1 Thursday, 18 May 2000

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.32 a.m.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Naumovski. I think

7 we've got to paragraph 30 or 31.

8 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] That's

9 correct, Your Honours, somewhere around paragraph 30.

10 But I would just like to cover another topic.

11 WITNESS: ZLATAN CIVCIJA [Resumed]

12 [Witness answers through interpreter]

13 Examined by Mr. Naumovski: [Cont'd]

14 Q. Mr. Civcija, the last question we had

15 yesterday had to do with the organisation of the

16 civilian police at all levels in the Croatian Community

17 of Herceg-Bosna, and my question is regarding the

18 defence offices.

19 Any municipality in the Croatian Community of

20 Herceg-Bosna, in the former Bosnia-Herzegovina they

21 were called Secretariats for Defence. There were

22 defence offices in each one of these municipalities.

23 Can you tell me, they were formed in every

24 municipality, were they civilian or military bodies?

25 A. The defence offices were definitely civilian

1 bodies. At the level of each municipality, there was a

2 defence office which was linked to the defence

3 department headquartered in Mostar, and the officials

4 in the municipal offices reported to the chief of the

5 department in Mostar.

6 Q. When you say "the head of the local office",

7 that was -- in order for the Trial Chamber to better

8 understand, the department was really at the level of a

9 ministry; is that correct?

10 A. Yes. When I explained the structure and the

11 organisation of the police force, it was the same with

12 the defence. In Herceg-Bosna, there were departments

13 for defence, for police, for other areas, and the heads

14 had a rank of ministers, and they were all members of

15 the government.

16 Q. As with the organisation of the civilian

17 police in Central Bosnia, in addition to the defence

18 offices at the municipal level, there was a regional

19 office in Travnik, and then I believe it moved to

20 Vitez. This would be parallel to the police

21 administration. That would be the same level; that

22 administrative body would be about the same, but it

23 would just cover a different area?

24 A. Yes, of course.

25 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Very well,

1 thank you.

2 Your Honours, I believe that Mr. Civcija

3 covered the rise of crime in paragraph 30, so I don't

4 think we need to revisit that topic. We can move right

5 along and go to the events of October 1992.

6 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Naumovski, there's one matter

7 which I should have noted to start with. For the

8 purposes of the transcript, Judge Robinson has

9 returned. Yes.

10 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation]

11 Q. You had mentioned Refik Lendo, who was

12 commander of the Territorial Defence in Novi Travnik in

13 the latter part of 1992. Who did he replace in this

14 position?

15 A. He replaced Mr. Saban Mandzuka, who for a

16 while held the post of the chief of the Municipal Staff

17 of the TO.

18 Q. You offered an opinion about Refik Lendo.

19 With his arrival, were the lines of communication

20 improved between the two sides or was it the opposite?

21 A. There was a big difference. While

22 Mr. Mandzuka was commander of the TO forces, we had

23 certain contacts and we had efforts to form a joint

24 command in order to have both forces involved in the

25 front line at Novi Travnik. And with certain

1 difficulties, it worked out. But with Mr. Lendo's

2 arrival, this changed drastically. He simply refused

3 any kind of cooperation; Mr. Lendo, that is.

4 Q. Thank you. Can you tell me, in your own

5 words but very briefly, what happened in October? Who

6 attacked whom and why? Go ahead, please.

7 A. Frankly, I was not in town when the conflict

8 broke out on that first day of the conflict. Late that

9 day, I was on my way back and I could not enter the

10 town because it was blocked on all sides. So I took a

11 bypass road. I went through Fojnica, Kiseljak,

12 Busovaca, Vitez municipalities, and only arrived in

13 Novi Travnik from the northern side which was not under

14 attack.

15 According to the information I received, this

16 was a conflict which was near -- at the gas station

17 which was next to the HVO Novi Travnik headquarters. I

18 believe that two members were killed in this conflict.

19 The conflict lasted several days.

20 A later analysis showed that the main goal of

21 the TO forces was to take control of the Bratstvo

22 factory, in which they succeeded, and that's all.

23 Q. So if I understood you correctly, the real

24 cause for this conflict was the takeover of the

25 Bratstvo factory?

1 A. Yes. We mentioned that yesterday. The

2 Bratstvo factory was an arms factory. They produced

3 guns of large calibre, 230-millimetre, all up to

4 230-millimetre, and it was of great strategic

5 importance.

6 Q. Mr. Civcija, after October 1992, did the HVO

7 have any possibility to use the Bratstvo factory or was

8 it out of your control for the rest of the war?

9 A. The HVO had no access to the Bratstvo

10 factory, and, in fact, it continues to date. Even

11 though the war is over, the members of one ethnic group

12 still fully control this factory.

13 Q. Thank you. Just one detail, perhaps. You

14 said that the gas station was right next to the HVO

15 military headquarters. At that time, these

16 headquarters were in the building of the old hotel, as

17 you called it?

18 A. Yes. The military headquarters was in the

19 building of the old hotel, and I believe I showed that

20 yesterday on the slide which was projected. The gas

21 station was right next to that building, and the Muslim

22 forces wanted to take control of this gas station. Of

23 course, the military headquarters and the HVO resisted

24 this.

25 Q. Thank you. In 1993, the section of Novi

1 Travnik populated predominantly by Croats, did it

2 suffer from shortages of power, water, other supplies?

3 A. In 1993, we had a very difficult year in Novi

4 Travnik, especially the Croats who lived in the lower

5 part of the town. When I say "the lower part of town",

6 I mean that is the -- it was the lower ground on which

7 we had -- Croats lived. And for the most part in 1993,

8 Croats did not have power, and the water supply was

9 controlled fully by Muslims and the water for the most

10 part on 1993 was cut off.

11 There were also some other ugly episodes.

12 The sewer system was diverted and it was -- ran into

13 the water supplies.

14 Q. In June, the fighting again flared up. Can

15 you tell us when the conflict resumed? Who was the

16 attacker?

17 A. In early 1993, the military forces, the ratio

18 of the military forces changed significantly. Muslim

19 forces received large reinforcements of troops which

20 had been trained in the Republic of Croatia. It was

21 the 1st and the 7th Brigades.

