100223IT

Page 49829

1 And, furthermore, this will help us to save time, so I'm going to try to

2 speed things up.

3 WITNESS: MILIVOJ PETKOVIC [Resumed]

4 [The witness answered through interpreter]

5 Questioned by the Court: [Continued]

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, yesterday I

7 told you that I would complete with my consideration of the indictment

8 with the four following paragraphs:

9 "Milivoj Petkovic promoted, facilitated, and encouraged the joint

10 criminal enterprise by casting Bosnian Muslims in a negative light by

11 referring to them in derogatory terms in orders and communications to the

12 Herceg-Bosna HVO Armed Forces."

13 General, what is your comment?

14 A. Your Honours, in this courtroom you have had an opportunity of

15 seeing hundreds of documents signed by me, and you were able to see only

16 one document where this is mentioned. What I can say is this: I'm not

17 the author of that document, but I am the signatory of the document. And

18 I'm not going to defend myself from that fact. Had it been my intention,

19 then you would have found that in any number of documents. However, at a

20 point in time, it so happened that I put my signature to a document like

21 that. It was not my intention, nor was it my position. I did not insult

22 a nation, an ethnic group. And in that document -- I signed it without

23 looking at the document, and I think that you'll find that that is the

24 only document of that kind in hundreds of other documents. And as such,

25 I don't think it reflects what the Prosecutor wants to ascribe to me and

Page 49830

1 hold me responsible for.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Small (m):

3 "It was up to Milivoj Petkovic to make sure that the forces of

4 the HVO respect the Geneva Conventions and International Humanitarian

5 Law, and that all detained prisoners and other persons should be treated

6 in accordance with these conventions and the International Humanitarian

7 Law."

8 What is your comment, General Petkovic?

9 A. Your Honours, similarly through these proceedings in this trial,

10 you could see many orders signed by me on behalf of the Main Staff,

11 because my subordinates were asked to implement the Geneva Conventions,

12 and I claim that by no document of Herceg-Bosna, or act, was I

13 responsible, as chief of the Main Staff or any of my commands, for

14 detention centres. Nobody ever called me to attend any discussion,

15 whether at government level or anywhere else, where detention centres are

16 mentioned. Nobody gave me any responsibilities or tasks or assignments

17 in that regard. I did not take part, either me or the Main Staff, or

18 anybody from the Main Staff, when such detention centres were being

19 disbanded, dismantled. Therefore, I consider that one -- no document

20 from Herceg-Bosna ever bound me or the Main Staff as having that duty,

21 and I claim that it was in no way a task of the Main Staff of the

22 Croatian Defence Council.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Small (n):

24 "Milivoj Petkovic participated in, facilitated, instigated,

25 encouraged, and condoned crimes and abuses against Bosnian Muslims by

Page 49831

1 Herceg-Bosna HVO forces, by failing to prevent and punish such crimes and

2 by commending, rewarding, promoting, or leaving in place HVO officers and

3 soldiers who committed or played a role in such crimes."

4 What do you say in response to this paragraph, please.

5 A. Well, I claim that I did not fail to act, as the Prosecutor

6 claims, with respect to these crimes. During this trial, you could see

7 orders where I asked for responsibility and accountability at certain

8 levels. In this courtroom, we were able to see some orders and parts of

9 orders where I suggest that, on threat of force, certain individuals must

10 be placed under supervision and control.

11 Furthermore, on the basis of the law and regulations, which one

12 could read again, did not have the authority that the Prosecutor ascribes

13 to me. I did not appoint commanders of a certain rank. I did not

14 relieve of duty commanders of a certain rank. And I don't remember ever

15 commending or rewarding anybody. And I think that I did ask for certain

16 measures to be taken, specifically whereby certain commands should be

17 reorganised completely, that certain commanders leave their posts,

18 whether it be in Prozor, or whether they were measures that were called

19 for in Vakuf, and some measures that were implemented in Mostar in such a

20 way as having certain senior commanding officers leave their posts and

21 positions.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I will finish with

23 paragraph (o), which I'm going to read:

24 "Milivoj Petkovic directed, participated in, and facilitated the

25 concealment of crimes committed by Herceg-Bosna HVO forces in, by way of

Page 49832

1 example, ordering in August 1993 that Bosnian Muslim detainees held in

2 Prozor be made presentable before allowing international observers to see

3 them, and misrepresenting and covering up crimes committed by

4 Herceg-Bosna HVO forces at Stupni Do in October 1993."

5 General Petkovic, your comment with regard to these last charges

6 attributed by the Prosecution.

7 A. Your Honours, with the free entry of the International Red Cross

8 Committee into all the facilities that they asked to visit, without any

9 restrictions or procedure, means that nothing was being hidden from

10 anybody. At a point in time, it is quite normal, if somebody announces a

11 visit, that you take a look at the people that are going to be visited;

12 that you talk to them, that you tell them that there would be a visit, so

13 button up your shirts, tighten your belts, that kind of thing, let's see

14 whether you have put the place you slept in in order. So that's

15 something that any soldier would do and is expected of a soldier.

16 And let me tell you that in this particular Detention Unit where

17 I am at present, when there's a visit, we would be told, Please put your

18 facilities in order. So I think that is quite justified and very human,

19 and nothing was upset by that.

20 Now, the serious consequences two or three hours later cannot be

21 covered up or hidden in any way before the ICRC turned up.

22 Now, as far as Stupni Do is concerned, I say with full

23 responsibility here that through issuing my order, I secured the entry of

24 UNPROFOR forces into Stupni Do, and thereby I automatically ensured that

25 the news of Stupni Do should be disseminated to all four corners of the

Page 49833

1 world so that all the important factors in the international community be

2 informed about it. I also ensured that the scene was protected and

3 secured. And, similarly, I took measures to see that the United Nations

4 and their forces should have the necessary conditions to carry out an

5 investigation and that the United Nations should be informed thereof.

6 And all structures in Herceg-Bosna as well, they were all informed with

7 the fact, including the political leadership of the Republic of Croatia.

8 And I do not see in what way it is alleged that this was covered up or

9 hidden from anyone. It was accessible to one and all, everybody who

10 wanted to get to know the situation there.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. To finish with the

12 indictment, I should like to hear your comments following the

13 confirmation that you gave me yesterday of the fact that you were never

14 interviewed by the Office of the Prosecutor either as a witness or as a

15 suspect, and it was only when the indictment was issued in 2004 that you

16 learnt that you have been accused. I thought over what you told me

17 yesterday, that you had never been interviewed, and I will give you some

18 elements and I would like you to answer the questions I'm going to put to

19 you.

20 I looked at all the names in figuring in the joint criminal

21 enterprise and when they were accused by an indictment for such facts or

22 similar facts. For example, Bobetko, there was an indictment issued on

23 the 17th of September, 2002. And then, as he is dead, nothing happened.

24 Blaskic, the indictment issued the 10th of November, 1995, the judgement

25 of the 3rd of March, 2000, that was the first-level judgement. Cerkez,

Page 49834

1 10th of November, 1995, the first-instance judgement 26th of November,

2 2001. Naletilic, indictment 21st of September, 1998; judgement, 31st of

3 December, 2003. Rajic, Ivica, indictment 29th of October, 1995;

4 judgement, 8th of May, 2006. And your own indictment was issued at the

5 beginning of 2004.

6 How would you explain, General Petkovic, that when you may have

7 been the superior of some of the persons who were accused, with the

8 exception of General Bobetko - I leave him aside - that you, yourself,

9 were indicted many years later? Do you see any explanation, or is there

10 none, according to you, for this?

11 A. Well, Your Honours, I don't know how -- or what explanation I

12 could give, because everything you have put forward, I followed, and I

13 expected that somebody from the Prosecution would ask at least to talk to

14 me, if nothing else. As you said, there were four or five people here

15 who were in the structure of the Croatian Defence Council. However, that

16 never came about. And then what I happened to hear, allegedly, was that

17 there was an about-turn and that it was said, Leave all those down there

18 and catch the highest levels. And so probably that's what they decided

19 to do in their selection of bringing the six of us in here. Up until

20 then, nobody talked to me at no point, nobody said a single word to me,

21 nor did they ask my assistance in any way, nor did anybody ask me to be a

22 witness, for example, a Prosecution witness or anything like that. And

23 it would appear that nobody came into contact with me until 2004, when

24 something was obviously happening here and when it was decided to move

25 ahead and start with the top. So this was probably politically

Page 49835

1 motivated.

2 Well, that's my position, anyway. I can't say any more than

3 that. I did expect -- I really did expect somebody from the OTP to

4 contact me in one way or another. However, that never happened.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So,

6 General Petkovic, as I said yesterday, we'll have a look at two videos,

7 but for technical reasons alone. The first one is P08987.

8 Would the Registrar do what is necessary.

9 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For the moment, we have a

11 technical problem. The Legal Officer could perhaps discuss the matter

12 with the Registrar.

13 The second video I wanted to show is IC00574. We can go back to

14 that when it's possible. We won't waste any more time. The

15 Legal Officer will tell me when it will be possible to view the videos.

16 I would now like document P09276 to be shown, 276. Could we have

17 it up on the screen, please.

18 I would like to see the map 0504-5502, Map number 9, on the

19 ethnic composition. Very well.

20 General Petkovic, you can see the ethnic composition of Bosnia

21 and Herzegovina in 1991 in front of you, municipalities with a Serbian

22 majority in red, places with Croats in blue, et cetera. We won't go into

23 the details of the ethnic composition, but what I would like to know is:

24 As of the events of 1992 and the events at the beginning of 1993, from

25 that time onwards, given that there were all those refugees present,

Page 49836

1 would you say that the ethnic composition changed completely as a result

2 of the fact that refugees would leave one area and move to a different

3 area? Do you have any examples you could provide us with?

4 A. Yes, Your Honours. In certain places, the relationship was

5 completely changed. In other places, there was an increase of certain

6 peoples. What is represented in red, for example, in the western part of

7 Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is an area which was under the control of

8 the JNA and the Army of Republika Srpska at the time. Most of the people

9 from those areas, from Banja Luka and from the surrounding

10 municipalities, went to Central Bosnia, and many went to the Republic of

11 Croatia. When they arrived in the area of Central Bosnia, it's quite

12 certain that the ethnic composition had to change. Similarly, the part

13 represented in red to the east of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that part also

14 changed. People moved to the central part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and

15 forces massed there. And unfortunately because of expulsions and so on

16 and so forth, the Bosniaks and Muslims prevailed there. From the western

17 area, there were quite a few Croats. About 200.000 Croats went from the

18 western part under the control of the Serbs, or, rather, they were

19 expelled from that part and they left that area.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, the

21 Prosecution has a theory that concerns these migrations. They say that

22 by expelling Muslims who lived in certain areas, you managed to establish

23 Croatian majorities, in particular, in Provinces 3, 8, and 10, in those

24 areas. You participated in meetings in Geneva. You know what Provinces

25 3, 8, and 10 mean. So what is your opinion with regard to this thesis,

Page 49837

1 these claims, according to which, by expelling or detaining Muslims, or

2 by making them go abroad or elsewhere, one managed to establish areas

3 where Croats were in the majority? That was done for the sake of the

4 future.

5 A. In Province number 3, that's the Posavina area to the north, but

6 it isn't as depicted here by the Prosecution, it's just a small area

7 around Orasje, on the whole the Croats were in the majority there, and

8 that didn't change from October 1992, after the Serbian forces had taken

9 all these municipalities that the Prosecution claims belonged to the

10 Bosnian Posavina. It's true that was the case at the beginning, but by

11 October they were all under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska,

12 apart from Orasje municipality and perhaps from a small part of the

13 municipality of Odrid [phoen] and Bosanski Brod. And in that area, the

14 Croats were mostly in the majority.

15 As far as Province 10 is concerned, that's the Muslim area, in

16 that area the Croatian population wasn't really in the majority because

17 prior to that the red part to the east of Bosnia and Herzegovina, from

18 Kalinovik, Nevesinje, Dracko [phoen], Bilica, and Ljubinje

19 municipalities, all the expelled Muslims from these areas found a place

20 to go to in the area from Jablanica, Konjic, and mostly in Mostar, and in

21 areas in the direction of Capljina or Stolac. So when the Muslims

22 arrived who had been expelled from Eastern Herzegovina, there were a

23 significant number of Muslims in that area, in those areas. And nothing

24 indicates that the number of Croats in these areas were significantly

25 increased in relation to the number of Muslims.

Page 49838

1 As far as Central Bosnia is concerned, when the Muslims and

2 Croats were first expelled from western Bosnia under the control of the

3 Serbs, while the Croats were -- left mostly for the Republic of Croatia,

4 and many Muslims left with them, too, a lot of Muslims from that area,

5 the Krajina Muslims, inhabited places from Zenica towards the central

6 part of the Lasvansko-Lepenica Valley, and thus the structure was

7 changed, the composition was completely changed. Especially when Jajce,

8 the town of Jajce fell, then all the Muslims who had been expelled

9 remained in Central Bosnia, whereas the Croats went -- some of them went

10 to Herzegovina, but most of them to the Republic of Croatia. The central

11 part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, well, even before no one was really in

12 the majority, but now the situation was such that the relationship was --

13 or the ratio was 2:1, and the Muslims were in the majority. They had

14 been expelled from these areas, and they were in the Zenica-Vitez area

15 and the Lasva-Lepenica Valley area, and that's how the situation

16 remained. Towards the end of 1993, they remained there. In 80 per cent

17 of the cases, they remained there, because the Croats from Travnik and

18 Kakanj and Vares and Fojnica, Bugojno, they quite simply disappeared from

19 those areas. When the HVO [as interpreted] launched its offensive, they

20 were expelled.

21 So towards the end of 1993 in the area of Central Bosnia, there

22 was a concentration of Croats only in Vitez municipality, Busovaca

23 municipality, in Kiseljak, and Kresevo municipalities. In other areas

24 outside of these municipalities throughout Central Bosnia, we didn't have

25 any Croats, apart from to the north in the territory of Zepce

Page 49839

1 municipality. I'm not including the Croats who remained and who weren't

2 affected by the 2nd Corps of the ABiH. I'm referring to the wider Tuzla

3 area.

4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, I'd

5 just like to correct the transcript. Page 14, line 17, the general spoke

6 about an offensive of the ABiH and not of the HVO, which is what it says

7 here. And this is an offensive that resulted in the expulsion of Croats

8 from the towns that the general mentioned.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's quite right. I'm

10 surprised that the contrary has been noted. The offensive of the ABiH

11 launched against the towns in Central Bosnia, and several thousand Croats

12 were expelled from those areas, and 80 per cent of the area was then

13 inhabited by Muslims.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could the Registrar now show

15 the first video, P08987.

