.   No.

24        Q.   Please look at this diagram.  In this diagram the

25     Convicts' Battalion is directly under the supreme commander as opposed to

Page 48401

 1     other units that are on the left-hand side of the diagram that are

 2     directly linked to the Main Staff.  In view of your own understanding of

 3     this diagram, does it correspond to what you told us in court today who

 4     the Convicts' Battalion was subordinated to?

 5        A.   Yes, it does correspond to that.

 6             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, again I would like

 7     to draw your attention -- or rather, no, no, this is fine.  This is fine.

 8     This document is all right.  Very well.

 9             I just wish to say that in the English translation of this

10     document there is no direct link between the supreme commander and the

11     Main Staff, which is very important because in some questions -- with

12     regard to some questions, the Main Staff was directly subordinated to the

13     supreme commander.  So please bear in mind this mistake.  We took this

14     document over from the Blaskic case, and that's why we didn't intervene.

15             4D1356 is the next document.

16        Q.   This is an interview by Ivan Andabak to the weekly "Globus" dated

17     17 March 2009 -- no, no, sorry, 2000.  Do you know who Ivan Andabak was,

18     Mr. Maric?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Let me draw your attention to one passage.  In Croatian it's on

21     the last page and that part alone has been translated.  To the question:

22             "To whom were you responsible in terms of command during the war

23     in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina?"

24             General Andabak answered:

25             "Exclusively to the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of

Page 48402

 1     Croatia, to Gojko Susak and to Mate Boban."

 2             The next question is, I quote:

 3             "And not to the minister of defence of Herceg-Bosna,

 4     Bruno Stojic, or to the commanders of the staff, Generals

 5     Milivoj Petkovic and Slobodan Praljak?"

 6             And the answer of Ivan Andabak reads:

 7             "We were responsible only to Susak and Boban."

 8             Tell us, Mr. Maric, does this answer from the commander of the

 9     Convicts' Battalion conform with what you told us in the courtroom

10     earlier today?

11        A.   Yes, it does.

12        Q.   The next document is P226 -- correction, P5226.  This is a report

13     by the assistant head of the defence department in charge of security

14     Ivica Lucic to President Mate Boban, dated 20th September 1993.  The

15     report refers to the Convicts' Battalion.  Can you explain, Mr. Maric,

16     the reason why the assistant head of the defence department addresses

17     directly President Boban concerning the Convicts' Battalion?

18        A.   The only conceivable reason is that the person who signed this

19     document believed or knew that President Boban was the superior of that

20     unit, of that battalion.

21        Q.   To the best of your knowledge about the general opinion of people

22     in Mostar, did people in Mostar knew who commanded Tuta and the

23     Convicts' Battalion?

24        A.   If I could say anything, I would say it was the president

25     himself.

Page 48403

 1        Q.   Could you repeat your answer.

 2        A.   I could say that the president was directly superior to this

 3     unit.

 4        Q.   The first time did you say:  If anyone commanded the unit, then

 5     it was the president?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   And when you say "president," you mean who?

 8        A.   Mr. Mate Boban.

 9        Q.   I'll ask you a few questions now regarding the documents shown

10     yesterday.

11             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Alaburic.  Of course

12     this question which you raised a few minutes ago is a very important one,

13     and we have already listened to the witness about this issue while --

14     while Ms. West has asked questions about who commanded the unit of Tuta.

15             Now I would also like to ask you, Mr. Maric, if your knowledge is

16     based on some hearsay or if you have had seen any documents about it,

17     because when you confirmed here upon the question asked by Ms. Alaburic,

18     you said that:

19             "I could say that the president was directly superior to this

20     unit."

21             So now what kind of document or a kind of a order or whatever you

22     based your position on?  It is my question.

23             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, those units that were

24     under the direct command of the military district or assault units

25     commanded by the Main Staff were units that I met with frequently, and

Page 48404

 1     there was mutual assistance between us.  They were the subject of certain

 2     orders and certain combat documents created at the level of the military

 3     district, and that is one of the reasons why I knew that those units were

 4     under the Main Staff.  And this particular unit was not mentioned in

 5     these documents, and there's also the fact that I knew some of the

 6     members of that unit, and I had regional links with some of them.