22 Their primary objective was to have been

23 fighting against the Bosnian Serbs; however, these

24 forces together with the local Muslim forces were used

25 in the offensive against the Croats.

1 On the 9th June, early in the morning, this

2 is 1993, a large offensive was launched against the

3 municipalities of Travnik and Novi Travnik from two

4 directions. One from the south-west and also the -- a

5 large offensive was launched from Novi Travnik.

6 We never expected to be attacked from that

7 direction. This caused -- this produced a large wave

8 of refugees, women and children who, across Mount

9 Vilenica flooded over some -- something between 6.000

10 and 8.000 refugees followed by the Muslim forces.

11 I received an order to send the entire

12 civilian police force to Vilenica to protect further

13 attacks from the north and this is what I did.

14 Q. Perhaps just one comment. In spite of this

15 large offensive which you said started on the 9th of

16 June 1993 and despite the fact that the HVO lost

17 certain territory, did the Novi Travnik HVO still

18 manage to establish certain lines of defence which then

19 remained the line of separation of two forces until the

20 end of the conflict between the two sides?

21 A. Yes. We carried out a regrouping, as the

22 military term goes, and we decided to defend a smaller

23 area in order to improve its defence. Novi Travnik was

24 literally surrounded from all sides.

25 The units which arrived from Travnik

1 basically reached city limits near Budosic [phoen].

2 The offensive launched by the Muslim forces in the

3 south-west was fully successful and they took control

4 of that territory so we had no more territory in the

5 south-west.

6 At that time, the Muslim forces controlled

7 about 90 per cent of the territory of the

8 municipality. It is true that the Novi Travnik

9 municipality had a territory of 220-square kilometres

10 and 90 per cent of that territory was controlled by the

11 Muslim forces in June 1993, and this remained the case

12 until the end of the conflict, that is until the

13 signing of the Washington Accords.

14 Q. Thank you. Mr. Civcija, you worked for the

15 civilian police and then for a while, you were a

16 platoon commander at the front line. During that time

17 when you were either in the civilian police or in the

18 military, did you receive any orders to persecute any

19 other -- members of any other ethnic groups?

20 A. No, certainly not. The orders which I

21 received as a member of the police force were coming

22 directly from the military headquarters or from the

23 chief of the military administration [as interpreted]

24 which, for a while, was headquartered in Travnik.

25 I never received any orders which was

1 directed at -- which had an aim of persecuting any

2 ethnic group. In fact, to the contrary. I, myself,

3 issued orders and tried to influence the situation in

4 such a way to avoid these persecutions.

5 I remember receiving an order once which, in

6 its transmission to me, had passed several levels. I

7 was a low-level commander but I know that it was signed

8 by Colonel Blaskic which specifically forbade any type

9 of activity which would look like persecution.

10 Q. Just the one correction in the transcript.

11 Page 8, line 18, you -- when you said that -- about

12 your duties in the civilian police, that you received

13 orders from the chief of the police administration

14 which, for a while, was headquartered in Travnik.

15 A. Yes, that is what I said.

16 Q. You -- they said military -- the transcript

17 said "military administration" and it was "police

18 administration"?

19 A. The police administration was not a part of

20 the military.

21 Q. I understand. Let's move on. As a person

22 who was in various structures during and after --

23 before the war, did you ever hear that anybody, any

24 HDZ -- that have you ever heard that there was a policy

25 of persecution in any of these organisations?

1 A. Absolutely not.

2 Q. And the last topic I have regards Mr. Dario

3 Kordic.

4 When did you come to know Mr. Kordic and

5 according to you, who was he? What was he? Was he a

6 politician or a soldier?

7 A. After the first democratic elections in the

8 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, you know that the power

9 was shared between the three largest parties, the Party

10 of Democratic Action, the Serbian Democratic Party and

11 of course the Croatian Democratic Union which, for the

12 most part, was the party of the Croatian people. As

13 far as I know, Mr. Kordic was a member of the main

14 board of this party, one of its vice-presidents.

15 I personally did not know him, nor had I

16 heard of him until -- when we had a problem of

17 deliveries of weapons from the Bratstvo factory when

18 he, as a courageous and decisive man came forth and

19 personally became involved in protests of deliveries of

20 such weapons, and it's at that time that he gained

21 popularity among the majority of Croatian people.

22 Also Mr. Kordic was directly involved in

23 negotiations with top representatives of the republic

24 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I'm referring here to the

25 members of the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Madam

1 Biljana Plavsic, for instance, Mr. Pusina who was a

2 deputy minister of the interior and other people, other

3 officials who would come to Travnik when we were

4 dealing with the weapons deliveries. Also the members

5 of the military like General Kukanjac and others.

6 Q. So, Mr. Civcija, you're talking about 1991

7 and early 1992, when JNA was still deployed throughout

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

9 A. Absolutely, yes. This is what I also

10 mentioned yesterday. This was during the terrible

11 aggression against the Republic of Croatia, and we

12 watched every day how the weapons which we were

13 delivering were being used to shoot and kill civilians.

14 Q. Was Mr. Kordic a military commander during

15 the war? Let's say 1993, 1994.

16 A. Mr. Kordic, as I said, was a member of the

17 Croatian Democratic Union, its top leadership, and he

18 was certainly a politician. He was a politician during

19 peacetime and he was a politician in the wartime, even

20 though he was wearing a military uniform.

21 Q. Mr. Civcija, as chief of civilian police in

22 Novi Travnik, in which position you spent some time,

23 did you ever receive any order or directive to carry

24 out any of your duties?

25 A. No, I believe that I had already answered

1 that question; that is, from whom I received my

2 orders. It was exclusively from the civilian police,

3 the military headquarters, and at one point from

4 General Blaskic.

5 Q. While you were in the military, did you ever

6 receive -- did you ever hear that Mr. Kordic issued

7 orders through the chain of command of Stjepan

8 Tomasevic Brigade in Novi Travnik?

9 A. When I became a soldier, I received my orders

10 exclusively from my superiors in the Stjepan Tomasevic

11 Brigade. That was from the commander of the 3rd

12 Battalion and from the commander of the Stjepan

13 Tomasevic Brigade. I never heard that Mr. Kordic

14 issued any orders to the brigade.