16 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Not yet, apparently.

18 We'll have a look at the following document, P09234.

19 General Petkovic, it's a depiction of the links that you had with

20 Mr. Stojic or Mr. Boban, and above all it concerns the composition of

21 your headquarters. As far as the links to Mr. Stojic are concerned, do

22 you agree with what is stated? It says "Political and administrative

23 authority," in relation to you.

24 A. It says "Executive authority, Ministry of Defence." The

25 Defence Department, it was part of the executive authority of the HVO, as

Page 49840

1 one of its bodies.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

3 A. It was a civilian -- or, rather, there was a political control

4 over the army.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Among those who worked in the

6 Main Staff, one can see the names, positions, et cetera. What I'm

7 interested in is the Operations Centre. There's no name there, but I

8 have the impression that it functioned 24 hours a day. Is this

9 Operations Centre a centre that monitored all military activities in the

10 field?

11 A. Your Honours, the operative centre -- Operations Centre was room

12 in which there were three people on duty. They were together, and they

13 maintained communication with certain units. Otherwise, the

14 Operations Centre was not the unit to supervise combat, as it says here,

15 combat activity, to oversee combat activity. What it does was to oversee

16 and monitor all events in the operative zones. They need not be only

17 combat activity. They oversee everything, the life and work, and

18 everything that is reported to the Operations Centre. It compiles

19 reports for a given day, and then everybody knows what was done in a

20 certain zone. However --

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will give you a specific

22 case, Sovici and Doljani. In the organigram that we have, who followed

23 the events there minute by minute?

24 A. Sovici and Doljani, as well as everything else that was happening

25 in the territory of Herceg-Bosna, was monitored by people who were on

Page 49841

1 duty on that day in the Main Staff, and that would be three or four men

2 who were designated to be connected to the communications equipment all

3 the time.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this duty, where is it on

5 the organigram that we have in front of us?

6 A. It all comes under the box as -- entitled "Operations Centre."

7 In those days, there was no Operations Centre, as such. It was formed

8 after the Main Staff moved to Citluk. Here, we had a duty service which

9 would be linked to a telephone line in the corridor.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I understand you

11 correctly, regardless of the combat going on on the ground, at all times

12 at the level of the Main Staff you were informed of what may be

13 happening. Is that correct or is it wrong?

14 A. Your Honours, it all depended on whether it was the operative

15 zone and how frequently it contacted the Main Staff. The Main Staff

16 could not establish links with the situation on the ground, but only

17 through the operative zone. So if the operative zone has information

18 important for the Main Staff, it would pass it on. If not, they would

19 call up in the morning, a few hours later, and then once again in the

20 early evening.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll come back to Stupni Do

22 through other documents. I'd now like to focus on Stupni Do, itself.

23 Mr. Rajic was in charge of the military action there, the main

24 reason being the strengthening of the ABiH in that area, which was of

25 strategic interest. Therefore, there was a military action, a military

Page 49842

1 operation. This military operation led by Rajic, who I will recall had

2 left Kiseljak and had passed across Serb territory -- and who is

3 conducting an operation mobilising several units, in real time, minute by

4 minute, the Main Staff -- the officers on duty in the Main Staff were

5 following what was happening on the ground. And, for example, did they

6 learn, in real time, that two soldiers of units led by Rajic had been

7 killed?

8 A. Your Honours, during these proceedings you were able to see the

9 first report which arrived about 7.00 in the evening, so that was the

10 first report that Ivica Rajic had sent since his arrival on the 22nd,

11 that he had sent to the Main Staff to brief them on what was happening.

12 Therefore, for more than 24 hours he did not contact anyone or

13 communicate with anyone.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This is important,

15 what you have just said. You're saying under oath, and I insist, that in

16 the case that I am quoting, the case of Stupni Do, there was no

17 evaluation of the situation in real time by the duty officers in the

18 Main Staff, and therefore by you, and you are telling us that you learnt

19 about this at 1900 hours; that is, at 7.00 in the evening you learnt what

20 had happened. But when you say that to me, General Petkovic, in military

21 terms, is it normal functioning or should the military command not be

22 constantly in contact with the military operations being conducted on the

23 ground, or was this impossible in view of the situation at the time?

24 A. Your Honours, first of all, Ivica Rajic was not sent there to

25 conduct any kind of operations. That is my first observation. And the

Page 49843

1 Main Staff and the rest of us did not expect Ivica Rajic to conduct any

2 kind of operations in that area.

3 Ivica Rajic was sent there to stabilise the front-line which had

4 been broken through by the ABiH from the village of Kopljari towards

5 certain features which were closer and closer to the town of Vares. That

6 was his only assignment. In view of such a situation, it was left up to

7 Ivica Rajic to reconnoiter the situation, to report to us, report to his

8 superiors in the chain of command. However, Ivica Rajic violated the

9 rules regarding the duty to report, and for the whole day on the 22nd he

10 did not report to anyone as to what he had done during that day, nor had

11 he proposed actions for further approval. He carried out the operation

12 in Stupni Do on his own initiative, which he was not assigned to do, and

13 it was only in the evening that he sent a report on the events in

14 Stupni Do. And we were all faced with a fait accompli. We didn't know

15 what was happening in Stupni Do exactly, because even his report didn't

16 give us a proper insight.

17 Then additional reports were required by members of the

18 Main Staff. And I, myself, on the 25th, asked for additional information

19 as to what had happened in Stupni Do. So there was a certain

20 interruption in the links between the operation and the Main Staff.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. General Petkovic,

22 if what you are saying conforms with reality, and that is that Mr. Rajic

23 had his principal mission to consolidate the front-line, that is why he

24 was there, he wasn't there to conduct an offensive operation, fine. Why

25 not? But in view of such a hypothesis, he arrives there and he finds

Page 49844

1 that facing him he has ABiH units in large numbers - I have even seen a

2 figure, 200 - and these units are firing at him, that he has dead and

3 wounded, and that there is a real military problem, because it is no

4 longer a question of consolidating the front, but he had to face up to a

5 military action with casualties. And in view of such a situation, should

6 not Rajic have, through the communication means he had at his disposal,

7 immediately inform, and I underline "immediately," inform the commander

8 of the operational zone so that: one, he should brief him on the

9 situation; secondly, to request, if necessary, reinforcements? Would

10 that not be the procedure that he should have followed?

11 A. Your Honours, yes, that would be the procedure, but even I should

12 add that that very evening he should have informed the staff of his

13 decision, or, rather, to request approval or rejection. He didn't do

14 either of those things. He didn't even go to Stupni Do. When he

15 dismissed the persons who had come from the western part of the

16 front-line together with Mr. Stosic, he made the decision to head for

17 Stupni Do, and he did this early in the morning. And probably for those

18 reasons, until he had completed what he had intended, he didn't wish to

19 report to any institution.

20 There was a dispute over a report sent on the -- at 11.00. He

21 claimed that he hadn't done it. If it is in dispute, then the first

22 report he sent was in the evening, around 7.00 p.m.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We shall look at

24 document P551.

25 A. Your Honours, may I just comment on this document first, 9234? I

Page 49845

1 don't know who prepared it, but the names of departments are not

2 correctly indicated, nor the names of certain positions.

3 For example, O, all the persons had the status of chiefs or

4 heads, and here it says "Commander of the artillery." There's no

5 commander of the artillery. There is the chief of the engineers, the

6 chief of communications, et cetera. Here, it always says "Heads," and

7 for the artillery it says "Commander," and he's not a commander of the

8 artillery. Also, there are errors in the names of certain departments,

9 but they are not so important. I think the most important mistake is

10 that there is no such position as an artillery commander in the

11 Main Staff.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a moment, please. There

13 seems to be a problem of translation.

14 Mr. Registrar, General Praljak tells us that he's having

15 problems. No, it's working now.

16 General Petkovic, with respect to the last document, which is a

17 Prosecution document, you are telling us that there are errors. And you

18 have indicated those errors, and it is in the transcript now.

19 I'd like us to look at document P551 -- 151. 151, I'm sorry. We

20 have the document in your own language, and that is most important.

21 You can see it's a document dated the 8th of April, 1992, signed

22 by Mr. Boban, regarding the creation of the Croatian Defence Council.

23 What I am interested in, first of all, is the preamble, because the

24 decision is motivated by a certain situation. And in the preamble that

25 you can read, as I can, General Petkovic, it is indicated that there is

Page 49846

1 an aggression and that there is a disintegration of the system of defence

2 due to the impotence of the legal authorities of the Republic of

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which appears to be motivating Article 1 and 2, the

4 formation of the HVO -- the military of the HVO.

5 In April 1992, was that the situation that you, yourself,

6 experienced; that is, there was no legal authority on the ground, it was

7 absent, and you had to face an enemy? Was that, indeed, the situation or

8 not, because this document is a document of the Prosecution and it says

9 that Mr. Boban created the HVO in an illegal manner, in a certain sense,

10 in order to carry out the project of the so-called joint criminal

11 enterprise? That is the thesis of the OTP, through this document. But

12 in this document, in the preamble there is reference to a particular

13 situation. What would be your comment, please?

14 A. Your Honours, it is quite understandable, because this date, the

15 8th of April, 1992 --

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, the accused

17 cannot hear.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you hear me now? Yes.

19 Your Honours, it is quite understandable that on this date, the

20 8th of April, 1992, the impotence of the legal authorities in the

21 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina is reflected in the fact that Bosnia and

22 Herzegovina did not have structured units which could at this point in

23 time resist the aggression of the JNA and the VRS, which was the

24 situation on the ground. In view of this, and at a time of fierce

25 fighting at Kupres conducted by the HVO against the JNA and the VRS,

Page 49847

1 Mr. Boban is conscious of the situation that the legal authorities in

2 that area, or in the area of Herzegovina and even in the so-called free

3 part of Bosnia, can still not establish significant military effectives

4 [as interpreted], and he made the decision that the Croats should

5 organise themselves as the Croatian Defence Council to represent a

6 compact whole which would resist this aggression. This decision by

7 Mate Boban fully corresponds to a later decision by Mr. Izetbegovic on

8 the proclamation of a state of war, in which he says that the

9 proclamation of a state of war is aimed at the right of the citizens,

10 through individual and collective self-defence, to ensure the most

11 effective use of the people in defence from aggression. So the people

12 are entitled, individually and collectively, to defend themselves, their

13 interests, and the interests of those living with them. Therefore, the

14 Croatian people did have the right, if the area where they and others

15 were living were at risk, to organise defence, and that is what he did.

16 Already on the 4th of April, 1992, he was attacked, and he successfully

17 resisted the JNA and the VRS throughout the territory of Kupres

18 municipality and parts of the municipalities of Livno and Tomislavgrad.

19 Therefore, Mr. Mate Boban took the decision at a time of the fiercest

20 fighting in Kupres, when there were no government forces there at the

21 time. And you heard when the commander of the army from Vakuf testified

22 here, when I asked him about Kupres, he doesn't even remember what

23 happened. And they were separated by a mountain chain, and from this he

24 could have observed the entire Kupres Plateau.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, Article 2

Page 49848

1 mentions the fact that the objectives shall be to defend the sovereignty

2 of the territories of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and to

3 protect the Croatian people, but this might seem important, what has also

4 been added is "as well as other peoples." So when I read Article 2, I

5 have the impression that this text has a very broad scope. The HVO --

6 A. Precisely, Your Honours. Mr. Mate Boban couldn't make the

7 decision to expand this to incorporate the entire region of

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Your Honours, Mr. Mate Boban took this decision for

9 a narrow area where he did wield influence and could establish units made

10 up of the Croatian people and anybody else who wished to join.

11 Mate Boban could not make a decision which would hold true for the entire

12 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. That kind of decision would be up to

13 the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina to make, and it did gradually decide

14 to establish its units and to have them involved in combat operations.

15 Otherwise, I've already said that I arrived in Herzegovina -- or, rather,

16 when I arrived in Herzegovina, I was surprised to see that the Presidency

17 of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces should, in that part from the

18 Prozor-Jablanica line towards the Croatian border, did not have any

19 operative team or command on duty and no established unit, the strength

20 of a brigade or anything else, except for the Independent Battalion in

21 Mostar. Therefore, Mr. Izetbegovic quite obviously accepted the

22 involvement of the Croatian Defence Council and Mr. Boban and everybody

23 else, their involvement in the defence of that part of the territory, and

24 he devoted himself to the establishment of units in other parts further

25 into Bosnia-Herzegovina, in depth. And we can see this in his order at

Page 49849

1 the end of May and beginning of June 1992.

2 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please speak slower. Thank

3 you.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, thank you for

5 your answer, but your answer is very lengthy, very interesting. But you

6 know that we have time restrictions. It's perhaps the fact that you have

7 been familiar with Geneva diplomats, who allowed you to express yourself

8 at length, I don't know. But try to be more brief, more concise, because

9 that will allow me to follow up with a series of questions. Otherwise, I

10 will have to limit myself because of time restrictions. However, if you

11 believe that it's important to say some things, well, take your time.

12 We'll have a look at P274.

13 A. Thank you.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] P274 is a document of the 20th

15 of June, 1992. It's from the president, Mr. Izetbegovic, and it concerns

16 a proclamation of a state of war. This might help us understand the

17 previous document that we had a look at.

18 As you can see in this document, you have a preamble in which

19 Mr. Izetbegovic explains the situation. There is an act of aggression,

20 and 70 per cent of the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and

21 Herzegovina is occupied, which means that only 30 per cent of the

22 territory remains free. Is this correct or not?

23 A. Yes, Your Honour, that is correct.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Have a look at

25 item 2 of this decision, where the following is stated:

Page 49850

1 "The proclamation of the state of war is based on individual and

2 collective rights of citizens to self-defence ..."

3 When I see this sentence, I wonder whether Mr. Izetbegovic

4 considered that all citizens, Serbs, Croats, or Muslims, or any community

5 in which there were Croats and Muslims, not Serbs, because the Serbs were

6 the aggressors, should defend themselves. Is that what is stated?

7 A. Yes, Your Honour, that is what is stated here, but I would

8 include also the part of the Serbs who remained in these areas and put

9 themselves at the service of the defence of Bosnia-Herzegovina, as

10 Mr. Izetbegovic says. And ultimately the deputy Chief of the General

11 Staff, Jovo Divjak, was a Serb, himself.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Have a look at

13 item 3, where the armed forces - it's in the plural - are to take

14 measures. We've already discussed the use of the plural. That is --

15 you're stating your position for the first time. It's perhaps useful to

16 hear what you have to say. What does it mean? What does it mean when

17 one says "the armed forces" and when this is put in the plural?

