Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 49825

 1                           Tuesday, 23 February 2010

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The accused Pusic not present]

 5                           [The accused Petkovic takes the stand]

 6                           --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.

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

 8             Mr. Registrar, call the case, please.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honour.

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

11     et al.  Thank you, Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

13             On this Tuesday, the 23rd of February, 2010, I wish, first of

14     all, to bid good morning to General Petkovic, also the accused present,

15     ladies and gentlemen, members of the counsels, all the members of the

16     OTP, and principally Madam West, and all the persons assisting us.

17             Mr. Scott let us know yesterday that he would be absent and that

18     he would be replaced by Mr. Stringer and Madam West.

19             I should first like to render an oral decision, recalling the

20     scope of the additional investigation.

21             At the hearing of the 18th of February, 2010, the Prosecution

22     requested from the Chamber that it clarify the scope of the

23     re-examination.  The Prosecution noted that on several occasions the

24     Petkovic Defence had announced, during the examination-in-chief, that it

25     did not wish to raise important issues related to the questions posed by

Page 49826

 1     the Judges during the examination-in-chief, but that it would address

 2     those issues during the re-examination.

 3             The Chamber recalls its decision of the 28th of April, 2006,

 4     regarding the adoption of guide-lines relating to the conduct of the

 5     proceedings, and another of the 24th of April, 2008, regarding

 6     guide-lines for the presentation of exculpatory material as a result of

 7     which the re-examination is limited to the points on which the

 8     cross-examination is related.  Consequently, the Petkovic Defence is not

 9     authorised to address subjects other than those raised during the

10     cross-examination during the re-examination.

11             Nevertheless, the Chamber finds that regarding the subjects

12     raised during the questions put by the Judges to Milivoj Petkovic at the

13     end of the examination-in-chief and before the cross-examination by the

14     other parties, they may -- if it is so required, and upon approval by the

15     Chamber, these questions may be raised by the Petkovic Defence.  This

16     means that when judges raise questions which were not raised during the

17     examination-in-chief, the Petkovic Defence may, upon permission of the

18     Chamber, during the re-examination raise those issues.  By way of an

19     example, the question of forced labour.

20             I think it is clear now.

21             Similarly, a further point of precision.  The Chamber told the

22     Praljak Defence that they have a week, upon the receipt of the

23     translation into English of the order on the admission of exhibits, to

24     raise possible requests for leave to appeal, but this also applies to all

25     the other parties.  It applies to the Prosecution and to the other

Page 49827

 1     Defence counsels.  Once you have the English translation, you will all

 2     have a week.

 3             By way of an example, I'm going to try and complete my differing

 4     opinion on the admission of evidence, and it consists of six pages.

 5     Until it is translated, you will have seven days after you receive the

 6     translation of my dissenting opinion.  So you will have all the elements

 7     for a motion for certification and right to appeal.

 8             I thank the Petkovic Defence for providing me this morning with a

 9     complete table of the documents which I will refer to when asking

10     questions of General Petkovic.  I relied basically on all the documents

11     appearing in this so-called opening statement.  And after review, it

12     appears there are 29, in fact, documents that were not presented during

13     the examination-in-chief, which means that I'm going to remove them from

14     the list of the second day.  I'm going to indicate which they are, and I

15     tell you.  I will not be referring to 3D02270, P01336, 4D0075, 4D01078,

16     3D00036, 4D00321, 4D00312, 4D00864, 4D00863, P03030, 3D03126, P03746,

17     4D00519, 4D00566, 3D0036, 3D02270, 3D03126 -- wait a moment.  Apparently

18     I repeated the same document -- 4D00437, 4D0079, 4D863, 4D864, 4D01078,

19     4D01520, P01336, P03030, P03303, and P03746.  In any event, I shall bear

20     in mind Ms. Alaburic's documents.  I wanted to say that I was prompted to

21     do this because I did exactly the same for the documents of the

22     Prosecution.  I realised that there were documents that were not referred

23     to, so I have not included them in my list.  And I shall do the same for

24     the documents of the Petkovic Defence.

25             In any event, I wish to say the following:  Regarding Rule 16 of

Page 49828

 1     the Statute, under the heading "The Prosecutor," it says:

 2             "The Prosecutor is responsible for the formation of the brief."