15 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you,

16 Mr. Civcija.

17 This concludes my examination-in-chief, Your

18 Honours.

19 Cross-examined by Mr. Mikulicic:

20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Civcija, I represent

21 Mr. Cerkez' Defence, and I will be very brief with

22 you. I have only several questions.

23 This Trial Chamber has already heard and it

24 is also obvious from your testimony that there were

25 three conflicts between the Muslim and Croatian forces

1 in Novi Travnik in June '92, in October '92, and the

2 large offensive in June 1993.

3 You told us yesterday that after the first

4 conflict, there was an informal division of town, so

5 that the Croatian population sort of concentrated in

6 one area of town and the Muslim in the other, and this

7 is the situation that is still there today; is that

8 correct?

9 A. Yes, that is correct.

10 Q. My question to you, sir, is: Do you remember

11 that after the second conflict in October '92 and the

12 third conflict in June 1993 in the territory of Novi

13 Travnik, there were any significant military conflicts

14 between the two sides?

15 A. No, there were no significant military

16 conflicts, even though there were a number of incidents

17 in town.

18 Q. So, de facto, a status quo which was reached

19 after the second conflict was maintained?

20 A. Yes, that is correct.

21 Q. You gave evidence yesterday that with the

22 aggression against the Republic of Croatia, a

23 significant number of BiH citizens went to provide

24 assistance to Croatia to defend itself against the JNA

25 and the Serbian paramilitary troops, and I believe that

1 you mentioned something like 15.000 people.

2 A. Yes, I said about 15.000.

3 Q. [French interpretation]

4 JUDGE MAY: We have to interrupt. We're

5 getting French on our channel.

6 THE INTERPRETER: Is this better now? I

7 think we're all right, we're back on.

8 JUDGE MAY: We seem to be back on track.

9 MR. MIKULICIC: May I continue? Thank you.

10 Q. [Interpretation] I shall repeat the question,

11 for the sake of the transcript.

12 Of those 15.000 men who went to the Republic

13 of Croatia from Bosnia to help the armed forces of the

14 Republic of Croatia, they included also quite a number

15 of Muslims from the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

16 A. Yes, there were some Muslims too. But what

17 their share was, I really wouldn't know.

18 Q. So is it true that when the war broke out in

19 Bosnia, those men who were members of the armed forces

20 of the Republic of Croatia went back to their native

21 areas and placed themselves at the disposal to

22 participate in a defence against the aggressor in

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina?

24 A. Yes, quite a number of them returned to

25 defend their homeland.

1 Q. And that holds true of both Croats and

2 Muslims, doesn't it?

3 A. Yes, of course. Both Muslims and Croats

4 returned to defend their homeland, but quite a number

5 of their colleagues stayed back in Croatia.

6 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Thank you

7 very much, Mr. Civcija.

8 We have no further questions, Your Honours.

9 MS. SOMERS: Just to inform the Chamber,

10 Mr. Nice will not be present during this

11 cross-examination, if the Chamber has no objection.

12 Thank you very much.

13 Cross-examined by Ms. Somers:

14 Q. Mr. Civcija, I would like to get a little

15 more information from you, if I could, please, about

16 your background.

17 You are a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina, you

18 have indicated. Are you also a citizen of Croatia?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And which passport did you use to come to The

21 Hague, if I may ask?

22 A. I used the only passport that I have, and

23 that is the passport of the Republic of Croatia.

24 Q. You do not have, as I understand it, a

25 passport from Bosnia-Herzegovina at all.

1 A. I did not have a passport of

2 Bosnia-Herzegovina, because if you have the passport of

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina, you need a visa to go to a large

4 number of countries, and that comes very costly.

5 Q. Was your move -- is it to Grahovo? Where is

6 that, please, what municipality?

7 A. Grahovo is a municipality.

8 Q. And where is it located?

9 A. It is located in Canton 10 in Herceg-Bosna.

10 It is in the south-western part of the State of

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

12 Q. And what is the Muslim population of Grahovo?

13 A. Very small.

14 Q. Would you give a percentage? You've been

15 able to give percentages generally. Would you give us

16 a percentage, please, of the total population?

17 A. Well, I can tell you like this: There are

18 about five or six hundred inhabitants in Grahovo, and

19 if you want the percentage of Muslims, they are about

20 one per cent.

21 Q. One per cent. Thank you. When did you join

22 the HDZ first?

23 A. In 1990.

24 Q. And was your activity at the time limited to

25 any particular area?

1 A. Excuse me, but could you repeat the

2 question?

3 Q. Was your HDZ activity restricted to any

4 particular area of Bosnia or of any other place where

5 the HDZ was active?

6 A. In 1990, I lived in Novi Travnik.

7 Q. And that is where you were an active member

8 of the HDZ; is that correct?

9 A. Yes. I became a member of the Croatian

10 Democratic Union.

11 Q. In your work as a legal advisor in the

12 Bratstvo factory, did you draft contracts, did you do

13 actual legal work?

14 A. I did not draw up any contracts. But in the

15 early days of my career, I represented my company in

16 court.

17 Q. Did you oversee or approve contracts which

18 were issued by the appropriate persons in Bratstvo?

19 A. If you mean commercial deals, they were

20 concluded by the department -- by the section for

21 commerce, and I was not their superior.

22 Q. Were you part of the chain that would know

23 that certain contracts were being issued, such as

24 contracts for the JNA?

25 A. I worked for the Bratstvo factory, but I must

1 explain what is the Bratstvo factory. It is a system

2 of several plants, and I began my career in one of

3 those plants which was engaged, however, in the

4 manufacture of tractors rather than weapons. I did not

5 work in the plant which was manufacturing weapons, so

6 that I could not approve any contracts regarding

7 deliveries.