18 A. Well, Your Honours, "Mr. Izetbegovic" means all those forces,

19 regardless of what their names are, who want to place themselves in a

20 position whereby they would defend the free territory of

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina from the Patriotic League that existed, the

22 Territorial Defence that was under inception, the HVO, and everybody

23 else, all the others who wished to oppose the aggression by

24 Republika Srpska and the Serb forces.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you include the

Page 49851

1 HVO in "the armed forces."

2 Have a look at item 5, where it says that the UN Security Council

3 is informed of this document. That's what it states.

4 A. Yes, the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina informed the

5 United Nations about the aggression that had been launched against the

6 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does that mean on the 20th of

8 January, 1992 -- the 20th of June, correction, 1992, the international

9 community, and the highest level of the international community, the

10 Security Council, is aware of the fact that there's been an act of

11 aggression by the Serbs and that the armed forces of Bosnia and

12 Herzegovina, responding to the aggression, and the HVO forms part of

13 these forces?

14 A. Yes, precisely so, Your Honours, because it was only the

15 president of the Presidency who could say that an aggression had been

16 carried out. Nobody could say that before him. So if on that day, he

17 notes that an aggression had been conducted against Bosnia-Herzegovina,

18 and he defined the aggressor, he informed the Security Council thereof,

19 or, rather, the Security Council.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll have a look at document

21 P00279. The date is the 20th of June again, so the date is important.

22 And you are the author of this document; is that correct? The 26th of

23 June is the date. I apologise.

24 A. Yes, that's correct.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you know that in

Page 49852

1 the indictment and in the Prosecution's allegations, there's an

2 international armed conflict that is mentioned and the intervention of

3 the Croatian Army. Have a look at paragraph 2, "Operative and tactical

4 situation." You, yourself, say that the HVO, with the assistance of the

5 Croatian Army, with considerable assistance provided by the Croatian

6 Army, well, that's what you meant, and what did you mean by that?

7 A. Your Honours -- Your Honour Judge Antonetti, the forces of the

8 Croatian Army acted in the border belt, because the forces of the JNA and

9 the Army of Republika Srpska were deployed both in Bosnia-Herzegovina and

10 on the territory of the Republic of Croatia. They were united forces,

11 and along with an operation from the HVO to liberate the Neretva Valley,

12 the Croatian Army forces in this border belt repelled the Serb forces and

13 Army of Republika Srpska from the territory of the Republic of Croatia,

14 and thus made a considerable contribution to liberating the territory

15 east of the Neretva River on the day before the war was declared -- a

16 state of war was declared in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Page 3 in the English

18 version - it's certainly page 3 in the version you have, too - you

19 provide a list of the forces: 3.500 in Mostar, 3.400; Siroki Brijeg,

20 1.500, et cetera, so we have the strength of troops there. We can see

21 that in the English version and in your version too. And below, you

22 explain that, in fact, the HVO forces represent a division. So when you

23 drafted this in June 1992, was that, in fact, the real situation with

24 regard to HVO forces? There was barely one division?

25 A. Judge Antonetti, this is my proposal as to how the HVO forces

Page 49853

1 could be reduced to this amount. The HVO forces, up until then, were far

2 greater, and it was my assessment that given the present situation, the

3 prevailing situation, that in the Neretva River Valley a reorganisation

4 of forces should take place whereby these forces could be capable of

5 controlling the area and defending it, and preventing any further attacks

6 or repeated attacks by the Army of Republika Srpska and the JNA. So

7 these are not the forces that were there. This is an assessment of how

8 far we should reduce the forces in existence and also guarantee the

9 security situation and defence lines reached at that point in time. So

10 there were far larger forces before, and I think -- my thinking was,

11 We've liberated the left bank of the Neretva River, we don't need that

12 many forces now for us to be able to hold the line. So it was my

13 proposal to assess how many soldiers we really did need to hold the line

14 and provide security, and guarantee that the Serbs could not return to

15 the Neretva.

16 And all other HVO forces were in West Herzegovina,

17 Central Bosnia, and so on and so forth. This is just a portion of those

18 forces which were located south of Mostar, Mostar, and Stolac.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll have a look at the last

20 document before the break. It's an important emblematic document. We've

21 spoken about it often. It's been discussed in many cases before this

22 Tribunal. P476. It is an incriminating document, a Prosecution

23 document, and it's a decision from the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and

24 Herzegovina. It's a decision that everyone is very familiar with.

25 Before we have a look at the contents of the document: This

Page 49854

1 decision is dated the 18th of September, 1992. As far as you can

2 remember, General Petkovic, when you were the chief of staff, at the

3 front-line, in your office, on the roads, do you become familiar with the

4 existence of the document at the time? Now, of course, you are familiar

5 with it. But at the time, were you aware of this decision? Did you

6 learn about this decision anywhere?

7 A. Your Honours, I never heard about this decision. And on the --

8 well, this is the 18th of September. So if we look at the date and we

9 look at the 7th of October, when I was in Sarajevo and so on, nobody had

10 the courage to say, Listen, Petkovic, when I occupied a high post, a

11 month ago such and such a decision was taken and it's up to us to inform

12 you about that. No, nobody showed me a decision of that kind with

13 Izetbegovic, Halilovic, and Boban, and Mile Akmadzic, the prime minister.

14 We were in Geneva. Nobody told us that the Constitutional Court of

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina had made any decision. So this was hidden, and it was

16 left to be used at an opportune moment.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In the decision,

18 item 5, we have a list of all the texts that are being annulled. Five

19 refers to the Decree on the Armed Forces of the Croatian Community of

20 Herceg-Bosna, which was adopted on the 3rd of July, 1992. So that was a

21 decree that was to be annulled. Can you see that? Is that what it

22 states?

23 A. Yes, yes, Your Honour, I can see that it was annulled. The

24 Decree on the Armed Forces, which was passed on the 3rd of July, 1992,

25 was annulled, but not the decision on the establishment of the HVO which

Page 49855

1 we saw under P5115 [as interpreted], and the date of that was the 8th of

2 April, 1992, because the Constitutional Court did not have the right to

3 annul anybody -- any nation in Bosnia and Herzegovina the right to defend

4 Bosnia-Herzegovina. They don't have the right to do that, because the

5 Constitution says that he has the right, individually, and with others,

6 to help to defend Bosnia-Herzegovina.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers kindly slow down. Thank

8 you.

9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] May I correct the transcript. On

10 page 30, line 22, the general gave us the number of the document. It was

11 P151.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I said that that document was

13 not abolished and that the Constitutional Court did not have the right to

14 annul the document. It can't deny Croats the right, in

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, to defend Bosnia-Herzegovina, because that is a

16 constitutional category and provision.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I can see that you have some

18 legal knowledge, given your comments. It's not surprising, in view of

19 the high-level position you had at the time. As you have some knowledge,

20 you can certainly clarify a certain number of points for us.

21 The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Bosnia and

22 Herzegovina, which functioned in an almost identical way to the way in

23 which constitutional courts function in other countries, in my country,

24 for example, and because of that it's not surprising when I see this

25 text - it's quite traditional, quite normal - you say that the

Page 49856

1 Constitutional Court acted on its own initiative, that's what it says.

2 As far as you know, could this Court seize itself, act on its own

3 initiative?

4 A. Well, it says here that was the initiative of the

5 Constitutional Court, itself, and that on the basis of this

6 auto-initiative, that it took this decision and these decisions. Now, I

7 interpret this in the following way: that the Constitutional Court did

8 not consult anybody else. I don't know whether by law it was duty-bound

9 to do so, but in my opinion it would have been a good idea if it had

10 consulted the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Presidency of

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina to see what should be done at that given moment.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The decision

13 doesn't have any page numbers, but I have a page number 0050-7515. On

14 this page, the Constitutional Court explains the legal foundation for

15 annulling the decree. It's paragraph 3 in the English version. It's not

16 necessary to have a look at it. It's sufficient to look at me and to

17 listen to me. It says that the territorial organisation and the

18 political organisation of these municipalities, in order to make sure

19 that it's in conformity with the Constitution, has to be implemented in

20 accordance with the law, through a legislative procedure. And the text

21 on the armed forces that are to be annulled wasn't adopted by law.

22 That's what the Constitutional Court says. If this had been done

23 legally, then they would have said it's quite legal. So that is the

24 reason that resulted in this annulment. The legislative procedure that

25 should have been followed wasn't followed. It's not excluded -- they

Page 49857

1 don't exclude that had the procedure been followed, the HVO could be in

2 accordance with the Constitution. As far as you know at the time, did

3 the Parliament -- or could Parliament convene in order to have a certain

4 text, a certain document, adopted legally?

5 A. Your Honours, at that time the Assembly of Bosnia-Herzegovina

6 could not have been convened. At that time, neither Mr. Izetbegovic

7 could leave Sarajevo, so he had to wait until July or later to leave

8 Sarajevo for the first time, not to have delegates come to the Assembly.

9 And which delegates? We're talking 1992 here.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's now time for

11 our break. We'll have a 20-minute break.

12 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.

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

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed.

15 Judge Prandler apologises. He will not be present. He will join

16 us as soon as possible. He has a medical reason for his absence, but he

17 will join us as soon as possible.

18 Mr. Scott.

19 MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Your Honours.

20 Sorry for my absence this morning. I had something come up that

21 I was not able to reschedule, but I appreciate the Court's indulgence.

22 Your Honours, just while it's fresh in our mind, I wasn't sure --

23 I was reading the transcript of the first session and the ruling at the

24 first about the re-examination, and it wasn't clear to the

25 Prosecution - perhaps it's clear to others, perhaps not - the intention

Page 49858

1 of the timing of the additional questions that the Petkovic Defence might

2 be allowed to put. It was the impression -- it was the majority

3 impression, if you will, on the Prosecution side that what was understood

4 or what was intended was that following all of the Judges' questions,

5 including yours, Mr. President, but once you'd completed, there would be

6 an opportunity then for the Petkovic Defence to raise any questions

7 arising out of your -- out of your questions, the Judges' questions,

8 because at one point in one of the statements it said this would happen

9 prior to the cross-examinations by the other parties. However, then

10 toward the end of the ruling, it then talked about during the

11 re-examination, and so it's not clear to the Prosecution, with all great

12 respect, what the Chamber's thinking or intentions are, whether the

13 Petkovic Defence would then seek to supplement its direct examination

14 immediately following the Judges' questions or something else.

15 We would appreciate any additional clarification, Your Honours.

16 Thank you.

17 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, clearly the clarification of

18 Your Honours' ruling is for Your Honours. I can simply tell you what the

19 Petkovic Defence understanding was, and it really stems -- and it seems

20 to us that it's just a supposed ambiguity has been found in what the

21 Trial Chamber said, but we had understood that at page 2 of today's

22 transcript, where Your Honour said:

23 "The Chamber finds that regarding the subjects raised during the

24 questions put by the Judges to Milivoj Petkovic at the end of the

25 examination-in-chief and before the cross-examination by the other

Page 49859

1 parties," Your Honours were simply referring to the point at which

2 Your Honours' questions were being put, i.e., at the end of the

3 examination-in-chief and before the cross-examination by the other

4 parties. And we had certainly understood, from -- in fact, Your Honour,

5 thank you. We regarded Your Honour's ruling this morning as very clear

6 and helpful, but we had understood that the re-examination was going to

7 include, of course, the normal questions arising out of cross-examination

8 by the other parties and then any questions which arose out of

9 Your Honour's questions to Mr. Petkovic.

10 Clearly -- well, we're both inviting clarification, if there's

11 any doubt at all, but that was our clear understanding.

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

13 permission, may I just put the Petkovic Defence position.

14 We are in the second half of the presentation of the Defence case

15 now, and thus far, at least in three Defence teams, we had the situation

16 whereby Judges ask questions during the examination-in-chief, and the

17 reactions to the Judges' questions, all the Defence teams have had

18 experience with this, and we also have experience from the examination of

19 General Praljak, and never has the question arisen as to whether the

20 Defence conducting the examination-in-chief has the right to ask a

21 question following a Judge's question.

22 It is quite clear that the Defence teams that are going to

23 cross-examine will refer to the questions put by the Judges, because

24 those questions are, indeed, relevant ones, and so far it's never been

25 contested that the Defence team conducting the examination-in-chief has

Page 49860

1 the same rights. So I'm just going to repeat what my colleague

2 Mr. Stewart has already said, that your decision of this morning is quite

3 logical and expected and quite in keeping with practice in this courtroom

4 thus far.

5 Thank you.

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

7 Your Honours.

8 I listened to the decision with quite a bit of alarm, and I even

9 had a conversation with my client. I spoke with some of my colleagues.

10 And here are the reasons why.

11 And before, perhaps, I give the reasons, let me go back to what

12 Mr. Mundis had once reminded us with respect to the way, in the past, at

13 least, how trials were conducted. There would be direct, there would be

14 cross-examination, Judges' questions, then there would be redirect, but

15 also all of the parties would have an opportunity to ask questions

16 concerning the Judges' questioning.

17 Now, obviously things have moved on. This is a larger case. In

18 this particular instance, Mr. President, I must say the way this trial is

19 being conducted, at least right now, is rather unprecedented, in the

20 sense that the Presiding Judge is asking questions like a party. The

21 Rules were not designed in that fashion. However, I think an

22 interpretation of the Statute certainly does not restrict a Judge to

23 asking questions, and certainly it's not my position to restrict a Judge

24 from conducting the examination that he or she feels is necessary in

25 achieving the right result at the end of the case.

Page 49861

1 However, having said that, what is being done right now,

2 Your Honours, is you're conducting an additional direct examination, plus

3 cross-examination, and that's fine. This is -- you know, Judges normally

4 don't cross-examine, they examine, and a Judge can ask direct and leading

5 questions back and forth. However, it puts the others at a grave

6 disadvantage, because you go into an area -- you've restricted us to

7 36 minutes. Now I have to decide, Do I do what I was planning on doing?

8 Do I challenge, or do I supplement any questions based on what the -- the

9 party that did the direct examination? Do I address your questions?

10 Today, there were several instances where I would have wanted follow-up

11 questions. They did not come. Obviously, I cannot control the

12 proceedings. But now I have to make some choices.

13 So given the circumstances, it is highly prejudicial to the

14 parties to just restrict us to the time that you've given us. That's

15 number 1.

16 Number 2, where I think it's fundamentally unfair. And I rarely

17 use this word, but this is -- I think it's fundamentally unfair to

18 suggest that the party who brings a witness can scratch an issue, then

19 force the other party to maybe go into the issue, and then, on redirect,

20 come back with all the ammunition that was available. And I indicated

21 it's called "sand-bagging," that's the terminology that we're using.