 7             JUDGE PRANDLER:  Thank you.

 8             Ms. Alaburic.

 9             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

10        Q.   Tell us, Mr. Maric, have you ever seen any kind of document that

11     would indicate that the Convicts' Battalion was under the command of the

12     Main Staff of the HVO?

13        A.   I think I just said something about it.  No, I have never seen

14     such a document.

15        Q.   In view of your knowledge of the situation on the ground

16     throughout this period, was Mr. Milivoj Petkovic able to issue orders to

17     Mr. Mladen Naletilic, Tuta, an order that the latter would obey?

18        A.   I do not believe so.

19        Q.   Let us now look at P1866.  It's minutes of a meeting in the

20     operation zone south-east Herzegovina of 30th April.  It will be easier

21     now, Mr. Maric, if you open the file in front of you.

22        A.   Could you repeat the number?

23        Q.   Just let me tell you how the documents are organised.  If you

24     open the file, the first documents in line will be Prosecution documents,

25     and this one is P1866.  I'm being told that it's the first one.  That is

Page 48405

 1     the document you discussed with my learned friend Mrs. West.  This

 2     document says -- and you remember what my colleague Ms. West asked you.

 3     The document says:

 4             "Reports have been read from the areas of Konjic and Jablanica

 5     that had arrived in the operation zone over the last two days."  And

 6     after that certain conclusions were adopted.

 7             Let's now look at 1784 [as interpreted] to see what kind of

 8     reports were discussed.  It's P1874.  This is a summary report for the

 9     date of 13th April.  And on page 2, item 3, is a report from your

10     operation zone.  I will just give in bullet points the key events.  The

11     Croat village of Buscak was attacked with all types of infantry weapons

12     and 120-millimetre mortars.  Around 50 shells were fired.

13     Buturovic Polje was targeted with about 15 shells, and the shelling of

14     Kostajnica is ongoing, and attacks are starting in Konjic which is under

15     siege as is Jablanica.  Then there is a second report from Konjic on the

16     same day.  Buscak village is about to fall, and then Buscak has fallen.

17     We are fearing a massacre.  Please send the Red Cross.  And then it says:

18     Urgently act upon our previous request addressed to Prozor.  It's in fact

19     a request for artillery fire on designated targets.  And the next report

20     says again that there is fierce fire from mortars on Ljesovina,

21     Buturovic Polje, and Kostajnica.  Conclusion:  This is an all-out attack

22     on the entire zone of Konjic and Jablanica.

23             To the best of your recollection, Mr. Maric, is it true that on

24     the 13th of April the situation was as described in this report?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 48406

 1        Q.   In para 3 of the document shown to you by my colleague Ms. West,

 2     it says that tasks need to be determined especially by the staff in case

 3     of clash with the Muslims.  Do you interpret this -- do you read this as

 4     preparations for attack or for defence?

 5        A.   For defence.

 6        Q.   My learned friend Ms. West quoted a part of your summary and

 7     asked you to comment on the passage where it says that certain documents

 8     can be understood properly only if you are familiar with the developments

 9     in the broader area.  Do I need to refresh your memory on this?

10        A.   That's fine.

11        Q.   The next document is P1928.  This is an order from the commander

12     of the 1st Brigade of HVO Nedjeljko Obradovic, dated 17 April 1993.  And

13     in paragraph 1 of this order it says that from the existing battalions of

14     the 1st Brigade, one separate unit needs to be formed, composed of Croats

15     only.  In para 5 it reads:

16             "I hold commanders of the battalions answerable for the

17     implementation of the task."

18             Tell us, this term "task," is it in the plural or in the

19     singular?  In para 5.

20        A.   It says "commanders" individually.

21        Q.   No, I meant to ask:  Is it one task, in the singular, is it

22     clear?

23        A.   Yes, yes.

24        Q.   Okay.  Let's see now what this task could be.  Let's look at

25     document 4D1715.  This is a special report from the security department

Page 48407

 1     of the Supreme Command Staff of the armed forces, where it says - and I

 2     will try to summarise briefly - it's the fourth paragraph.  In Croatian,

 3     it's page 2.  It says that on the 18th of April, 1993, that is, a day

 4     after this order was issued, a hundred HVO members took up positions.