8 Q. There was something you called a joint

9 administration unit. Did that cover all of the various

10 units of Bratstvo? You indicated that there were

11 different items produced. You were in the joint area,

12 overseeing all?

13 A. Yes. The last four years in Bratstvo, I was

14 the head of the joint administration unit of the whole

15 factory, that is, of the whole compound system.

16 Q. And during your time there, were there always

17 contracts for the production and sale of weapons for

18 the JNA?

19 A. You are asking me a question which refers to

20 the top-most leadership of this system, and that was

21 the management, the steering board, that was the

22 collective body. So your question will be answered by

23 a question of its member, and I was simply the head of

24 technical service which was serving the needs of that

25 management body.

1 Q. Then your answer to my question is that you

2 do not know if there were at all times contracts with

3 the JNA during your time there. Is that the answer?

4 A. I am not familiar. I'm not aware of that

5 activity.

6 Q. When you became a lawyer, that was during the

7 years of the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia,

8 correct?

9 A. Of course.

10 Q. Please help us, I'm not familiar with the

11 process of becoming a lawyer. Is there any type of

12 oath to uphold, any type of constitution, or what is

13 the nature of the ceremony of induction into lawyering;

14 can you tell us, please?

15 A. One completes the secondary school, enrolls

16 in the faculty of law, graduates from it, and then you

17 get your -- you obtain the diploma which says that you

18 are a lawyer, a jurist.

19 Q. In order to appear in the courts, which you

20 indicated you did, do you have to pass any type of, as

21 we call it, a bar exam or is there some type of oath of

22 allegiance to the government or sovereign which

23 empowers you to act as a lawyer. That is my question.

24 A. Yes, of course. To appear in court to

25 represent somebody or to become a judge, you have to

1 take a special examination.

2 Q. Did you ever appear in a constitutional court

3 of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

4 A. Absolutely not.

5 Q. Are you familiar with its function?

6 A. More or less.

7 Q. When you appeared on behalf of Bratstvo, did

8 you appear in the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

9 A. Yes, I appeared in courts of Yugoslavia, not

10 in courts of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11 Q. ... of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

12 A. Within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,

13 there were five more republics in addition to

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina and two autonomous provinces.

15 Q. And where were your appearances?

16 A. Before courts in business disputes in Serbia,

17 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, Vojvodina,

18 Kosovo. The only place I did not appear before the

19 court was in Slovenia.

20 Q. Yesterday, a document was produced by your

21 Defence counsel, apparently supplied by you, that

22 showed an approval or -- an approval to the position

23 for Ministry of Internal Affairs. Who actually

24 nominated you?

25 The approval is by Mate Boban but this court

1 has seen a series of documents for various police chief

2 positions that indicate there is an approval, but a

3 nomination process. Who nominated you for that

4 position?

5 A. I wouldn't know exactly, but I suppose it was

6 done by the president of the municipal board, rather

7 the president of the HVO in the municipality of

8 Travnik.

9 Q. But you're not sure who nominated you

10 actually and carried your name forward.

11 A. I think it was the president of the Croat

12 Defence Council in the municipality of Travnik.

13 Q. And could you give the name, please?

14 A. The president of the municipal or rather the

15 Croat Defence Council of Novi Travnik at that time was

16 Mr. Jozo Sekic.

17 Q. You also produced from 1992 a document which

18 is dated July 3rd, but you indicated that it actually

19 took effect the 13th of June, which was an appointment

20 or an approval for an appointment to head, let's see

21 now, head of the Department of Internal Affairs in Novi

22 Travnik.

23 Now, that, again, was signed by Mate Boban,

24 but who advanced or nominated you for the position in

25 1992?

1 A. The president of the Croat Defence Council,

2 Mr. Jozo Sekic, and I'm positive about that.

3 Q. And when did he do that? When was it done?

4 When was he actually advancing your name?

5 A. I think it was in May, late May 1992.

6 Q. Well, perhaps you can help -- there seems to

7 be some conflict in what this Court has heard before

8 then. There has been testimony by witnesses that your

9 name was among six names presented for positions for

10 Croats only on the 28th of May, 1992 by Dario Kordic.

11 Can you help clarify this confusion, please?

12 A. Mr. Kordic may have said his view or given

13 his consent or something, approval or something like

14 that, but the nomination came from the president of the

15 HVO in Novi Travnik.

16 And as for my appointment as the chief of the

17 interior, that appointment was not signed by Mr. Boban

18 but by the minister, Brana Kvesic. At that time he was

19 the chief of the Department of the Interior of the

20 Croat Community. That is something like a minister in

21 government, and he was the one who took that decision.

22 Q. But the decision which you presented

23 yesterday, D219/1 is signed by Mate Boban as president

24 and it is labelled, "Decision on Appointed

25 Department Heads and Members of the Municipal HVO of

1 Novi Travnik."

2 There does appear to be, in the distribution,

3 an archive. Could you tell us where we might check

4 anything more where this archive would be located,

5 please.

6 A. Your Honours, I should like to ask to be able

7 to fairly answer these questions to know when the

8 Prosecution asks me about a document, then I think I

9 need to see that document with my eyes. Because now

10 one document is mentioned, now another document is

11 mentioned. So could I please have them.

12 JUDGE MAY: Well --

13 MS. SOMERS: If it's necessary, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MAY: Is it necessary to get into

15 this?

16 MS. SOMERS: Well, I'd simply like to know if

17 we can be instructed as to where such an archive

18 exists.

19 JUDGE MAY: Show the witness the document.

20 MS. SOMERS: Then I'll move on. Thank you.

21 Q. If you're looking at your document please in

22 the lower left-hand corner, the one that is marked --

23 it's stated Mostar, 3 July, 1992, it's the distribution

24 list.

25 Point number four is an archive, and I just

1 wondered if you could tell us where that archive would

2 be.

3 A. I do not know the answer to your question.

4 The document that I brought with me is in the -- is in

5 my wife's archive.

6 Q. Your wife's archive? I'm sorry, did I

7 understand that correctly? The archive -- are you

8 suggesting that Mate Boban distributed the document to

9 your wife's archive? I'm asking you about the archive

10 mentioned on this document. Where would that archive

11 as a body of HZ HB or HVO be?