22 Now, why is that fundamentally unfair? Because in this procedure

23 we do not have the opportunity for re-cross-examination, and so there is

24 a reason why I think Judge May insisted on the British rule of putting

25 your case to the witness. You have to do it at the time.

Page 49862

1 And so I think many of my colleagues are very, very concerned

2 that what's going to happen is now you've gone into areas that the

3 Petkovic Defence did not go into, and so now the Petkovic Defence

4 obviously, and rightfully, can go into those areas on redirect -- on

5 redirect examination, introduce documents, thus depriving the rest of us,

6 albeit not intentionally, or maybe intentionally - I don't know, it

7 doesn't matter - but depriving the rest of us from then responding. We

8 certainly -- you know, so have you to look at it from that standpoint.

9 The Rules are designed so that everybody has a fair opportunity

10 to be heard, even under the time constraints, and so I think that we need

11 to think about this. I'm not asking for any particular measures right

12 now. I don't know what Mr. Scott and his team feel. I didn't mention

13 the -- bring up the issue with them.

14 But we are concerned that we don't have enough time. My client

15 believes that right now we need about two hours. Now, maybe that's

16 unrealistic. Maybe that's asking for too much. I don't know. But

17 certainly you're going to do a three- or four-day direct examination, on

18 top of six hours -- six actual hours of direct examination by the other

19 party.

20 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, this does directly concern the

21 Petkovic Defence, which is why I'm on my feet again.

22 Mr. Karnavas raises two separate points, and he went back to his

23 first point at the end. His first point is simply the question of time.

24 I've got nothing to say about that right now, except that if at some

25 appropriate point in the course of the examination of Mr. Petkovic any of

Page 49863

1 the parties believe that they have a justified case to apply for more

2 time, they can make that application. We can cross that bridge when we

3 come to it, and they can make the application. I've got nothing to say

4 about it until any such application is specifically made.

5 So far as his second point is concerned, scratching an issue, not

6 bringing something up in examination-in-chief, Your Honour, this has been

7 dealt with. This has been debated, it has been discussed and argued, it

8 has been ruled upon. It's effectively been ruled upon in Your Honour's

9 clear ruling this morning.

10 I don't know whether Mr. Karnavas wasn't here on some of the

11 dates when it was debated, and I don't mean that in any way offensively.

12 I just don't know whether he was. But the fact is that that issue has

13 been resolved. He's raising it all over again, when it's already been

14 decided.

15 MR. KHAN: Your Honour --

16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I might be

17 allowed to follow on, since we're dealing with the Petkovic Defence. I

18 apologise to my colleague. Your Honours, just let me add one more

19 element.

20 I fully support everything that Mr. Karnavas said before me about

21 the fear, on the part of certain Defences, as to what can happen during

22 examination by the Judges, and that they won't have enough time to react

23 during the cross-examination; and, on the other hand, that we, as Defence

24 counsel for General Petkovic, will have time to react to what the Judges

25 raise through their questions and signify it as an important area. So I

Page 49864

1 completely agree with Mr. Karnavas, and I do consider that it is a matter

2 that must be resolved, and that all Defence teams must have the feeling

3 that they are being given enough time to go about their business in the

4 right way, as they see fit. That is why I fully support the reassertion

5 of the institution of a re-cross-examination.

6 But let me say that as far as I know, Your Honours, nobody was

7 ever forbidden from examining in re-cross-examination if they so desired

8 and requested. And let me just remind you that I did make this request

9 when it came to a Prosecution witness, Marijan Biskic, after the

10 cross-examination by the Coric Defence, and similarly I also requested

11 this for a Defence witness, Bruno Stojic, for Mr. Ivan Bandic, after the

12 Prosecutor's cross-examination. And I explained to Your Honours why I

13 wished to recross examine, and I was given the right to do so.

14 So I consider that my colleagues now, once we're examining

15 General Petkovic, must have the right for re-cross-examination and must

16 know that they enjoy that right, if they see fit and if the need arises

17 for that. And there's no doubt that the Trial Chamber will permit them

18 to re-cross-examine, if they should so request.

19 MR. KHAN: Mr. President, with your leave, and I will endeavour

20 to be brief.

21 In my submission, I have a lot of sympathy for the position put

22 forward by the Prosecution. There's no question at all about the right

23 of the Defence for General Petkovic to ask questions arising out of the

24 questions put forward by the Bench. It's simply a question of timing.

25 Whether or not that is called re-examination, or whether or not

Page 49865

1 Your Honours simply give leave to ask additional questions, is an issue

2 of nomenclature. Nothing turns upon it at all. But it does, in my

3 respectful submission, lend to judicial efficiency to actually have

4 questions put by the Defence for General Petkovic immediately after the

5 Bench has asked questions that they think are necessary. The reason for

6 that is to avoid confusion.

7 Down the line, when we come to the issue of re-examination

8 proper, and of course the Rules, I think it's fair to say, when they were

9 initially adopted, in large measure initially from the American Bar

10 Association Rules, contemplated a common-law adversarial system, but this

11 of course is not a purely adversarial, common-law system, it is a hybrid

12 of both, and I have no qualms at all regarding questioning from the

13 Bench. Indeed, it is to be welcomed in large measure. But,

14 Your Honours, when one is looking at a partage of process, the idea of

15 re-examination, in large measure, is to allow the Defence or the party

16 putting questions to have the final word to clarify issues so that

17 nothing is left ambiguous.

18 Now, Your Honours, if we can draw a distinction between questions

19 from the Bench, who, of course, are not a party, it may, indeed, lend

20 clarity. So what I do, in my respectful submission, put forward is that

21 after, Mr. President, you have finished your questions, and after any

22 questions from other members of the Bench in this nature, an opportunity

23 is given to the Defence for General Petkovic to ask questions arising out

24 of the questions from the Bench. Once that is done, all parties will

25 have a clearer picture as to the issues that General Petkovic wishes to

Page 49866

1 put forward, and we can resume with normal cross-examination. And at the

2 end of that, issues that arise out of cross-examination from the parties

3 can be put by General Petkovic. That way, there's no confusion with the

4 Defence for any of us, or the Prosecution, jumping up and saying,

5 Your Honours, this doesn't arise out of cross-examination from the

6 parties, because nobody can take cover with the general rubric that, no,

7 it doesn't arise out of cross-examination from the parties, but it arises

8 out of questioning from the Bench. I think that, in essence, is the nub

9 of my submission, in support of the Prosecution, that any additional

10 questions arising out of Your Honours' questions from the Bench should be

11 done immediately after the questions have been put and prior to

12 cross-examination by the parties.

13 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I think we can help by saying that,

14 actually, on this --

15 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I got up

16 first. So as a lady, may I be given priority?

17 MR. STEWART: You can have priority certainly for that reason, of

18 course; not one I would have suggested, myself, but because you did stand

19 up first. I just didn't see you. My apologies.

20 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Well, sometimes have you

21 to resort to all possible means available.

22 I'd just like to add to what my colleagues have already said,

23 Mr. Karnavas and the rest, Mr. Khan, and tell you of the problems I faced

24 with two practical examples.

25 Yesterday, when the Trial Chamber divided up the time to the

Page 49867

1 Defence teams, it had in mind summary and direct examination by the

2 Petkovic Defence, or in-chief by the Petkovic Defence. There was no

3 indication, for example, that a lot would be discussed about the military

4 police, and in that way the Coric Defence was given 36 minutes, pursuant

5 to the Trial Chamber's ruling. Yesterday, however, we spent a whole

6 session discussing -- or, rather, Judge Antonetti examined Mr. Petkovic

7 on the topic of the military police, and they were broad topics linked to

8 the military police; what the establishment of the military police was,

9 its structure, the chain of command, and so on.

10 Now, for each of those topics, for the general to be shown

11 documents and for him to be given enough time to read them, if we take it

12 that we need five minutes per document, then in 30 minutes we can only

13 deal with six documents. That's the math of it. So that's the question

14 of time. And I think that after the Judges' questions, we should

15 re-think the time allotted to the parties.

16 The second question that arises, and that's where I wish to

17 support Mr. Khan in what he said, linked to timing; that is to say, when

18 the Petkovic Defence, in our opinion, should conduct its additional

19 examination.

20 From the documents, we can see that Judge Antonetti, in his

21 examination -- and that was broached in chief, the topic of prisons and

22 forced labour. Now, what we have heard on those two subjects thus far

23 from General Petkovic is only this: that the Main Staff -- or, rather,

24 that he had nothing to do with that. Now, at this point in time, perhaps

25 I've got something wrong, but he just dealt with the role of the

Page 49868

1 Main Staff and didn't deal with the roles of the other accused in these

2 proceedings. But what can happen is that during these additional

3 questions, for example, and after the Judges' questions, following the

4 Judges' questions, we hear something quite new, new additional

5 information, because of which we would need to cross-examine again, and

6 then what will happen is that we will be in this vicious circle. We'll

7 have cross-examination, then we'll have re-examination or redirect, then

8 perhaps some of us will ask the right to re-cross-examine, and then the

9 Petkovic Defence, who certainly has the right to do so, have another

10 re-examination session, and I see no end to it. And that's why I think

11 it would be far more practical and far more proper to -- and fairer to

12 all the parties concerned that the Petkovic Defence conduct its

13 additional questions and asks its additional questions before

14 cross-examination, that is to say, additional questions following the

15 Judges' questions, so that we can again re-think the time allotted to all

16 the rest who are going to cross-examine.

17 So that is my proposal. Thank you.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic -- wait a

19 moment, please. I have a question to put to General Petkovic, and

20 everything will depend on his answer.

21 General Petkovic, you have listened to the debate. I should like

22 to know whether you want me to ask you questions or not. If you say, No,

23 I will stop asking you questions. But if you tell me, Yes, ask me

24 questions, I will continue with my questions. Why? Because when

25 General Praljak was in your seat, he told us, I wish to answer all

Page 49869

1 questions. I'm here for the establishment of the truth. And it is under

2 those conditions that I put questions to him. So if, like

3 General Praljak, you wish the truth to be established, if you want me to

4 ask you questions, you tell me; if not, I will stop, and I will give the

5 floor immediately to Mr. Karnavas for the cross-examination. Everything

6 depends on you.

7 MR. STEWART: Your Honour --

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a minute. I'm asking

9 General Petkovic a question. Let him answer, and then afterwards I will

10 give you the floor.

11 MR. STEWART: I beg your pardon, Your Honour. I didn't

12 appreciate it was specifically a question. My apologies.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It is a question

14 addressed to Mr. Petkovic.

15 THE WITNESS: Your Honours, I shall act no differently than

16 General Praljak acted. So, yes, I will listen to all your questions and

17 provide the answers. Whether you want those answers or not, I will give

18 you the answers as I feel should be given.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But you're not

20 answering my question. Do you want me to ask you questions?

21 THE WITNESS: Yes, I do, I do. I agree.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. To answer first to

23 the counsel for Mr. Coric, it is true that I have touched questions

24 relating to the military police.

25 Mr. Stewart is going to have the floor, but it is I who has

Page 49870

1 priority for the moment. I will give you the floor, Mr. Stewart, but let

2 me respond to the counsel for Mr. Coric.

3 Questions of the military police were addressed yesterday, but I

4 did not insist on those questions. I just simply asked General Petkovic

5 that he tell me how he imagined the relationships with the military

6 police. He answered. I did not dwell on those issues and go into them

7 in depth because I know that Mr. Coric has 50 hours in the future. He

8 also has time allotted to him for the cross-examination, and after that

9 he will have 16 hours for his case, and my understanding was that he

10 would be testifying. So the questions of the military police will be

11 examined at great length, and that is why I did not insist -- dwell on

12 them.

13 Secondly, to respond to Mr. Karnavas regarding the question of

14 the Rules: The Rules envisage that there is the presentation of evidence

15 by the Prosecution, then by the Defence for this witness, but the

16 Rules also say that the Judges may decide as they wish in accordance with

17 due process, and the Judges are allowed to pose questions at any time.

18 And this has been said and re-said and confirmed by the Appeals Chamber.

19 And it's efficient to refer to some decisions of the Appeals Chamber. It

20 was astonished on several occasions that the Judges were not allowed to

21 ask appropriate questions. Therefore, this emanates from the Rules.

22 As excellently explained by Mr. Khan, we are in a hybrid system

23 which is a combination of the two systems. The question put by Mr. Scott

24 is important, and that is: At what point additional questions may be

25 put.

Page 49871

1 In the decision that I rendered in his absence, the following was

2 stated, and I will repeat: The Chamber finds that regarding the subjects

3 raised during the questions by the Judges put to Milivoj Petkovic at the

4 end of the examination-in-chief and before the cross-examination, before

5 the cross-examination, they may, upon authorisation of the Chamber, be

6 raised by the Petkovic Defence during the additional examination.

7 Therefore, the Chamber envisaged the possibility for Ms. Alaburic

8 to intervene after me regarding additional questions emanating from my

9 questions. That is what is stated in the decision. But she has to ask

10 for this, because it is stated "upon permission of the Chamber."

11 Therefore, at the end, she may say, You have raised in your questions

12 points A, B, C, D, which I did not cover in the examination-in-chief.

13 May I be allowed to ask some additional questions? The reply of the

14 Chamber will be: Yes/No. If, Yes, then you will proceed with your

15 questions. If, No, it will be afterwards. So I think it was clear. I

16 don't see where the problem is.

17 Mr. Stewart, I apologise for interrupting. You wanted to say

18 something. Please proceed. I give you the floor.

19 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour. Absolutely no apology

20 necessary. In English, we sometimes say, "age before beauty," as between

21 Mr. Coric's counsel and me, we went the other way around on this

22 particular occasion.

23 Your Honour, in fact in a sense, you've anticipated or pre-empted

24 what we were going to say, because the Petkovic Defence was going to say

25 whatever was intended by the initial ruling this morning, we had no

Page 49872

1 strong position on whether questions arising out of Your Honours'

2 questions should come before or after the cross-examination by the other

3 parties. But Your Honour's just given a clear indication on that,

4 anyway, and resolved what apparently was a slight ambiguity earlier

5 today. But we would just then like to make two points.

6 First of all, the question of whether any such further

7 examination by Mr. Petkovic's own counsel, at the conclusion of

8 Your Honours' questions, justifies or will justify any additional time

9 for examination by any of the other parties, and particularly by the

10 Prosecution, is an issue on which we do not accept that it will. Again,

11 any such application would need to be made specifically and justified by

12 the specific circumstances, but there should be no automatic adjustment.