 5     And the next day, 19 April, around 15 HVO members arrived at Gubavica.

 6     And then there followed an HVO attack, and the command of the HVO entered

 7     the barracks and informed members of the Bregava Brigade that they had

 8     militarily occupied the barracks in the area of Gubavica.  And then in

 9     paragraph 6 of this document, it says that on the 22nd of April the HVO

10     attacked the command which with the brigade police was breaking through

11     in the direction of Stolac, where they were ambushed near Osanice in

12     which incident all 20 of them were captured and taken to a camp along

13     with Bregava Brigade members captured earlier.

14             If you look at these documents, do they give you any reason to

15     associate this special report of the security section with the

16     assignment, the task, given by Obradovic?

17        A.   Yes.

18        Q.   Tell us about the Bregava Brigade of the Bosnian army.  Was it in

19     your area of responsibility of the operations zone?

20        A.   Yes, it was in our area of responsibility, and it was under the

21     command of the military district commander.

22        Q.   The next document is 4D473, and this is a document that the

23     Bregava Brigade commander of the BH army sent to the 1st Brigade

24     commander of the HVO on the 18th of April, 1993.  It's just one in a

25     series of documents that form their correspondence.  I had -- I have

Page 48408

 1     shown some earlier in our case, but I'll limit myself to the passage on

 2     the second page.  Bajro Pizovic says to Nedjeljko Obradovic, I quote:

 3             "I note, and you are aware of this perfectly well, that a large

 4     number of Muslim soldiers are part of your unit, but they are Muslims and

 5     they belong to this people, and it would not be good to disrupt a certain

 6     organisation and the formation of your units."

 7             If you had received a letter like this from a brigade commander

 8     of the BH army, how would you understand it?

 9        A.   Well, that the commander of this brigade was very well informed

10     about the structure of personnel in another unit, and I would understand

11     this as a certain dose of threat.

12        Q.   If you as a military commander in such circumstances were trying

13     to carry out an operation against the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, would

14     you try for your unit to be made up of ethnic Croat soldiers

15     predominantly or exclusively for that matter?

16        A.   If one were to embark on a serious operation against the Army of

17     Bosnia-Herzegovina, it would be advisable for it to consist of mostly

18     Croats in order to prevent any trouble.

19        Q.   All right.  Next document, 4D36, please.  This is a report of the

20     commander of the 4th Corps of the BH army to his superior command.  I

21     will present the content of this very briefly.  In paragraph 3 it says,

22     inter alia, that we've linked up with our people in the HVO.  And then it

23     says the personnel of the HVO from Capljina have the task of taking

24     Tasovcici and the bridge in Capljina.  And it says taking the town of

25     Stolac with our people.  Tell us, Mr. Maric, as a soldier what would your

Page 48409

 1     estimate be?  Is the BH army counting on co-operation with the Muslim

 2     soldiers of the HVO or not?

 3        A.   Yes, and these were the most difficult moments that could happen

 4     to a military unit.

 5        Q.   To the best of your understanding, do these documents show that a

 6     document can be understood fully only if one knows of broader

 7     developments in the area?

 8        A.   Yes.

 9        Q.   The next document P1998 [as interpreted].  This is an order of

10     the commander of the operative zone of the 20th of April, 1993, ordering

11     the highest level of combat-readiness.  If I understood this correctly,

12     this was shown to you as a sort of preparatory order for the conflict

13     that occurred in Mostar on the 9th of May.  P1978, P1978.  This is an

14     order of Midhat Hujdur dated the 19th of April, 1993.

15             The first question, Mr. Maric, have you ever heard of

16     Midhat Hujdur?

17        A.   I heard of him and planned with him and fought together with him

18     against the Army of Republika Srpska in 1992.

19        Q.   Let us see what is being planned here.  For the 1st Battalion it

20     says -- I'm going to omit certain elements, and I'm going to refer to

21     what I think is most important.  The Mostar Brigade, once conditions are

22     created, start attack at the crossroads of Mostar-Buna and Mostar-Blagaj,

23     Mostar-Buna and Mostar-Blagaj.  In further combat activity, try to

24     link-up with the Blagaj independent company in the area of the Buna

25     village, and part of the forces should be sent to the right bank of the

Page 48410

 1     Neretva and placed under the command of the commander of the

 2     2nd Battalion.