12 A. Yes, I fully understand you, and I answered

13 your question the last time that I do not know where

14 that archive is. And as regards this document, it was

15 served on me personally, and I left it with my wife and

16 she kept it all this time.

17 Q. You had been asked about customs and

18 respecting customs of the different ethnic groups in

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina. When did you perceive a change,

20 and this would have been relevant to your point number

21 six that you testified to, when did you actually feel a

22 change in the relations and how did it come about?

23 A. A significant change occurred at the time of

24 fierce attacks on the Republic of Croatia and at a time

25 when Croats not only in the Novi Travnik municipality

1 but across Central Bosnia, I should say, remonstrated

2 and requested that something be done and not to take

3 the weapons out of the Bratstvo factory for the army

4 which was attacking their countrymen in the Republic of

5 Croatia.

6 Q. And was this change exacerbated, as you

7 perceived it, by the imposition of the Croat Community

8 of the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosna upon a non-Croat

9 population. How did you see that as a person in the

10 public sector?

11 A. Yesterday, I said that it was a very

12 difficult period of time. A state had fallen apart.

13 Others were emerging. At some point, we were left

14 without the federal state and had not yet acquired our

15 own state, and people feared the unknown or what lay

16 ahead.

17 And we knew of the grave threat of the then

18 biggest power, and that was the power of Serbia which

19 at that time controlled the JNA. We knew that it did

20 not want Yugoslavia to be dissolved, and that any area

21 where Serb people lived had to be part of that

22 Yugoslavia and the same held true of

23 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

24 At that time, there were different approaches

25 to the solution, to the situation and we sensed that

1 there would be an aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina

2 as well, and wanted to get ready for the defence of

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

4 Q. But you are referring to when the aggression

5 started against Croatia. What date do you pin that to?

6 A. Well, on several occasions. It began on

7 Plitvice, Pakrac, Bele Vode, [indiscernible] attack on

8 Vukovar, on Dubrovnik, Osijek, Sibenik.

9 Q. Date, please.

10 A. That was summer of '91. That is, autumn of

11 '91.

12 Q. You were suggesting in your testimony that --

13 I think you used the term "unconcerned", that the

14 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was not concerned, or

15 the leadership was. That is a very strong statement,

16 as was pointed out by Mr. Mikulicic. Certain persons

17 from Bosnia-Herzegovina, including Muslims, went to

18 assist in the fighting of Croatia, but what about the

19 assistance to the defence of Dubrovnik that was lent?

20 Your comment on that, the ability to have Croatian

21 troops positioned by agreement to defend from Bosnia

22 the attack on Dubrovnik? Is that a lack of concern?

23 A. Your Honours, the Prosecutor completely

24 misinterprets in this question the answer that I gave

25 yesterday. I was not -- or I didn't precisely say the

1 leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina was unconcerned. I

2 said political representatives of the people called the

3 Muslims were unconcerned.

4 Q. I'd have to ask you to give examples of

5 failure to show concern, if you can do that, please.

6 A. It would be logical for the highest -- for

7 the top officials of my country, Bosnia-Herzegovina, to

8 issue orders and prohibit the export of weapons for JNA

9 at the time of fighting, at the time when this army was

10 attacking the Republic of Croatia, and such orders

11 never came.

12 Q. Are you suggesting that all commerce will

13 stop as a result of this; is this the suggestion? I

14 mean correct us if we're wrong, but we've seen a fair

15 amount of evidence that there was trade, albeit perhaps

16 black-marketing, but trade between and among all

17 parties during the conflict.

18 A. Yes, you are right, there was trade, and I

19 did not think at that time and I do not think now that

20 trade should be prohibited or any kind of local

21 economy. But there is a sea of difference between

22 flour and meat, on one hand, and guns which kill your

23 children, on the other.

24 Q. Is there a difference between gasoline, that

25 fuels the equipment to carry and transport that, and

1 the guns?

2 JUDGE MAY: I think we've heard enough now

3 about this topic. Let's move on.

4 MS. SOMERS: I'll move on.

5 Q. Can I ask you, please, about your -- excuse

6 me, let me just make sure.

7 You mentioned that there were times when the

8 Croats stopped and turned back shipments of weapons

9 that were being exported for the use of the JNA. Did

10 you, in fact, participate in those events? Were you

11 personally involved?

12 A. Yes, I was involved, but as the chief of the

13 Public Security Station. That was the duty that I held

14 at the time.

15 Q. You had discussed also a point that I would

16 just like to ask you perhaps to flush out a little

17 bit. You talked about widespread discrimination

18 against Muslims and Croats under the former Yugoslav

19 existence. Discrimination by whom?

20 A. The word "discrimination" can also mean that

21 a people enjoys more rights than other peoples. When

22 it comes to the former Yugoslavia, in my testimony

23 yesterday I said clearly that all or almost all

24 executive posts in the police, the army, public sector,

25 public companies, were mostly held by members of one

1 people. In the army, it was so drastic that about 90

2 per cent of all the officers came from one people

3 only. In the police --

4 Q. Can I just ask you, the term you use, though,

5 in connection with this, the Serbs I'm going to assume

6 is the group you're talking about. Is that correct,

7 the Serbs? That's what you indicated.

8 You said "privileged". You didn't talk about

9 and insist on any rights. You simply said

10 "privileged". Where is the discrimination? If you

11 can't in a couple of words sum it up, then don't, but

12 is that what you are referring to, privilege as opposed

13 to deprivation of rights?

14 A. If a man is privileged, then to me it means

15 that another one is deprived of his right.

16 Q. I think I'll have to move on from there.

17 It's beyond my ability to challenge at this point.

18 Were you in the JNA?

19 A. Yes, I was a member of the JNA.

20 Q. Where did you serve?

21 A. I served in the town of Split.

22 Q. You had discussed the referendum, and I

23 wanted to see how much you participated in the events

24 leading up to the referendum for independence of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Did you participate as early as,

1 let's say, 1991 in meetings in Busovaca where Dario

2 Kordic was beginning to gain some prominence in the HDZ

3 party?