13 And that really is a corollary of what must be recognised and was

14 implicitly recognised in one of my colleague's submissions a few minutes

15 ago in relation to Judges' questions, which is that Judges' questions are

16 not really easily categorised as examination-in-chief or

17 cross-examination. They may be some sort of mixture or combination of

18 any sort of questions, so that whether they do fairly then give rise to

19 any justification for further time is an issue to be looked at very

20 specifically in the specific circumstances.

21 The only other point I'd make very briefly, Your Honour, is this:

22 that, yes, we did note, of course, the qualification that further

23 questions by the Petkovic Defence of our own client arising out of

24 Your Honours' questions were to be with the permission of the

25 Trial Chamber, but we would like to say this, not aggressively but very

Page 49873

1 firmly, Your Honour, that it must only be in a pretty rare situation

2 where the Trial Chamber had come to the conclusion that really nothing

3 relevant could arise out of particular questions which have been raised

4 by the Judges in the light of the answers that the opportunity of

5 following up the Judges' questions should be denied, because it would be

6 and is, in practical terms, inherently unfair for the Judges to raise an

7 issue with the witness in this way and then not give us an opportunity of

8 exploring that issue.

9 And I will say, Your Honour, every Trial Chamber -- and really

10 every Trial Chamber in this institution does adopt its own procedures,

11 that's clear, and adapts the Rules as it thinks fit, but the Krajisnik

12 trial hasn't been mentioned for a long time, and the last few times it

13 was mentioned, not by me, although I lived it for two or three years. In

14 the Krajisnik trial, we were always absolutely routinely, without any

15 question whatever, given the right to follow up any Judges' questions,

16 and that's actually what I'm familiar with in England, as it happens.

17 I didn't welcome every single way in which the trial was

18 conducted in the Krajisnik case. No counsel ever does. But that

19 particular aspect of the trial was absolutely standard and does reflect,

20 what is, as I've submitted, inherently fair. So we earnestly hope that

21 we shall not be refused a reasonable opportunity and time to follow up

22 any issues which we consider material raised by Your Honours in your

23 questions.

24 MR. KARNAVAS: Out of principle, Mr. President, I feel that I am

25 compelled to clarify the record, because I don't want there to be any

Page 49874

1 misunderstanding by you, or anyone else reading this record further down

2 the line.

3 I have never, ever stated that a Judge is not entitled to ask

4 questions. What I have said is that the manner in which this trial is

5 being presented is unprecedented. I know of no other case where a Judge

6 does what you're doing. I'm not suggesting that you're not entitled to,

7 but because you are acting as a party, as it were, it does pose some

8 problems, some technical problems, because now we're under some time

9 constraints. And we, who have to follow your questioning, who are bound

10 by certain time constraints, may be prejudiced, because we will need more

11 time to go into certain areas.

12 So I just want to make it very clear that I never, ever stated

13 that you could not ask questions, and that somehow, thanks to Mr. Khan,

14 we all realise that this is a hybrid tribunal. We've all known this for

15 some time, so I want to make this very, very clear.

16 Number 2, I have state in the past that we're not here to get to

17 the truth. It would be nice to get to the truth, but we're not here to

18 get to the truth. That is not in the Statute. I want to be very, very

19 clear on that. Mr. Praljak may want to get at the truth. That's his

20 wish, and he's entitled to that. But the Rules claim and call for the

21 Prosecution to meet its burden of proof. There lies the conundrum. It

22 is not for the Judge to try to reach to the truth, because in doing so

23 there is a blurring of the lines. The responsibility is on the

24 Prosecution. They put the case together; they have that burden. They

25 have a big team; they know what they're doing. But if the Judge is going

Page 49875

1 to be seeking for the truth, and if that is your intention, Your Honour,

2 we need to know clearly, because this is a matter that I would like

3 interlocutory appellate review of, if we have changed the standard of

4 proof and changed the burden of proof, because this is a case where the

5 burden of proof lies on the Prosecution.

6 The Judges are entitled to ask questions. I think the system was

7 designed for the Judges to ask questions of clarification, but the system

8 is also rather unclear. The Statute doesn't say where are the

9 limitations. So recognising that, I fully agree that you're entitled to

10 conduct your examination as you're doing, irrespective of the wishes of

11 the accused who's decided to take the stand. Whether he wishes you to

12 ask questions or not is irrelevant. He's here to answer questions, he

13 wants questions, he's inviting you to ask questions. But I think that we

14 cannot stray away from the Statute. Otherwise, we don't know what we're

15 doing. We're left with a great deal of uncertainty.

16 And I don't know if Mr. Scott wishes to be heard, but that's my

17 position.

18 MR. SCOTT: I do, Your Honour, and I've been sitting patiently,

19 and I think the Petkovic Defence has been up six or seven times now to my

20 one.

21 I guess I kicked this off with what I thought was a very

22 straightforward question, a clarification, and it seems that other

23 parties, in fact -- in fact, as it turns out, had a similar question.

24 I do want to start my comments, Your Honour, my brief responses,

25 to -- I've noticed the last few times that the Prosecution has gotten to

Page 49876

1 its feet and raised a concern or asked a question, it seems to come

2 back -- it seems to come back from the Petkovic Defence that somehow the

3 Prosecution has something underhanded in mind, that there's something

4 tricky going on, and I don't really appreciate being hit --

5 MR. STEWART: I just don't know where Mr. Scott hears that, I

6 really don't, but I can withdraw any suggestion of any trickiness. I'm

7 amazed that anything I said should be understood that way, but I can

8 assure Mr. Scott we never suggest, implicitly or expressly, anything

9 underhand or tricky. And I've said a long time ago in this trial that

10 it's part of my tradition, if ever I do, which I think is extremely

11 unlikely -- if ever I find myself in a position where I felt that I

12 should make any such suggestion that the Prosecution have been

13 underhanded or tricky, or anybody had done that, I would say so in

14 unequivocal, express terms so that they had the fairest opportunity to

15 answer it. This is not the first time. It's one of many occasions on

16 which Mr. Scott seems to hear me having -- suggesting something

17 underhand, something tricky, something unprofessional. I do not do that,

18 I have not done it. There's no such implication at all in anything I

19 have said today, or, in fact, ever in this trial, in relation to

20 Mr. Scott and his team.

21 MR. SCOTT: Perhaps, for starters, Your Honour, it would be a

22 first step if counsel would not interrupt me during my --

23 MR. STEWART: Hardly complain that an interruption to withdraw

24 what he has heard as an allegation of trickiness, so I don't apologise

25 for that.

Page 49877

1 MR. SCOTT: Second interruption.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The interpreters are lost,

3 because you've been going very fast, and it was very difficult to follow.

4 Mr. Scott.

5 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I take on board Mr. Stewart's comments.

6 I am being honest in saying that's how it's perceived by the Prosecution.

7 We get up and we make what we think is a reasonable, good-faith request

8 for clarification or a procedural point, and at least it feels to us --

9 let me put it that way. It feels to us that whenever we get up, that

10 somehow it gets twisted into something tricky or underhanded, that we

11 have something up our sleeve, and I'll say it again, we don't appreciate

12 that.

13 Now, having said that, I think this takes us right back to the

14 questions that came up last week, and I was also on my feet at that time.

15 And unfortunately Judge Trechsel, I think, wasn't here when we had the

16 initial discussion on this point. It takes us right back to this central

17 and fundamental point, and I do think, Your Honours, and I would ask the

18 Chamber -- all the Judges to take on board, I think, the fact that you've

19 had virtually almost -- not entirely, but almost all the Defence teams

20 and the Prosecution on their feet, I hope the Chamber will take on board

21 I think that's some indication of the seriousness of the issue that's

22 being raised. This is a fundamental fairness question. It goes to the

23 heart of the process.

24 And what Mr. Karnavas says is right, this is a hybrid procedure.

25 But in adopting hybrid procedures, there are impacts and consequences

Page 49878

1 that may not arise out of any one given system, and I agree that when we

2 have extensive questions by the Judges, and I don't question at all the

3 Judges' right to do that, but it does expand the overall scope of the

4 questions and the testimony substantially, and it does put things in a

5 different procedural posture.

6 So I ask the Chamber, all the Judges, take on board the fact that

7 Mr. Karnavas, the fact that Mr. Khan, the fact that Mr. Coric's counsel,

8 all of us are on our feet, I think, raises a legitimate and important

9 concern.

10 And, frankly, again with great respect, it's not up to the choice

11 of Mr. Petkovic's Defence, whether they want to go now or they want to go

12 later. It's not their choice. It's not their choice, with due respect.

13 It's a matter of fairness. And if they decide to put it off and, Well,

14 we choose to go to the end, well, we're right back to where we were. We

15 have the fundamental unfairness of everyone saying -- Mr. Karnavas says

16 being sand-bagged, or, in other words, being ambushed at the end of the

17 day, when everyone else has to sit down, and then here it all comes. The

18 process -- all the process is fundamentally against that, Your Honours.

19 I think that, Your Honour, there has to be a fundamental

20 assessment of the procedure and the process that we followed, and when

21 the sequence should be given. And I do believe, and I do submit,

22 especially after having heard the submissions over the last few minutes,

23 I think it would be entirely fair and entirely appropriate, in this

24 hybrid system of ours, for the Petkovic Defence to ask -- have additional

25 direct examination following the completion of the Judges' questions, and

Page 49879

1 then -- only then can both the co-accused and the Prosecution -- and I'll

2 say it again, maybe no one believes it, but I tend to believe, and I will

3 always believe that the Prosecution is entitled to a fair trial too.

4 After that, then the co-accused and the Prosecution will be in a position

5 to conduct their further examinations.

6 Thank you, Your Honours.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber has rendered a

8 decision.

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

10 just one sentence. I'd just like to say the following.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, first I'll

12 respond to Mr. Scott, and then I'll give you the floor.

13 I wanted to tell Mr. Scott that when he raised this issue, the

14 Chamber's oral decision dealt with the issue. After the end of the

15 examination, you should ask -- not for the authorisation to put

16 additional questions. Naturally, if you need time, the Chamber will

17 deliberate about that. If you need additional time to deal with

18 Mr. Scott's preoccupations, well, naturally you'll have the same time as

19 the time that you used. So that's it.

20 What's important is that we know what Mr. Petkovic has to say

21 with regard to his position as the chief of staff and with regard to the

22 documents, because in a few months' time the Chamber will have

23 deliberated about the allegations in the indictment, and we'll have to

24 decide about all these matters.

25 Now, as far as the demonstration of truth is concerned, I'd like

Page 49880

1 to remind you that in the Rules -- I don't have the Rules in front of me,

2 but in the Rules it says that the Judges control -- or have control over

3 the questions put to make sure that no time is wasted and in order to

4 determine the truth. That is what is stated in the Rules. The Judges

5 also have the obligation to ensure that the truth is determined. I

6 didn't invent this. That's what's stated in the Rules, and I apply the

7 Rules, as does everyone else.

8 So, Ms. Alaburic, I interrupted you because I wanted to respond

9 to Mr. Scott.

10 Ms. Alaburic.

11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I do

12 apologise. I wasn't aware of the fact that I was, in fact, interrupting

13 you.

14 I wanted to express the Petkovic Defence's position. We have

15 absolutely nothing against us asking additional questions with regard to

16 the questions put by the Judges prior to questions being put by the other

17 Defence teams and the Prosecution. That's not a problem for us. If

18 that's your decision, we will abide by the decision. At this point in

19 time, I believe that we have another three additional questions that

20 shouldn't take up more than 10 minutes.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you have another

22 three questions that should take up 10 minutes. We've spent 30 minutes

23 now on these issues.

24 General Petkovic, what I wanted to say was that when I put

25 questions to you on the basis of certain documents, I always take into

Page 49881

1 account the fact that I have to allow the other parties to come back and

2 deal with the response. It's in their interest. For example, when I

3 asked you, When did you meet Mr. Prlic, what was your impression of him,

4 did he say anything about a Greater Croatia, et cetera, you answered that

5 question, and now, in the light of that, if Mr. Karnavas is interested in

6 the matter, he can go back to the subject, and the Prosecution can

7 similarly return to the subject when putting questions to you. I always

8 put questions in a manner that allows everyone to return to the subject.

9 That has always been the way I proceeded. And there are certain cases,

10 however, when Judges say, Once I've put my questions, no other party can

11 intervene. I act in a contrary manner. That is why I preferred to put

12 questions after you. I could have waited for everyone to express

13 themselves, and then at the very end I could have put 10 questions to you

14 to put things back into order. That's not how I proceed. All my

15 questions are open questions, as you have noticed. As I noticed that you

16 were at the front-line, well, if you say, I don't want to answer a

17 question, I don't see why I should force you to answer a question. I am

18 here to put questions to you so that we can examine the documents

19 together, the charges against you, to examine your testimony as well.

20 That's interesting. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution. No one

21 questions that. But perhaps you have a point of view that relates to the

22 Prosecution's claims, and that is what I'm interested in.

23 I'll now move on to the following document, which is P00827.

24 Very well. You can see the document. Your name appears in the

25 document. That's why I'm using it. Otherwise, I don't see why it would

Page 49882

1 be of interest. And the subject has been dealt with, in addition, in the

2 course of the examination-in-chief, because there was a meeting in

3 Sarajevo between you and Mr. Mladic. So that's the reason for using this

4 document. General Morillon sent this document to Zagreb, and it's on the

5 summaries of interviews that took place in Sarajevo.

6 General Petkovic, have you seen this document before? Are you

7 familiar with this document?

8 A. Yes, yes, I'm familiar with this document.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Have a look at

10 5(a). That's what I'm interested in. In a discussion with Karadzic,

11 Karadzic said the following: He reaffirmed the rights of all Croats and

12 Muslims to freedom in Bosnia and Herzegovina, to security, and to

13 self-determination. Mr. Karadzic reaffirmed the rights of all Serbs,

14 Croats and Muslims. When I saw this, I asked myself if -- when you met

15 with all the participants at the conference, to the best of your

16 recollection, did Mr. Karadzic recognise that the Serbs, Croats, and

17 Muslims should live in freedom in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

18 A. Your Honours, let me answer, before that, that I didn't attend

19 the meeting with Karadzic. This is a meeting that was initiated for the

20 four parties to meet and discuss certain problems in the territory of

21 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Those were the Croats in Bosnia, the Serbs in

22 Bosnia, the Muslims in Bosnia, and for the Republic of Croatia to join

23 in, and this was the beginning of individual encounters prior to such a

24 four-partite meeting. I did not attend this meeting, but at the end, on

25 the 20-something -- 29th, I discussed -- I talked to General Mladic with

Page 49883

1 General Morillon, and before that he talked to General Bobetko and made

2 some conclusions.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We shall now move

4 on to the next document, P00831.