 3             The term "brief" was introduced by the Statute.

 4             When I arrived at this Tribunal, there was a plenary session, and

 5     Judge May, who chaired the Milosevic case, during this plenary session

 6     proposed to the standing Judges, the permanent Judges, to introduce into

 7     the Rules this notion of a brief, and he explained that for him the brief

 8     consisted -- the file consisted of various documents.  There was a debate

 9     at the plenary meeting, and his proposal was not followed; it was

10     rejected.  I, myself, being quite new at the Tribunal, I took the

11     position and said, No, there shouldn't be a file or a brief because the

12     evidence is produced by the parties.  Now, if such proposal had been

13     made, I would have had a different opinion, because the term "file"

14     appears in the Statute, and there are files or briefs.  And if there are

15     files, then there is also evidence in those files.  And due to this, it

16     was necessary to regulate all the questions of the evidence during the

17     pre-trial rather than during the trial itself, because this takes up an

18     enormous amount of time.  So perhaps other tribunals will address this

19     problem.  But as far as we are concerned, we are in a situation when the

20     evidence that is admitted is admitted at the end of the testimony of

21     witnesses or within the guide-lines.  Therefore, I cannot use a document

22     which has not been produced at a given point in time, even if that

23     document may be of interest.  Of course, in the interests of justice, I

24     may be prompted to raise this, but this could produce other problems.

25     That is why I'm going to withdraw certain documents from my initial list.

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 49905

 1     time.

 2             Secondly, a small point of precision regarding the question

 3     linked to the oral ruling of the Chamber on the scope of the additional

 4     examination.  The last sentence, which explains that the Petkovic Defence

 5     may address subjects addressed by the Judges during the re-examination,

 6     and it is within that scope that the questions may be put.

 7             To respond to Mr. Karnavas, Mr. Khan, Mr. Scott, during the break

 8     I referred to the decision rendered by the Appeals Chamber in the

 9     Halilovic case.  It would be very brief.  I will refer to paragraph 84 of

10     the judgement, and I read:

11             "Halilovic supports that Dzemal was questioned by the Chamber

12     during eight hours.  The Appeals Chamber feels that the time devoted by

13     the Judges to the questioning of the witness cannot lead to anyone making

14     the conclusion of any prejudice."

15             And the arguments are being rejected.

16             Paragraph 102, listen carefully, because all this has already

17     been covered:

18             "The Appeals Chamber notes that in application of Rule 85(B) of

19     the Rules, the Judge may also ask any question to the witness at any

20     stage of the proceedings.  The Judges may ask any questions which they

21     consider to be necessary in order to clarify a point addressed during the

22     testimony or throw light on the facts.  They may also question witnesses

23     on points which were not addressed by the parties."

24             Similarly, the Judges may also ask an expert witness questions on

25     subjects that are not covered in his report.  That is what the

Page 49906

 1     Appeals Chamber has said, and I comply with the Appeals Chamber ruling.

 2             Thirdly, in the Hadzihasanovic case, the Appeals Chamber, which

 3     his counsel raised questions with the Appeals Chamber, the counsel of

 4     Hadzihasanovic, once again the Hadzihasanovic trial does not lead to any

 5     reasonable conclusion that the Judges have shown any prejudice, nor that

 6     anyone was penalised.  Furthermore, in the Hadzihasanovic trial, there

 7     was no opposition to the questions by the Judges, and no objections were

 8     raised during the trial.  Those were the questions that I put to

 9     General Petkovic, whether he wants me to continue with my questions or

10     not.  If he had said, No, I would have stopped.

11             So please read the judgements of the Appeals Chamber before

12     making any objections.

13             General Petkovic, I'm now going to address the document that I

14     mentioned a moment ago, which is again a document of the

15     Spanish Battalion.  And I wish to ask you to look at page 5, where

16     reference is made to Zuka.  It is in the paragraph referring to

17     Jablanica.

18             You said a moment ago that Zuka was very close to the

19     Spanish Battalion, but here it appears that they are saying that there

20     was combat which was the result of the renegade activities conducted by

21     Zuka or armed gangs of his kind.  What do you say to that?

22        A.   Your Honours, we knew and they are saying here that Zuka was in

23     command of the so-called Black Swans.  This was one of the worst units,

24     if I may say so, operating in the territory of Konjic-Jablanica, and

25     before that to a considerable extent in Sarajevo, and they were pulled

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.