4 A. Can you be more specific, please? What

5 period are you referring to?

6 Q. Well, this would be, I would say, July,

7 August '91.

8 A. No, I was not.

9 Q. However, there was a connection, was there

10 not? The HDZs pretty much followed the developments in

11 each other's municipalities, is that a fair statement,

12 to know what was going on?

13 A. Yes, one could say that there was a link

14 between the HDZ in various municipalities, which is

15 normal in all parties throughout the world.

16 Q. Did you follow any of the dialogue or perhaps

17 polemics between Dario Kordic and another HDZ member by

18 named Dragutin Zvonimir Cicak; were you aware of some

19 of the interchanges and exchanges between them?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Do you read the local papers, which carried

22 some of the articles that were written and exchanged by

23 those two persons?

24 A. No, I did not read them, and it is the first

25 time that I actually hear about it.

1 Q. Were you following closely the developments

2 of the HDZ Travnik Regional Community meeting on the

3 12th of November, '91 -- did that attract your

4 attention -- just prior to the decision creating

5 Herceg-Bosna? Were you following it carefully?

6 A. I did not attend that meeting, so that I

7 couldn't really follow what went on there.

8 Q. Were you aware of a meeting, though?

9 A. No, I hear about it for the first time from

10 you.

11 Q. What was your position on the establishment

12 of Herceg-Bosna? Did you favour it? Did you take it

13 to your constituency, the people with whom you were in

14 the HDZ and the other municipal representatives of the

15 other parties?

16 A. By following the events in Croatia and before

17 that in Slovenia, I was aware that something similar

18 would also happen in the territory of Bosnia and

19 Herzegovina. And if you're interested in my personal

20 views, my desire was to do something to become

21 organised so that this would be prevented.

22 Q. So that what would be prevented, the

23 potential violence, the potential for war; is that what

24 you're saying?

25 A. Of course. The war was threatening

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina because, first of all, our political

2 representatives in the top -- in the highest political

3 bodies could not agree on a common state or how it is

4 supposed to look. Two ethnic groups wanted that state

5 but could not agree on the arrangements for it, and one

6 ethnic group, the Serbs, for the most part did not want

7 this state.

8 Q. Well, the HDZ in '91, headed by Kljuic,

9 seemed to be on the same track with regard to the

10 future of Bosnia-Herzegovina as with the position of

11 the Muslims. Where was the division?

12 A. Could you be so kind as to repeat the

13 question?

14 Q. Yes, of course. You were talking about two

15 ethnic groups who wanted the state but could not agree

16 on the arrangements for it, and you've excluded the

17 Serbs as being in that. So that would only leave the

18 Muslims and the Croats. Now, just looking back from

19 all the evidence which has been before this Court, the

20 HDZ, as represented by Stjepan Kljuic as the president

21 of it, was clearly, as you use the term, on the same

22 wavelength as the remaining group of Muslims wanting an

23 integral Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, you referred to a

24 division or a disagreement. Where was the

25 disagreement? Could you pinpoint it, please, and with

1 whom did it lie?

2 A. The basis of this agreement was that the

3 Croatian political representatives wanted to build in

4 some kind of protective mechanism so that the Croats,

5 as one of the three equal constituent groups, would not

6 disappear, so that if you had the democratic principles

7 of one person, one vote, and not build in these

8 protective mechanisms for a minority population which

9 only had a share of 17.4 per cent in the total

10 population, this group would then, under those

11 principles, disappear.

12 The political representatives wanted to build

13 in a mechanism so that certain strategic decisions

14 would not be adopted without a consensus of all people,

15 and I fully understand that. And after all, this was

16 built into the Dayton Accords too.

17 Q. Which political representatives in 1991

18 wanted this? I don't recall Mr. Kljuic advocating this

19 position.

20 A. Mr. Kljuic was not the only representative of

21 the Croatian people, even though he was very highly

22 placed. I remember following debates in the BiH

23 parliament, and when I say "politicians" -- when I

24 mention politicians, there were a number of Croatian

25 politicians who took part in these parliamentary

1 debates and pointed out this problem.

2 I repeat, these protective mechanisms of the

3 constituent role or attributes of a people were built

4 into the Dayton Accords.

5 Q. Did this fixation, for lack of a better word,

6 on being 17 per cent affect you when it was still the

7 Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia? Did you feel the

8 same concern for the percentage of Croats within the

9 territory?

10 A. The former State of Yugoslavia was a

11 socialist country. In socialism, a completely

12 different set of rules were in force. There was one

13 leader, there was one party. Even though Yugoslavia

14 was one of the most liberal socialist countries, we

15 could not be happy with the level of democracy and

16 human rights in that country.

17 Q. My question was really specific, it was about

18 a 17 per cent minority. Did that concern you at that

19 period of time? Just yes or no.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Can I get your view on a comment by Ignac

22 Kostroman which was passed in January of 1992 in the

23 Busovaca Cultural Club. It was attended by Dario

24 Kordic and celebrating the recognition of the Republic

25 of Croatia.

1 Mr. Kostroman was quoted as saying, and this

2 has been presented before to the Court, that "This ..."

3 Busovaca, "... was Croatian land. Croatian laws will

4 be enforced here and those who would not obey the

5 Croatian laws would have to leave."

6 Do you share those sentiments with respect to

7 your role in Novi Travnik?

8 A. I was not at that meeting. I didn't quite

9 understand when it was held, so I cannot offer any

10 comments.

11 Q. 16 January, 1992, after the recognition of

12 Croatia. Now, I realise that you don't recognise that

13 you were not there. I'm asking you just about the

14 sentiment which is in a neighbouring community which

15 was a seminal part of the Croatian Community of

16 Herceg-Bosna. Do you share that?

17 A. Your Honour, it is very difficult for me to

18 comment on the views which have been extracted out of

19 contexts. I think that --

20 JUDGE MAY: What is the difficulty? All

21 you're being asked is to say whether you agree or not

22 agree with the views.

23 Can you answer the question or would you

24 rather not?