5 I should like you to look at the first page of the document. You

6 see, when asking questions, I do my homework, and I'll tell you why. You

7 see this document. It is indicated "New York," and -- it is destined for

8 New York, and it says "For information for Vance," you see, and it comes

9 from UNPROFOR in Zagreb. Do you see this?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You see that.

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could the document please be displayed also in

13 English. I don't see it, and I haven't gotten the original.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is there in English, too, on

15 the left. This is just the first page. This is the first page. We'll

16 see the document later.

17 General Petkovic, I may cross my fingers and then not ask you --

18 or fold my arms and not ask you anything, but then I wouldn't know

19 whether Mr. Vance had a complete insight into the situation. And when I

20 see this document, I read it, and I say to myself, I have to ask a

21 question, particularly of someone who went to Geneva. That is how I do

22 my work. Perhaps others would prefer me to keep quiet, but I do the work

23 for which I'm paid, even if it displeases everyone.

24 General Petkovic, the subject is a meeting between Mladic and

25 yourself, and I see that Mr. Vance is the addressee regarding information

Page 49884

1 about the subject of your meeting. General Petkovic, according to your

2 own feelings, in Geneva were they fully informed about everything that

3 was happening in real time on the ground?

4 A. Your Honour Judge Antonetti, they were informed about everything,

5 and these meetings were meant to be preparatory meetings before going to

6 the Geneva talks scheduled for January 1993.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you're telling

8 me that Mr. Vance and all those with him, Lord Owen and the others, knew

9 in real time what was happening on the ground, because this document

10 leads us to assume that?

11 A. Your Honour Judge Antonetti, Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen, in addition

12 to going to Sarajevo for these talks, they were constantly receiving

13 reports from the UNPROFOR commander for Bosnia and Herzegovina; that is,

14 General Morillon.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let us look at the

16 document now. Look at page 2, and you will see small 3, which refers to

17 you. Here we are. You see "3." That is you, General Petkovic. You're

18 making proposals which are known, for Mr. Vance, because he was informed

19 about them. And you're saying that a cease-fire is necessary, that the

20 localities of Stolac, Mostar, Konjic, Travnik, Maglaj and Gradacac,

21 should cease to be showed, the withdraw of heavy weapons should be

22 carried out under UNPROFOR control, there should be freedom of movement

23 along vital corridors, and the establishment of a hotline to resolve all

24 incidents by negotiation. And then that there should be no movement or

25 reinforcement of units, that prisoners, and bodies should be exchanged.

Page 49885

1 You make all these proposals. Did you, indeed, make those proposals?

2 A. Yes, Your Honours, I did make this proposal at a meeting held

3 between me, Mladic, and General Morillon.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Look now, because we are going

5 to go on to the next document, look at 4(b), "Additional Requests," not

6 for additional time, but additional requests. There's reference to an

7 agreement between Tudjman and Izetbegovic. Do you remember this?

8 A. Yes, I do remember. General Mladic requested that the agreement

9 or statement by President Tudjman and President Izetbegovic should be

10 withdrawn regarding co-ordinated action against the Bosnian Serbs.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The document that

12 was drafted by General Morillon, does it reflect well the climate at the

13 time? Because we are talking about the end of November 1992, there were

14 the events of Prozor, let me remind you. Does this document reflect the

15 climate at the time, and the condition of the negotiations and the

16 proposals made accurately?

17 A. Yes, this document does reflect the relation, and it relates to

18 relations between the Serbs and the Croats. When I'm asking for the

19 Serbs to stop shelling of Stolac, Mostar, Konjic, Gradacac, and so on.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, regarding the

21 questions which will have to be addressed by the Judges when we

22 deliberate, this issue was not raised. And I have a small sentence by

23 General Mladic which is under item 4 and after your proposals, when

24 General Mladic takes the floor. You see it? And this is what he says at

25 the end: The difficulty, according to him, was that there were the

Page 49886

1 forces of the Presidency with the HVO, and he says that the forces of the

2 Presidency were mixed. Does that mean that General Mladic considered

3 that he had facing him an army consisting of two components, HVO and

4 ABiH, because apparently that is your "enemy," in quotation marks, that

5 is speaking, so he certainly knows what he's speaking about? How would

6 you interpret that phrase which I'm referring to now? And that is why am

7 asking you this question, and I wish to be useful.

8 A. Yes, he did ask for this, and he asked, Who is responsible for

9 which part of the territory, and where there is joint responsibility by

10 the - let us call them - allies.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see. So you knew

12 General Mladic. I have never seen him. I have heard reference to him in

13 the media. But you have met him, and you were in contact with him.

14 When I see that General Morillon, who is somebody -- I don't

15 know, and I have never seen him, again I have heard reference to him in

16 the press, as everyone - when I see that he attributed to General Mladic

17 the expression "Presidency forces," General Morillon and General Mladic

18 are using this term, "Presidency forces," instead of talking "Armed

19 Forces of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina," or, "ABiH," or, "HVO."

20 Why, in your view, are they saying "Presidency forces"? What does this

21 mean, and what did it mean for Mladic?

22 A. Mladic is saying this because he believes that all the forces

23 there are under the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina or

24 under the control of President Izetbegovic.

25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may make a small

Page 49887

1 correction. Page 61, line 22, the answer is registered as if it was

2 Judge Antonetti speaking, but it was, in fact, the witness.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

4 General Petkovic, for you, General Mladic believed that the armed

5 forces of the Presidency were the HVO and the ABiH. Is that what you are

6 telling us?

7 A. I don't know how far he went. In that sense, he called those

8 forces "Presidency forces," but sometimes he would say, Define for me how

9 far it is the BiH, how far the HVO, and how far you are together, so that

10 he would know how to position himself.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see, as you're someone who

12 has met General Mladic, it may be -- it was useful to put this question

13 to you, as no one else referred to it.

14 P01139, that is the next question, the question of the ultimatum

15 of the 15th of January, 1993. It is what is alleged by the Prosecutor,

16 and he has the burden of proof. And regardless of that, we have a

17 document here which is signed by you, yourself.

18 I see, under A, you're saying all units of the HVO armed forces

19 and of the ABiH in Provinces 3, 8, and 10 be placed under the command of

20 the HVO, and then you address Provinces 1, 5, 9. I will not go into the

21 details of this document, because this document has already been

22 addressed.

23 My question is a very simple one, General Petkovic. Is this

24 document an ultimatum telling the ABiH that, From now on in Provinces 3,

25 8, and 10, it is us who will be in command; in others, it will be you?

Page 49888

1 What did you envisage, writing this document? And this is an

2 incriminating document.

3 A. Your Honours, I not consider this document to be any kind of

4 ultimatum. This document was compiled in the conviction that in Zagreb,

5 a political agreement had been reached between the two parties, and we

6 acted in accordance with that document. In this document, it is not

7 stated anywhere that the brigades of the ABiH or the HVO, who are

8 domicile and who are in their own territory, have to leave that

9 territory.

10 If you read paragraph 4 or item 4, it says:

11 "Members and units of the HVO armed forces and of the BH Army who

12 do not submit to the commands in items 1 and 2 herein must leave the

13 provinces where they do not belong."

14 Which are the forces that do not belong, for instance, to the

15 Mostar province? It could be a force brought by the HVO from

16 Western Herzegovina. But all HVO forces of the operative zone and all

17 the forces of the 4th Corps belong to the Mostar province, and no one is

18 asking them to be removed, and there's no reason to do so. It is a

19 reference to the provinces that do not belong. And all the forces of the

20 4th Corps and the Mostar Operative Zone do belong to Province -- I don't

21 remember which number it was. Was it number 10, the Mostar province?

22 But if we take the Black Swans, commanded by Zuka, who came from Igman or

23 Sarajevo, they do not belong to that province. And, as such, they should

24 be either re-subordinated, according to this document, or leave the

25 province.

Page 49889

1 Similarly, if the HVO has a company by Bruno Busic based in

2 Mostar, but which may be in Central Bosnia, then it does not belong to

3 Central Bosnia, and it, too, should either agree to be placed under

4 command or simply leave it and go back to its domicile, and that is the

5 area of Mostar, shall we say. Therefore, the local units, the domicile

6 units, are both units of the ABiH and the HVO units formed in those

7 municipalities and in those provinces. All others who happen to be there

8 and do not belong to those provinces, if they do not agree to being

9 re-subordinated to one or other party, they have to leave the province.

10 No one is removing units that were formed out of people belonging to that

11 province, and that is the heart of item 4. Then, also, the commands are

12 invited to have talks.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, when there's

14 a document, there's always an explanation for a document, especially if

15 it's a military order. The explanation here is one that has to be looked

16 for in the preamble. So you can see, General Petkovic, I can just fold

17 my arms and wait for the end of the judgement to say the criminal

18 enterprise was, in fact, in place because the document says that in

19 Provinces 3, 8 and 10, there was an ultimatum according to which the ABiH

20 units should be subordinated to the HVO, and that would be the end of the

21 story. But for me, a document is something that has to be looked at.

22 And when, in the document -- when the document contains certain things

23 that make me wonder, I have to put certain questions to myself, without

24 interfering with the Prosecution or the Defence. So this is why I ask

25 you to have a careful look at the preamble.

Page 49890

1 Why is a reference made to agreements reached at the Geneva

2 conference? Why is there such a reference here; for aesthetic reasons,

3 or was there a real need felt to make such a reference here?

4 A. Your Honours, on agreements reached in Geneva, and the agreement

5 between the Croats and the Muslims, it was stated that the Croats and the

6 Muslims should regulate their relations in Provinces 8, 10, and -- or,

7 rather, 5 and 9 - I'm not quite sure - that they should resolve their

8 relations on the basis of an agreement; that is to say, that they should

9 sit down and state that in such and such a province, the situation would

10 be such. And in medical [as interpreted] terms, it says that the HVO has

11 Province 3, which is Posavina, no problem there; that the BH Army has the

12 province - I think it was the Bihac province - no problems there; and

13 that the Serbs must withdraw from all other territories and return to

14 their provinces. Now, the BH Army and the HVO must sit down and find a

15 common language for the situations in provinces where they are mixed,

16 where the population is mixed. So that is the essence of the problems

17 reflecting the military part and relations between the HVO and BH Army,

18 in particular.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Perhaps in

20 Mr. Scott's cross-examination, he will return to this document. But,

21 General Petkovic, you remember when Mr. Okun came and he spoke here at

22 length?

23 A. Yes, I remember that.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You do. I understood, on the

25 basis of what Mr. Okun said, but also on the basis of what the American

Page 49891

1 ambassador who was in Zagreb said, I understood that the HVO, according

2 to them, allegedly had, and I say "allegedly had" because I don't know

3 the answer, allegedly had the intention of implementing the Geneva

4 conclusions in advance, although not everything had been settled, not

5 everything had been dealt with, and as a result we have this document.

6 So what is your opinion of that?

7 A. Your Honours, Geneva ultimately was never signed, because the

8 third party didn't put its signature to the document. But without a

9 doubt, Lord Owen and his team made every effort to have its project

10 implemented between the Croats and the Muslims, and that's why he went to

11 Zagreb, that's why he went to Medjugorje, and that's why he encouraged

12 the Croats and Muslims to start with the implementation of that part

13 which could be implemented, which meant the establishment of authority in

14 the provinces and resolving the problem in the command of military units

15 located in these joint provinces. And without any doubt at all,

16 Lord Owen had several meetings with the delegate -- Croatian and Bosniak

17 delegations to help him out and to help this process take effect, because

18 he found that there were no significant problems between the Muslims and

19 the Croats, and that then he could exert greater pressure on the Serb

20 side, if they agreed. So that is why there were frequent meetings

21 outside Geneva between the Croats and the Muslims attended by Lord Owen

22 and his team, to encourage the Croats and Muslims to start with

23 implementing the agreement, regardless of the fact that the third party,

24 the Serbs, had not actually signed yet.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The following

Page 49892

1 document, which doesn't have the same importance, but a minor secondary

2 question, P01118. It's a document from General Morillon addressed to

3 Mr. Mate Boban. And it refers to Kordic, too. It says "Colonel." It's

4 following the death of a British soldier in Gornji Vakuf that the

5 general, General Morillon, asked Mr. Mate Boban to investigate the

6 matter, et cetera. This drama, this misfortune, because a soldier was

7 killed, was this an event that you are familiar with?

8 A. Your Honours, yes, because our people in Vakuf composed a report

9 linked to this particular incident, and they had to inform Mr. Boban

10 about it so that he had our version of events, although the event

11 actually occurred at a point in time when, in Gornji Vakuf, there was a

12 meeting between the missions of the BH Army, the HVO, and the commander

13 of SpaBat, Mr. Stewart. So at the time they entered the command, the

14 headquarters, for that meeting, that's when this British soldier was

15 killed in front of Hotel Radusa on Marsal Tito Street in Vakuf.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll have a look

17 at the following document, P1322. It's a document we've already seen.

18 You are the author of the document. That's why I'm showing it to you.

19 And it's in relation to an agreement between Boban and Izetbegovic

20 reached in Geneva. The date is the 27th of January.

21 In paragraph 1 of this order, you say that there shouldn't be any

22 offensive operations launched against the ABiH. What did you mean when

23 you said that?

24 A. Your Honours, I wrote this document on the basis of a joint

25 statement made by Mr. Izetbegovic and Mr. Boban on the 27th of January in

Page 49893

1 Geneva, as we can see, where they said that the HVO and the BH Army could

2 not fight each other. So I am warning the HVO, for my part, that it was

3 not to undertake any offensive operations against the BH Army. On the

4 other hand, Sefer Halilovic was to do the same, appealing to his units,

5 until both of us met in Kiseljak 10 days later and endeavoured to tackle

6 the problem in a different way.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] P01 -- P01471. I have a couple

8 of brief questions about it. It's a document that concerns a meeting

9 between General Morillon, Halilovic, and yourself, and Siber; 11th of

10 February, 1993.

11 Do you remember this meeting?

12 A. Yes, Your Honour. The meeting was held in Kiseljak.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. On page 1, have a

14 look at what Mr. Halilovic says. It's at the bottom of the page:

15 "Halilovic." There it is. He says that their strategic interest is to

16 find a solution with the HVO, and that this is also the interest of

17 Bosnia and Herzegovina.

18 When I read that -- Halilovic was an important officer of the

19 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. When I read that, I told myself that

20 it was perhaps one way of Halilovic recognising the existence of the HVO.