 3             Furthermore, the lines that the 2nd Battalion is supposed to take

 4     are referred to, and it is ordered, inter alia, to block HVO forces in

 5     the rear of that line and carry out its neutralisation.  Part of the

 6     forces from the 4th Company should be sent towards the command of the

 7     41st Motorised Brigade to reinforce defence.

 8             My question, first of all, Mr. Maric, could you as a soldier tell

 9     us, when we say "neutralise HVO forces," what does that mean?

10        A.   Neutralisation means to operate temporarily at these forces in

11     order to prevent them from carrying out the activity they had been

12     carrying out until then involving the -- a certain level of destruction

13     of those forces too.

14        Q.   All right.  Now the 19th of April, what is the Mostar Brigade of

15     the BH army planning?  What is defined for the 3rd Battalion is in

16     paragraph 1.3.  It says:

17             Close the axis from Vrapcic towards Mostar in the Sutina sector

18     and make it impossible to cross the Mostar dam and also fully block --

19     and fully block and take the north camp barracks.  Then the tasks of

20     other units of the Ministry of the Interior are referred to, inter alia,

21     in 1.8 it says that an attack should be carried out at the premises of

22     the MUP of the HZ HB, and so on.

23             Tell us, Mr. Maric, now these axes of activity and localities, do

24     they mean anything to you?

25        A.   Your Honours, all of these locations are 2, 3, and even

Page 48411

 1     7 kilometres behind the only lines where HVO units were at the time, and

 2     those were the lines facing the Army of Republika Srpska.  That means

 3     that taking up strategic positions and taking strategic facilities in the

 4     town of Mostar.

 5        Q.   Another document in this context, 2D478, again Midhat Hujdur.

 6     The order is of the 20th of April, the next day, that is.  What is

 7     ordered here is readiness to engage targets, and I'll tell you which

 8     ones:  In the area of Cekrk, in the area of Nova Banka and the high

 9     school, in the area of Avenija Rudnik, and then Bijeli Brijeg, Rondo and

10     the faculties, and some other locations are mentioned in paragraph 2.

11     Tell me, the activity of the BH army on the 9th of May, 1993, did it have

12     anything to do with these locations?

13        A.   This is an order, an order that was used by the Army of

14     Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it shows exactly how an attack operation is to be

15     carried out with a view to breaking through and taking territories that

16     are held by the unit that is attacked.  So this fully corresponds to what

17     happened on the morning of the 9th of May.

18        Q.   Mr. Maric, in your view, do these documents confirm or deny the

19     thesis that in order to understand documents properly one has to be

20     familiar with broader developments on the ground?

21        A.   Certainly.

22        Q.   The next document that I'd like to hear your brief comment on is

23     D1125 -- P1125 [as interpreted], that is.  2215.  [In English] P2215.

24             [Interpretation] That is the order of Nedjeljko Obradovic of the

25     7th of May, 1993.  It was discussed extensively.  This order mentions IZM

Page 48412

 1     Stolac.  Mr. Maric, do you know who the commander of the IZM of the HVO

 2     in Stolac was?

 3        A.   It could have been Mr. Pavlovic.

 4        Q.   Mr. Pavlovic was our witness, and we talked to him about this

 5     document as well.  I would like to put the following question to you.  To

 6     the best of your knowledge, the 1st Brigade of the HVO, did it take part

 7     in any way in the fighting that took place in Mostar on the 9th and 10th

 8     of April -- of May, 1993?

 9        A.   I cannot recall any moment when the 1st Brigade took part in

10     fighting in Mostar.

11        Q.   Since we discussed part of this order that has to do with

12     training in built-up areas, tell us about the towns of Stolac and

13     Capljina, are they in the zone of responsibility of the 1st Brigade?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Let us look at the next document, P2209.  It is an order that

16     bears the name of Milivoj Petkovic, head of the Main Staff.  Please look

17     at this order, Mr. Maric, and can you tell us who signed it?

18        A.   I don't know who signed it.  It certainly wasn't

19     General Petkovic.  I have no idea who this is.

20        Q.   Try to read the name.  If I tell you Ivica, would you read the

21     name Ivica in that signature?  Very well.  If you cannot --

22        A.   I really cannot.

23        Q.   We're going to have a witness who will be in a position to talk

24     about this.  3D 793 would be the next document, please.  This is a

25     document that contains the conclusions of a meeting of HVO commanders.