25 A. I can answer any question, Your Honours.

1 JUDGE MAY: Well, do you agree with that

2 sentiment or not?

3 A. Can it please be repeated for me?

4 MS. SOMERS:

5 Q. Sure, I would be happy to read it back to

6 you. It was at the Busovaca Cultural Club and it was a

7 speech, a part of a speech given by Ignac Kostroman on

8 the occasion of the recognition of the Republic of

9 Croatia and what he said was this, referring to

10 Busovaca, "... was Croatian land. Croatian laws would

11 be enforced here and those who would not obey the

12 Croatian laws would have to leave."

13 A. I cannot agree with that comment even though

14 it has been taken out of a context.

15 Q. Were you actively advocating the referendum

16 for independence? You indicated yesterday that without

17 the Croat vote, there would not have been an

18 independent Bosnia-Herzegovina. What did you do to

19 advance that?

20 A. Simply put, I went to the referendum, I even

21 took my little daughter with me and she shook hands

22 with the then president of the -- whose name I believe

23 was Mr. Cengic at the time.

24 Q. And did you have to be swayed in your

25 enthusiasm simply because this Court has had a fair

1 amount of evidence about the resistance by the HDZ to

2 the referendum and very much last minute through, as it

3 were, communication with Mate Boban, the Croat

4 Community was urged to get out and vote.

5 Were you sitting on the fence at any point or

6 was this consistently your viewpoint?

7 A. I was absolutely prepared for the Bosnia and

8 Herzegovina being an independent state.

9 Q. You made some reference, which I'd just like

10 to address while we're chronologically, at least,

11 numerically, rather, on it, to a massive influx of

12 refugees into the area. And I wonder if you could

13 provide documentation about numbers and the impact.

14 Where did you draw the figures or the

15 reference "massive"? What kind of numbers are we

16 talking about?

17 A. I will very gladly answer your question.

18 After the siege of Sarajevo started and the shelling,

19 efforts were made to pull out the women, children, the

20 elderly and the ill out of town and one of these

21 convoys reached the town of Ilijas where it was stopped

22 by the armed Serbian soldiers and they kept it for two

23 or three days.

24 We were regularly informed about this. It

25 was covered in the media. And the pressure was exerted

1 on the Serbian side to release those civilians; women,

2 children, and it was a matter of time when they would

3 do it.

4 Meanwhile in Novi Travnik, we were preparing,

5 that is, members of all three ethnic groups; Croats,

6 Muslims and Serbs, we were preparing ourselves, in

7 other words, to receive these people, to accommodate

8 them, to provide them food, shelter, facilities to

9 wash.

10 And I remember that we provided organisations

11 so that the first night after all the trouble and all

12 the humiliation that they were subjected to, they could

13 rest up. All these people, the next day, were sent

14 towards the Republic of Croatia independent on the

15 means of transportation.

16 Then later on, some stayed in Croatia and

17 some went to points beyond depending on which countries

18 at that time were willing to receive some of them.

19 Q. Well, maybe that's where you can help us a

20 little bit because the -- what I read from your summary

21 and what I got from your testimony was that these

22 people hung around and caused a permanent problem.

23 Now, the Court has seen on a number of

24 occasions and you have not but there was a document,

25 Z223 which is from the 22nd of September, 1992, which

1 certainly would cover the periods involved.

2 I just want to cite you some of it, it is a

3 document that is signed by Kostroman, Valenta and

4 Kordic. And the points that I want to extract from

5 there on this matter is -- would it help to have it in

6 front of you on the ELMO?

7 JUDGE MAY: Well, it's not a matter for the

8 witness, it's a matter for the Court. We must move

9 quickly through this. If you're going to put a

10 document to a witness, he should have it in front of

11 him.

12 MS. SOMERS: I think it's a very important

13 point, so if I may ask the usher to put it up, please.

14 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

15 MS. SOMERS:

16 Q. It's the part that says, "Situation in

17 municipalities," it would be on the second page of the

18 English. I do not have a copy of the Croatian, I'm

19 sorry, and it's a Novi Travnik report.

20 It talks about generally -- it talks about

21 refugees, but it indicates that, "It has been noted

22 that there are criminals in the military police that

23 are carrying on with their military activities..."

24 THE INTERPRETER: Would you please slow down

25 for the interpreters.

1 MS. SOMERS: I'm doing that deliberately,

2 actually.

3 Q. "The town is fairly well supplied. Refugees

4 have mostly been passing through on their way to

5 Croatia, but recently refugees have been coming in."

6 I don't see, and correct me if I am wrong, a

7 real concern about shortages that were alluded to by

8 you yesterday or any aspect of criminality by

9 refugees. Is it possible this material was based on

10 incorrect information?

11 A. If I may answer your question, I believe that

12 you misunderstood my evidence yesterday. I spoke about

13 refugees in two ways. A moment ago, I explained what

14 the situation was like in Novi Travnik when the first

15 convoy of refugees arrived, and I pointed out that

16 these were the refugees from Sarajevo.

17 After that, a large offensive of the Serbian

18 army ensued in Krajina, that is the northern and

19 northwestern Bosnia. From this area, the refugees --

20 there was a flood of refugees, mostly the Muslims, who

21 started moving in the direction of Travnik

22 municipality.

23 In addition, at that time in Travnik, the

24 majority of the Serbian population was fully informed

25 about the impending offensive of the Serbian troops so

1 a large number of Serbian inhabitants started leaving

2 in the direction of the areas controlled by the army of

3 Bosnian Serbs so there were a lot of abandoned homes.

4 After they left, this new wave of refugees

5 arrived. There were tens of thousands of them who

6 doubled and tripled the size of the population in both

7 Travnik and Novi Travnik, because I also went to

8 Travnik and saw large numbers of people sleeping in

9 parks who were arriving in columns over a number of

10 days.

11 We made efforts in both of these towns, both

12 sides did, both the Muslim and the Croat sides, to

13 organise these people. They started taking the Serbian

14 homes, abandoned homes, and then we started looking for

15 accommodation for them in some communal places because

16 we ran out of space.