21 That's what he says. He says it's in the interests of Bosnia and

22 Herzegovina. So you, who knew Halilovic, do you think that this is in

23 accordance with what he really thought? How would you interpret what he

24 said on that day?

25 A. Your Honours, yes, he did say that, that the strategic interest

Page 49894

1 was co-operation with the Croats, and this was linked to

2 Mr. Izetbegovic's and Boban's letter of the 27th of January, where he

3 says that joint commands must be established. And in that light and in

4 that spirit, he says that it was truly in his interests that the Croats

5 and Muslims should co-operate.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The joint command

7 was a notion that was addressed by a number of witnesses. Various

8 Defence teams have referred to the solution, and I can see that Halilovic

9 has also discussed the matter, because he says that. That would make it

10 possible to prevent incidents from arising, the existence of a joint

11 command would make that possible. As far as you know, was Mr. Halilovic

12 of this opinion?

13 A. Your Honours, we did discuss the matter, and on that day we even

14 established this joint staff of the 3rd Corps and the Operative Zone of

15 Central Bosnia, precisely on that day. We saw the order, we gave

16 instructions, and set up this joint staff for the 3rd Corps and the

17 Central Bosnia Operative Zone. And there were two commanders at its

18 head, Hadzihasanovic and Blaskic.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you've mentioned

20 Enver Hadzihasanovic. As you know, and it's no mystery for you, I was

21 familiar with his case because one of the Defence counsel present in the

22 courtroom was defending General Kubura. I remember that in the case I

23 put certain questions, a lot of questions. And I remember that in the

24 submissions before the Appeal Chamber, the Anglo-Saxon Defence asked the

25 Appeals Chamber to say that a Judge should not put questions, and the

Page 49895

1 Appeals Chamber said, Yes, it's part of a Judge's mission to put

2 questions. And I'm reminding those of you who have forgotten this of the

3 fact, and I invite you to read the judgement on this issue that was dealt

4 with in the Hadzihasanovic case. I'm not going to discuss the

5 Hadzihasanovic case, however.

6 But the sentence that we can see before his name states the

7 following: General Halilovic says there are extremists on both sides.

8 What did he mean by that?

9 A. What he meant was that there were certain groups of people who

10 had some sort of their army of their own and who wanted, in their own

11 way, to take part in everything that was happening, which meant that they

12 were opposed to what the two commanders had agreed to. That means there

13 were forces that were opposed to having the agreement signed and applied,

14 and that's when they went into action and did what they wanted to destroy

15 such an agreement or have it fail.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll move on to

17 P01558, which is a Prosecution document that has been admitted into

18 evidence, and it has already been discussed. It's a letter sent to you

19 by General Morillon, February 1993.

20 Do you remember this?

21 A. Yes, I do remember it, but I can't read it because I don't have

22 it in Croatian.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Apparently,

24 General Morillon spoke about the fact that in certain UNHCR vehicles,

25 weapons were found, and he says that this should not be tolerated. Do

Page 49896

1 you see?

2 We have already dealt with this issue. General Praljak spoke to

3 us about it, provided us with some explanations.

4 As far as you know, were there humanitarian convoys that moved

5 around occasionally with weapons inside the vehicles.

6 A. Judge Antonetti, Your Honour, there were quite a lot of

7 complaints and criticisms of the behaviour of members of the UNHCR,

8 particularly with respect to where vehicles which the UNHCR had

9 mobilised, if I can use the word, from the local people who had their

10 vehicles, and for a certain time they were paid for by the UNHCR for them

11 to use it. And this would be found in vehicles that were locally owned

12 and rented out.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. General Petkovic,

14 have a look at the following document, P1988. It's a document that we

15 have already seen. You signed it, Halilovic, Thebault, and Morillon.

16 I'm waiting for it to appear on the screen. There it is.

17 It's a Prosecution document, and this is the first time you're

18 going to tell me something about this document because it's the first

19 time I'm putting this direct question to you. And for me, this is an

20 important document, and I would go as far as saying that it is a very

21 important document.

22 April 1993. You know that in the indictment, the month of April

23 is a month that's linked to the ultimatum as well, but all the parties,

24 the international community, yourself, and Halilovic, appear to be saying

25 that the ABiH and the HVO are legal military forces of the Republic of

Page 49897

1 Bosnia and Herzegovina and should be treated equally. So either I fold

2 my arms and don't say anything, or I should intervene and ask you what

3 your opinion is.

4 So what do you have to say?

5 A. Your Honours, this observation in item 1 is completely true, and

6 it was accepted by both sides because it had confirmation in the changes

7 and amendments on the provisions governing the armed forces, and the

8 agreement signed on friendship and co-operation, and in certain

9 activities which were in the offing between Boban and Izetbegovic where

10 they said that a joint command -- or joint commands should be established

11 as being commands of a joint army.

12 And I'd like to add to that that at this meeting also present

13 were the vice-president or vice-premier, Granic -- vice-president of the

14 Presidency, that is, and Mr. Kresimir Zubak, who was also vice-president

15 of the HVO. Therefore, there was a good representation here, a good team

16 which made this observation and confirmed that it wasn't something of the

17 moment, but that it had deep roots, and that they were lagging behind in

18 setting up these joint commands and commands at lower levels.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. A

20 well-intentioned -- or ill-intentioned person could use this document to

21 say that General Morillon signed this, and it was, in fact, to please

22 General Petkovic, because what he wanted was to have a cease-fire. So to

23 say that HVO is a legal army, well, it's not important. What's important

24 is that General Petkovic is ordering a cease-fire, that there should be

25 joint commissions, and so on, and to say that the HVO is a legal military

Page 49898

1 force is of no interest. So what would you say if one objected in this

2 manner?

3 A. Your Honours, what I'm going to say is this: I'm going to

4 present my view, and that is that on the 18th of April,

5 Messrs. Izetbegovic and Boban contacted General Morillon and

6 Mr. Thebault, and many other representatives of the United Nations, too,

7 to place at the disposal of the BH Army and the HVO to prevent the

8 conflicts and to help arrive at a solution that would result in a lasting

9 peace in the area. They were conscious of that. They took on that role

10 at the request of Mr. Izetbegovic and Boban. And you saw that

11 Mr. Thebault came from Zagreb -- yes, from Zagreb, and that Benal [phoen]

12 came from Sarajevo as well, and that General Morillon flew in from

13 Sarajevo and brought General Halilovic with him. So they responded to

14 this call from the two presidents to offer their high-ranking services to

15 them. And, furthermore, based on this agreement, they placed their

16 resources at their disposal, they pledged to place their resources at

17 their disposal as well.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: Very well. We'll have a look at document

19 P02038. It's the following document in my list. It's a Prosecution

20 document. You are the author of this document dated the 22nd of April.

21 As you can see, I'm going back in time. It concerns how civilians and

22 prisoners should be treated.

23 Paragraph 1, you say it's necessary to respect and protect the

24 civilian population affected by the war, and you add that they don't have

25 an active role in the conflict and should, therefore, not be attacked.

Page 49899

1 So why did you think it was useful to draft such an order, why?

2 A. Your Honour, you saw that I was with Halilovic on the 20th, and

3 we were together on the 21st in Central Bosnia. And we spent two days

4 touring every part of this area to size up the situation, and we said

5 that we would both act urgently.

6 Upon my return on the 22nd to Herzegovina or the Main Staff, on

7 the basis of everything that I had seen and we had seen together, I sat

8 down and wrote this warning to the units of the Croatian Defence Council,

9 telling them how they should behave. On the 21st, I also held a meeting

10 in Vitez, where I said that soldiers might be killed, but that civilians

11 must not be killed, so there can be no justification for the killing of

12 civilians. And soldiers went into action knowing that they might be

13 killed.

14 So on the basis of all the agreements we had reached, the

15 information I had gathered, I was able to compile a demand of this kind,

16 which I addressed to all units of the Croatian Defence Council.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

18 We'll have a look at the following document, but it must be under

19 seal because it is a document from the Canarias Tactical group. P02192.

20 It shouldn't be shown to the outside.

21 General Petkovic, so far all the documents -- all my questions

22 have had to do with documents that have already been discussed here with

23 other witnesses. They are documents that have been admitted. And all

24 the subjects the documents deal with have already been dealt with, so I'm

25 not referring to any new subjects. All these subjects have already been

Page 49900

1 dealt with. I say that to respond to certain comments that were made a

2 while ago.

3 This document here, which was drafted by the Spaniards, I would

4 like you to have a look at page 4 of the document, which is where you are

5 referred to. At the very beginning, under A, there's a reference to the

6 Mostar zone. It says that you and Lasic were heading towards Jablanica

7 with 18 ambulances.

8 Do you remember that?

9 A. Yes, Your Honour, I do. That's what was agreed, and that's how

10 the HVO prepared itself and moved to Konjic and Jablanica. But it's not

11 Lasic here. It should be Filipovic. They made a mistake there.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's a mistake; fine. Thanks.

13 At least my question has the merit of having resulted in the correction

14 of an error.

15 Under B, I wasn't going to ask you this question, but I

16 remembered what General Praljak said. According to SpaBat, local

17 newspapers carried news concerning the visit of a delegation from the

18 Assembly of the Republic of Croatia, headed by Akmadzic, the premier of

19 the BiH government. General Praljak told us that he had acted so that

20 Croatian parliamentarians, members of the Assembly, could realise what

21 the situation was like -- they could realise what the situation was like

22 in the field.

23 Do you remember the members of the Croatian Assembly coming to

24 the area?

25 A. Yes, they did come, and I think they were led by - was it

Page 49901

1 Mr. Seks? - and Mr. Akmadzic, as prime minister of the BH government,

2 greeted the delegation of the BH Assembly, and mostly they stayed in the

3 Mostar area. However, the conclusion was that they weren't able to see

4 much. But they were down there, yes.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Have a look at the

6 paragraph on Jablanica, and your name appears in that paragraph. The

7 Spaniards stated that the village of Doljani was destroyed, houses were

8 burnt down, that men had been taken to Sovici, that 60 elderly men were

9 being detained in the school in Sovici. That's what the Spaniards say.

10 Is it true or not?

11 A. Your Honours, you saw, and we looked at the film, at the footage,

12 that we decided to go to Sovici and Doljani, and you saw our whole

13 journey to Sovici and Doljani. But SpaBat obviously didn't know what

14 Sovici was and what Doljani was. We had passed through Sovici because

15 the BH Army wasn't interested in Doljani.

16 THE INTERPRETER: Or, We passed through Doljani. Interpreter's

17 correction.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So we first stopped off at the exit

19 to Doljani village, I don't remember what that hamlet is called. But,

20 anyway, from the APC, I don't know what impression they gained from there

21 about Doljani, but it is true that we reached the school building and

22 that we visited the people who were in the classroom in the school, in

23 one of the classrooms of the school.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. One-but-last

25 question. Look at the reference to Konjic, the last sentence, when the

Page 49902

1 SpaBat says that according to information, Zuka and his men had killed

2 15 civilians and took 7 prisoners of the HVO, and they also killed some

3 elderly people. This is a climate encountered by SpaBat, and this

4 information, I assume, will go to those people in Geneva. So prisoners

5 in Trusina, and he's also accused of having killed elderly people in

6 Sultici. But this shows that there was combat, that there were

7 civilians, that there were prisoners.

8 What do you say about the role of Zuka, and did his role affect

9 your own role?

10 A. Your Honours, we were aware of this even earlier, and that is why

11 we went with 15 ambulances to evacuate the wounded and the dead. Zuka

12 played a major role here by preventing an HVO team coming in with all the

13 ambulances and the SpaBat team, so we didn't enter the area between

14 Kostajnica and Konjic. So all people who were there wounded, they

15 remained there, and our 15 ambulances and 3 doctors returned to Mostar

16 without having carried out their task, thanks to Zuka. And also there's

17 Cibo who is not mentioned here, but he was there too.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd like you to look at the

19 41st Brigade. This is on page 5, but the last sentence, where the

20 Spaniards talk about the Main Staff. It is "03.," the frequencies used

21 by the Main Staff. When I saw this, I said to myself that the Spaniards

22 must have had means to listen in to the BiH and the HVO. What do you

23 think of that? Why are they giving the frequencies? If they are giving

24 the frequencies, it's because they're tapping them. Or is there some

25 other explanation?

Page 49903

1 A. Your Honours, the communications resources used by the HVO

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina could be intercepted by anyone who wanted. The

3 Spanish are a modern army, and they have the means to listen in to far

4 more complicated equipment than Motorolas that were used by our policemen

5 on the side of the ABiH and the HVO.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Listen carefully to my

7 question. I will repeat it. I saw this sentence. I don't know anything

8 about it. If I had seen it when the Spaniards had come, I would have

9 asked them the same question. However, by chance I discovered this

10 phrase afterwards, subsequently. But if I had discovered this before

11 they came, I would have asked the question, because if UNPROFOR is

12 capable of listening in to frequencies used by ABiH, of which we have

13 material proof here, and also to the HVO, this meant that they were

14 normally informed about everything that was happening; for example, of

15 the project and plans for the future. What do you think about that?

16 A. I don't think they would have learnt much by listening in.

17 There's something else here; that is, the SpaBat contingent in Jablanica.

18 At any point in time when I went there, you could find 50 to 100

19 civilians who were freely walking around the Spanish Battalion compound,

20 as opposed to Medjugorje, where not a single civilian could enter until

21 he was met at the entrance and accompanied. This unit in Jablanica led

22 their own way of life. Juka [as interpreted] had lived in Spain, he

23 could speak Spanish, and in Jablanica there was a special rhythm and mode

24 of life of the Spanish Battalion, so that in communicating amongst

25 themselves, they learnt what they wanted to find out, and even more than

Page 49904

1 that. The SpaBat unit in Jablanica was simply the least professional

2 section of the Spanish Battalion, and I think that Zuka had the main say

3 in their compound. There were even rumours about drugs being moved

4 around and other things with respect to that unit.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So from what you're saying,

6 should we conclude that regarding the Jablanica zone, the reports by

7 UNPROFOR could be a subject of caution in view of the closeness between

8 the ABiH, that is, Zuka, and the Spaniards?

9 A. Your Honours, I don't know whether it has been admitted into

10 evidence, but once I sent a very serious objection to Colonel Morales,

11 and then I apologised and said that a member of the army had abused his

12 hospitality and said that it was inappropriate for such a large number of

13 members of the army and other civilians to be moving around in their

14 compound, whereas when I go to Medjugorje, I am met at the entrance and

15 then I am accompanied wherever I was going.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll have the

17 break, and after that we'll come to document 02082.

18 --- Recess taken at 12.49 p.m.

19 --- On resuming at 1.13 p.m.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Two points.