Page 48413

 1     Many questions were put in this regard by the Trial Chamber, and Ms. West

 2     asked you whether General Petkovic attended the meeting.  You said that

 3     you are almost certain that he was not present at the meeting.  So let us

 4     deal with this and let us do away with any dilemma, although

 5     General Praljak talked about it.

 6             Let us look at document P6491, please.  It is in English and the

 7     document is dated the 7th of November, 1993.  It's an UNPROFOR document

 8     and it says that the commander of the UNPROFOR forces for

 9     Bosnia-Herzegovina on that day met up with General Petkovic.

10             Mr. Maric, I can just ask you once again, if you give this some

11     careful thought, have you seen General Petkovic -- had you seen him at

12     that meeting?

13        A.   Yes, General Petkovic did not attend that meeting.

14        Q.   Now please look at document P6534.  6534.  This is an order to

15     attack.  That is what is most important for us in these proceedings, the

16     selective shelling of the town of Mostar.  We see that it bears the name

17     of General Petkovic.  We do not see any signature.  We've already said

18     this in this courtroom.  When I reacted to my colleague's question, I

19     said that if we already have a statement to the effect that

20     General Petkovic was not in Citluk on that day, we have to be very

21     careful about that.  Is it Petkovic's order, or does it just bear his

22     name?

23             Now I'd like to show you 4D8334, 4D834, 4D834.  This is a

24     document that was sent to Kiseljak to Mr. Rajic, to report as soon as

25     possible on what happened in Stupni Do, to report to the Main Staff about

Page 48414

 1     that.  The order -- or, rather, the letter was not signed by

 2     Mr. Petkovic, General Petkovic.  On the basis of what General Praljak

 3     said, it was done by General Praljak himself because Petkovic was not in

 4     Citluk on that day.

 5             Tell us now, Mr. Maric, as a soldier if one wants to know exactly

 6     who the author of a particular order is, is it important to establish

 7     that said person is truly the author of that document or that he took

 8     part in the creation of that document?

 9        A.   It is important to ascertain that.

10             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my re-direct is

11     completed.  I would like to thank you for your time.

12        Q.   And thank you, Mr. Maric.

13        A.   Thank you.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

15             Mr. Maric, the Trial Chamber thanks you for coming to testify for

16     the Defence of General Petkovic.  We wish you a safe return home, and I'm

17     going to ask our usher to please escort you out of the courtroom.

18             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  It was very

19     pleasant to be here.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For technical reasons we will

21     break for 25 minutes, since the next witness will have -- will enjoy a

22     number of protective measures.

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Your Honours.

25             [In English] Maybe I would ask for a private session for a

Page 48415

 1     moment.

 2                           [The witness withdrew]

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move to private session,

 4     please.

 5                           [Private session]

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 48416











11 Page 48416 redacted. Private session.















Page 48417

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9                           [Open session]

10             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're now in open session.  Thank

11     you.

12             MR. KHAN:  Mr. President, Your Honours, I'm most grateful and

13     good morning.  It's a very brief matter, and it arises out of Exhibit

14     Number 4D00618 that was referred to in re-examination by my learned

15     friend, Ms. Alaburic.  Mr. President, as you are aware, that exhibit

16     number has another exhibit number, P11123, which was submitted by the

17     Prosecution arising out of the testimony of Filipovic.  There's no

18     decision at the moment as to the admissibility of that particular

19     document.  Now, the Defence for Bruno Stojic has some disquiet, as on the

20     face of the documents there is a clear disparity between the B/C/S, the

21     Croatian original, and the English translation.  This has been the

22     subject of correspondence with the Office of the Prosecution, and it

23     resulted in a filing of the 14th of December, 2009, in which my learned

24     friend Mr. Scott very kindly at paragraph 3 went some way to allaying

25     some of the concerns of the Defence when he acknowledged that the B/C/S

Page 48418

 1     version shows a line which is not on the English version, and they said

 2     that it might be considered that the B/C/S version of the document is

 3     more authoritative.  It may be -- it might be considered -- it's not

 4     really clear enough in a criminal trial, it's not good enough from the

 5     Defence perspective to have a clear disparity of this nature.  It is of

 6     course important because the line that's missing bypasses the defence

 7     department.  It shows a clear direct relationship between the supreme

 8     commander and the Main Staff.