21 First of all, regarding the question of additional time for the

22 cross-examination, the Chamber says that if there is a need for

23 additional time, it will be up to the parties, when the time comes, to

24 make a request. As the questions have not been completed, we have to

25 wait for the end of the Judges' questions for you to ask for additional

Page 49907

1 out of there. And with Safet Cibo's arrival and Zuka's arrival, they

2 were deployed in the Konjic/Jablanica area. And I'm not aware of other

3 units commanded by Zuka. I know about this unit of Black Swans.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let us look at

5 document P02182. I apologise for speeding things up, but there are many

6 documents. If you're tired, tell me, General Petkovic. I do not wish to

7 tire you.

8 It's a document you're familiar with. You drafted it, and you're

9 asking Stipe Pole to release civilians in Doljani and Sovici, but to keep

10 those who can do their military service. When I read this sentence, I

11 wondered whether General Petkovic wanted to select some of the men among

12 the detainees, issue an order to release civilians who had nothing to do

13 with this, but to keep civilians who were fit for military service who

14 could be incorporated within the ABiH or the HVO. Did you make such

15 distinctions or not?

16 A. Well, Your Honours, as far as this document is concerned, I said

17 that it had nothing to do with the document relating to the Main Staff.

18 This form of document seems to have strayed to the set of documents that

19 we have before us, because the Main Staff does not refer to the brigade

20 or battalion; it places its own markings on the left-hand side and then

21 addresses it to whoever it may be. And on the footage of the 4th, you

22 saw that I was in the school with those people there and that I promised

23 that all those people, by 4.00, would be sent home and relocated, and

24 then there was a turn-about by which Halilovic and Pasalic asked for

25 these people to be evacuated to the Jablanica area. So in that group of

Page 49908

1 people, the group of people up there, Your Honours, you can't say, This

2 man is military fit and this one is a civilian. All men who were

3 able-bodied men on the 18th were transferred to detention, so all those

4 who remained were civilians who, in one way or another, were placed under

5 the -- under protection in the school in Sovici, so that you couldn't

6 distinguish between the two, you couldn't separate them. And on the 5th,

7 in the morning, all of them were evacuated. Nobody was held back

8 anywhere.

9 So that as far as this document is concerned, I cannot accept it

10 as being my own document or a Main Staff document, because it has none of

11 the features of a Main Staff document. If there were my signature, that

12 would be another matter. But when I see what it says on the left-hand

13 side, I just cannot accept it as being my own.

14 JUDGE PRANDLER: You've been many times asked and requested by

15 the President, by other colleagues, that you speak very fast, and

16 sometimes when you read a document it really cannot be translated.

17 Frankly, I would also ask the same question to other colleagues of ours.

18 Thank you.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, if I

20 understand this correctly, I'm trying to reach certain conclusions on the

21 basis of what you're saying, but there are two hypothesis, and no more.

22 Either it's a false document, and then we don't know who produced it, or

23 it's someone from your surroundings who thought he was acting well by

24 sending this document. Perhaps there are other possibilities, other

25 hypotheses. I don't know. But you are saying that this isn't a document

Page 49909

1 from the Main Staff?

2 A. No, it's not about the Main Staff. Let me repeat. We dealt with

3 the problem of people on the 4th of May and set out for Jablanica, and

4 those people the very next day were evacuated. Nobody remained. None of

5 the men remained. All those who were there were evacuated. So I see no

6 reason, after giving my promise that people would leave, and asking

7 Halilovic to evacuate everybody, that I would then write something like

8 this, telling them to hold back people. And then, as I say, the next day

9 everybody left, nobody remained. So this document, I don't know how to

10 call it -- what to call it. And as I've said before, it has none of the

11 markings of the Main Staff.

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

13 permission, I'd like to intervene with -- as far as the translation and

14 transcript is concerned. The general said with respect to Halilovic's

15 request to evacuate everybody, which means that Halilovic made this

16 request that all the people be evacuated; and in the transcript it says

17 "asking Halilovic to evacuate." And from that, it would follow that

18 somebody asked Halilovic to evacuate the people.

19 So, General, can you tell us again, who asked whom about the

20 evacuation?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Halilovic, after we left the

22 school, asked that the evacuation of these people be carried out, that

23 they be evacuated from Sovici.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, there are two

25 documents that are almost identical, P02203 and P02200. These are

Page 49910

1 documents -- well, the second one was drafted by you, and the first one

2 was signed on your behalf. It has to do with [indiscernible], that I can

3 see the word "green" in this document, the greens, the Muslims. A while

4 ago, you said that you didn't use such derogatory terms for Muslims, and

5 you only recognised one document. And the document that you recognised,

6 it's the -- well, was that document 2200; is that the document that you

7 recognised?

8 A. Your Honours, document 2200 and document 2203 are identical,

9 they're one and the same document. As far as I can see, looking at the

10 reference number, 728, 728, same thing, so it's exactly the same

11 document, and it was just registered under two different numbers. But

12 it's the same document. You saw Mr. Filipovic's statement, saying that

13 he, in talking to the Main Staff, was the organiser of checking the

14 arrival of the buses, so I did not draft this document. Mr. Filipovic,

15 in talking to the Main Staff and discussing the issue, was prompted to

16 write this document. When this document was being compiled in Mostar, I

17 was in Jablanica. The 5th of May. I was in Jablanica on the 5th of May.

18 And you were able to see, during Filipovic's testimony, that he called up

19 Mostar to check about the vehicles, so this document was written in

20 Mostar. I was in Jablanica, which is, after all, 70 kilometres away, and

21 somebody signed for the chief of the Main Staff. But without my

22 signature, who that was, I assume the original -- on the original, you

23 can see who actually signed it in lieu of me. So I'm not the author of

24 this document. And you had witness statements -- the statement of a

25 witness who helped write this document. And the document emanated from

Page 49911

1 Mostar, and Petkovic at that time was in Jablanica.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll have a look

3 at the following document, P02344. We've seen this document already on

4 numerous occasions. We've seen it, we've put questions to witnesses

5 about it. But you are sitting before me. As you signed the document, it

6 would be quite strange if I didn't put questions to you about it.

7 Have a look at Article 4 to save time. You say that prisoners

8 should be released, and all the civilian detainees should be released,

9 without any conditions. The fact that civilian detainees was referred to

10 might lead the Judge to conclude that this is material evidence that

11 shows that you are aware of the fact that there were detained civilians,

12 which is in violation of International Humanitarian Law, but there might

13 be other reasons. The fact that one has drafted this means that one is

14 aware of the consequences. Perhaps the lawyer didn't notice all the

15 problems, Although I hadn't studied international law, et cetera. There

16 could be reasons for this.

17 So when you discussed the matter with Halilovic and Morillon and

18 Thebault, the issue of civilians prisoners, what did they know about that

19 issue, and what did you know about the issue?

20 A. Your Honours, I've already said that the civilians were evacuated

21 to Heliodrom and that they were taken in by the civilian structures

22 there. So that is my position. And in taking that position, I do not

23 start out from the fact that anybody detained those people. I confronted

24 the situation in negotiations and talks, because others asked that this

25 term be introduced. Halilovic also wanted this term to be introduced.

Page 49912

1 And there was a discussion on that point, and I was not able to make any

2 other conclusion and say that I distanced myself from that. And as I

3 said, the document was compiled by representatives of SpaBat, which

4 doesn't mean that I didn't read the document, that I hadn't read the

5 document before I signed. But, anyway, regardless of the fact that it is

6 my signature, I don't stand by the fact that they were civilian detainees

7 or prisoners, because they weren't received by any institution taking in

8 prisoners, but by welfare people dealing with social welfare --

9 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear the last sentence.

10 THE WITNESS: {Interpretation] -- regardless of the fact that

11 that's what it says here.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Whose idea was it to use the

13 English word "detainees" here?

14 A. The document came into being after our talks in the operative

15 section of SpaBat, the operations section of SpaBat. Two or three of

16 their officers took part, and, according to a cliche, well, it's the kind

17 of format and way in which all agreements were written at the time. And

18 this is a short version of that, and I signed it, among other things.

19 But I don't stand by that, nor ever will, regardless of how you interpret

20 it, were they detainees or prisoners, or whatever, because there weren't

21 any people -- they were taken care of by the civilian sector in

22 Herzegovina throughout.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Have a look at

24 P02492. In the middle of the first page -- it's not on the screen yet,

25 but you have it, so you can save time.

Page 49913

1 In the middle of the first page, it says that in the period from

2 December 1992 to mid-March 1993, there are two parallel governments in

3 existence in Jablanica, a Croatian one and a Muslim one, which apparently

4 co-operated with each other. Is that the conclusion you, yourself,

5 reached?

6 A. Your Honours, I knew that there was the Crisis Staff in Jablanica

7 municipality until Safet Cibo arrived, I knew about the participation of

8 Croats in that Crisis Staff, but I also knew that the HVO existed; of

9 Jablanica, that is.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. P02856. The date

11 is the 20th of June, 1993, and it has to do with placing -- implementing

12 a cease-fire which you signed with Adzic and Dezic [as interpreted] in

13 the presence of Walgren, Thornberry, and Morillon. Do you remember this

14 agreement on a cease-fire?

15 A. Yes, Your Honours, I do. It is the agreement of the 15th of

16 June, 1993, at Sarajevo Airport, signed by the three parties in the

17 presence of Mr. Walgren, Thornberry, and, of course, Morillon as the host

18 for Bosnia-Herzegovina.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, you've seen a

20 series of documents on cease-fires. There's a cease-fire, and then

21 fighting resumes. Then there's another cease-fire, and it resumes again.

22 I won't start discussing about who resumed the fighting. I'm not at that

23 stage. But I'd like to know the following: The members of the

24 international community, such as Walgren and Morillon, weren't they fed

25 up with acting as go-betweens between the sides involved? Didn't they

Page 49914

1 ask you, General Petkovic, why did it start again? And you'd say, The

2 others started it again. When they saw Halilovic or Delic and asked

3 them, Why did you resume the fighting? And they said, Well, it was the

4 others who resumed the fighting. Well, how, in fact, did the members of

5 the international community perceive the situation? Because we

6 constantly see orders stating that cease-fires should be implemented.

7 So to complete my question, because in the Prosecution's

8 submissions there are certain elements, and I have to provide you with

9 all the elements so that you can respond. I don't want to hide anything

10 from you. The Prosecution states that there was a hypocritical attitude,

11 you said for the sake of the international community that there would be

12 a cease-fire, but in fact you had no intention of acting in that way.

13 What do you say about that?

14 A. Your Honours, I would put it the other way around. But linked to

15 this meeting, let me say that General Walgren came to Sarajevo, and on

16 the 15th of June there was a meeting in Geneva. Mr. Izetbegovic left the

17 meeting here and returned from the meeting. We signed an agreement on

18 the 15th of June simultaneously, and this was the time when Travnik fell,

19 and Kakanj in Central Bosnia fell, too, so I wouldn't be two-faced, would

20 I, and say that I liked having the BH Army take control of Travnik and

21 Kakanj, and for the fact that 25.000 to 30.000 Croats had been expelled.

22 So this document is linked to the events on the ground, that is to say,

23 the fall of Travnik and the fall of Kakanj in Central Bosnia, or, rather,

24 the BH Army taking control of both places and expelling that number of

25 Croats. And I said, Check it out, and we'll see whether it happened or

Page 49915

1 not, and then we can see who is playing a double game or is two-faced

2 here in all these events.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're saying that you have

4 to see who the hypocrite was. But you are saying that, in any event, if

5 I have understood you correctly, you are not the hypocrite.

6 General Petkovic, I'm putting these questions to you because,

7 according to the Rules, it is my obligation to determine the truth. It's

8 Article 9 -- it's Rule 90 of the Rules. When I put questions to a

9 witness, I have to determine the truth. It's a moral obligation, and

10 this is the reason for which, when I see an entire series of orders on

11 the implementation of cease-fires, and I then see that the fighting

12 resumes, and then there is a new cease-fire, when I see such a situation,

13 I try to determine what the truth is. It's not just a matter for the

14 Prosecution and the Defence. This is my role, too, to establish what the

15 truth is, as pointed out by the Appeals Chamber in the paragraph that I

16 read out a minute ago, a while ago.

17 So if I have understood you correctly, you're saying that as far

18 as you are concerned, there was no double game, no two-faced attitude.

19 Have a look at P02950. It's from the International Red Cross,

20 and it concerns prisoners. It's addressed to Mr. Blaskic. The date is

21 the 25th of June, 1993. And the International Red Cross says that it is

22 preoccupied by the issue of detainees, of prisoners. Were you familiar

23 with this document at the time, or did Colonel Blaskic never mention it

24 to you?

25 A. Your Honours, linked to the agreement of the 15th of June,

Page 49916

1 commissions were activated in Central Bosnia, and our commission,

2 I think, was led by Pero Skopljak. I don't know who led the BH Army

3 commission or, rather, who headed the Serb commission, because it was

4 included in all that as well. And those commissions, after the 15th of

5 June, tackled problems from Travnik to Kakanj, including Kiseljak,

6 Kresevo, Vitez, so the whole area of Central Bosnia, in actual fact. And

7 there is a report from that commission. I don't have it before me now,

8 so I can't comment on what the specific items were. But after the

9 agreement of the 15th of June, the commissions went out into the field to

10 do their work, and you can see that in the previous order which said that

11 the commissions would be set up and would start working.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. General Petkovic,

13 we will have to adjourn now because it's time. I have a few more

14 documents to deal with with regard to the first day, what I call the

15 first day. As I say, I'm following a certain chronology. The following

16 documents will concern the 17th of July, 1993. But so that you can be

17 more efficient tomorrow, I encourage you to read P07475 in its entirety,

18 which is the summary of a meeting between Tudjman, Susak, and Bobetko.

19 I've already mentioned this, and you are referred to it. Please read it

20 carefully, because I checked and noticed that the Prosecution asked a

21 question about the document, but it concerned one part of the document,

22 and in my opinion there are other questions that could be raised. Read

23 it carefully - you have ample time to do so before appearing here

24 tomorrow - because I have a series of questions I'd like to put to you

25 about the document. Once I have completed dealing with the items on this

Page 49917

1 list, I'll start dealing with the "Defence," in inverted commas,

2 documents. There are 30 of those documents, the numbers of which I

3 provided this morning.

4 The Registrar will ensure that we have the two videos at our

5 disposal. It won't take much time, because it's a purely technical

6 matter.

7 I wish you a pleasant afternoon, and I will see you again

8 tomorrow at 9.00.

9 [The accused stands down]

10 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

11 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 24th day of

12 February, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.