 9             Your Honours, I do ask the Court give consideration to ordering

10     either - and, in fact, in fairness it should be both - the Defence for

11     General Petkovic and also the Prosecution to re-file the translation so

12     that it accords to what is the original.  And so, Your Honours, I do ask

13     that an order be made to the Prosecution in relation to Exhibit P11123

14     and the Defence for Petkovic arising out of 4D00618 to ensure that the

15     translation of the document accords to the B/C/S original.  Your Honours,

16     I think that would make sure that there's absolute clarity and no

17     misunderstanding at all, and, Your Honour, that is my application.  I'm

18     grateful.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me consult with my fellow

20     Judges.

21             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

22     continues] ... I just want to say, we are really now spending more time

23     on this issue which is not a good idea.  I just wish to say for the

24     Petkovic Defence, it's important that the current document looked exactly

25     the way General Petkovic used it in Blaskic, and we are prepared and

Page 48419

 1     willing to prepare a new schematic with correctly indicated lines in the

 2     English version and that would then be treated as a correction to the

 3     English translation.  We wish you to know that General Petkovic testified

 4     precisely like that in those terms ten years ago and nothing has changed

 5     to this day.  If you allow us, we will do that without delay.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm not quite sure whether I understood you

 7     correctly.  Are you saying that both these documents must be regarded as

 8     originals because both were used in this disparate way in the Blaskic

 9     trial?

10             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Both my colleagues in other

11     Defences and we simply borrowed this schematic from the Blaskic case,

12     which was admitted there.  That was the point of the Stojic Defence.  We

13     cannot intervene in a document we are showing to you as a document from

14     the Blaskic case, but we recognise the error in the English version and

15     we are prepared to make the same schematic with the correct translation

16     as a new document.  And then you will know that the English version of

17     this document is correct.  We really think it's important to show you the

18     document as it was in Blaskic; however, we cannot tender a document from

19     another case.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I'm afraid you have not answered my question,

21     which is a very simple one.  In Blaskic were they -- were there these two

22     documents, B/C/S and English, with the same disparity?  That is my

23     question.

24             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] No, no.  The Croatian text is

25     correct, accurate.  The Croatian is not the problem.  It's the

Page 48420

 1     translation that's the problem.

 2             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

 3             MR. STEWART:  Sorry, I think I'm understanding it perhaps and

 4     understanding where the confusion is.  If there was a discrepancy in the

 5     Blaskic case, which is what I'm understanding between the B/C/S and the

 6     English versions, then it looks as if what ought to happen is that the

 7     B/C/S version and the English version should have different exhibit

 8     numbers in this case.  Because otherwise if they retain the same exhibit

 9     number, it rather implies that the English matches the B/C/S.  So it

10     looks as if in order to be very clear which document is which, they

11     probably ought to be separately identified, but of course I support

12     everything and agree with everything Ms. Alaburic has said.  But that may

13     be the practical correct technical solution.

14             MS. WEST:  Mr. President, if we can just forestall any decision

15     on this until after the break.  I didn't realise this document was going

16     to be used, and the Prosecution will just talk to Mr. Scott.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Let's break for

18     25 minutes.

19                           --- Recess taken at 12.17 p.m.

20                           [Closed session]

21   (redacted)

22   (redacted)

23   (redacted)

24   (redacted)

25   (redacted)

Page 48421











11 Pages 48421-48427 redacted. Closed session.















Page 48428

 1   (redacted)

 2   (redacted)

 3   (redacted)

 4   (redacted)

 5   (redacted)

 6   (redacted)

 7   (redacted)

 8   (redacted)

 9   (redacted)

10   (redacted)

11   (redacted)

12   (redacted)

13   (redacted)

14   (redacted)

15   (redacted)

16   (redacted)

17   (redacted)

18   (redacted)

19   (redacted)

20   (redacted)

21   (redacted)

22                           [Open session]

23             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honours, we're back in open session.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session.  The next

25     hearing will be held on Monday at 1415.  I wish everyone a nice

Page 48429

 1     afternoon.

 2                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.04 p.m.,

 3                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 18th day of

 4                           January, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.