17 We did everything we could to create

18 conditions for the reception of these people to provide

19 them with meals, to give them something to -- to cover

20 themselves. Some of them would just come with bundles

21 of belongings so we did what we could to provide them

22 assistance.

23 Q. I realise that you've given an expansive

24 answer, but the point is that as of September, 1992,

25 there was no observation that this was causing the type

1 of problem that was allude -- that you suggested that

2 it was causing.

3 And I wanted also -- in terms of the crime

4 situation that you mentioned yesterday in connection

5 with refugees, there's a document that you, yourself,

6 or your office issued. I wonder if you could comment

7 on. There are two, Z518.3 and Z565.1.

8 Looking first at 565.1, I'm sorry, that's

9 coming to you second. We'll have to wait a minute.

10 Let me ask you while we're distributing it, can you

11 help us and tell us as a police officer or as a police

12 executive, did you have a mechanism in place for

13 capturing crime statistics?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And very briefly, can you just tell us what

16 that was? How did you capture your statistics?

17 A. Every crime that was committed would be

18 registered in log books which we had with the police.

19 Q. Then if there was a mechanism in place for

20 registering them, if you take a look please at 565.1,

21 it bears the stamp of your office.

22 It is unclear whether it is exactly your

23 signature or someone perhaps subordinate, but it seems

24 to say "Zapojednik", and this is a summary submitted

25 but your office, possibly by you for crimes, it's a

1 crime report for 1992.

2 And just looking at it, it -- just

3 highlighting it actually, there were -- let's see it

4 would be the second page, a couple of cases of suicide

5 for employees of the police station. There was some

6 traffic accidents. You said the courts were not

7 working. You've not issued any requests for criminal

8 charges, but perhaps the courts -- maybe you could

9 explain that.

10 And then optimistically, you indicated that a

11 large number of criminal acts or a large amount of

12 criminal cases were solved with the perpetrators being

13 arrested, statements taken from them in order to bring

14 criminal charges, and that most of the goods stolen

15 from apartments and vehicles were returned to their own

16 owners.

17 You've mentioned 129 criminal acts, mainly

18 banditry, burglary, vehicle and other theft. Is that

19 terribly different from any other type of community

20 crime report?

21

22 MR. SAYERS: Your Honour, let me object to

23 the form of that question. There are really two sets

24 of questions, a whole set of propositions, using the

25 word "you".

1 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness comment on it.

2 He's got the document in front of him.

3 A. Go ahead, please. Please repeat the

4 question.

5 MS. SOMERS:

6 Q. What I was asking was to comment on

7 essentially whether or not this is an unusual amount of

8 crime. You do have some training, I assume, in --

9 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness --

10 MS. SOMERS: Okay. Is this --

11 JUDGE MAY: Just don't interrupt.

12 Ms. Somers, will you wait until I finish.

13 MS. SOMERS: Yes, Your Honour. I apologise.

14 JUDGE MAY: Just wait. You've seen that

15 document. Does it set out a fair picture of the crime

16 that was committed in 1992?

17 A. Yes, but only in the section of town

18 controlled by this police station because, Your

19 Honours, in late 1992, early 1993, the town was divided

20 into two, and both police forces, the Croatian and the

21 Muslim ones, had the zone of responsibility which was

22 under its control.

23 MS. SOMERS: May I enquire further, Your

24 Honour?

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

1 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.

2 Q. Now, so these documents -- this document does

3 not capture, then, what was happening to a whole other

4 segment of the population within your municipality; is

5 that correct?

6 A. I said that this document refers to the area

7 controlled by the Novi Travnik police station, which is

8 the territory controlled by the armed forces of the

9 HVO.

10 Q. So Croat factors or figures only here. If

11 you look, please, at the other document, 518.3 --

12 JUDGE MAY: If we're moving on to the other

13 document, that might be a convenient moment.

14 MS. SOMERS: Sure. It's a very brief one,

15 Judge. Would you want me to get rid of it first and

16 then move on to another subject area altogether?

17 JUDGE MAY: No, I think we'll have our

18 break. And, Ms. Somers, if you could bring matters to

19 a close as rapidly as you can, please.

20 MS. SOMERS: I'll try. Thank you.

21 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now for half an

22 hour.

23 --- Recess taken at 11.02 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 11.35 a.m.

25 MS. SOMERS: Your Honour, Judge May, if I may

1 just take a moment, I wanted -- in reviewing the

2 transcript, I wanted to express my apology. I was not

3 following carefully the fact that you were asking a

4 question of the witness, and therefore the

5 interruptions. I will proceed. I just wanted to make

6 sure that it was -- it was not intentional.

7 JUDGE MAY: Of course.

8 MS. SOMERS: Thank you, sir.

9 Q. The Document 518.3 bears only a few minutes'

10 worth of review. If you would take a look at it,

11 please. It's from March 1993, and it simply again is a

12 capture, very quickly, of the February statistics. If

13 you would just confirm that this is accurate: that you

14 reported only 25 burglaries, two armed robberies, three

15 attempted murders, two murders with known perpetrators,

16 and you list some of the dispositions, and disturbing

17 the peace would be another type of crime. Is this

18 accurate? Does this reflect the crime statistics for

19 that month?

20 A. I think so.

21 Q. I have a question about a point you mentioned

22 on the other side of town. You indicated there were a

23 separate set of institutions -- "parallel," I believe,

24 is the term you used -- and the separate Muslim police

25 department. If the crime situation within the

1 municipality became so severe, would you assist the

2 Muslim side in trying to control it?

3 A. For a time, there was some kind of

4 cooperation. I think that the policemen manifested

5 solidarity.

6 Q. When did that stop?

7 A. Well, since there were two different systems

8 of the work of police stations as of June, '92, it

9 stopped when the conflicts escalated, and they

10 escalated, once again, in the spring of 1993.

11 Q. Having raised the issue of two different

12 systems, it appears that you were the only person, at

13 least in my scanning the evidence, to have asserted

14 that the Muslims set up a parallel system. On what do

15 you base that? What documentation shows the Muslims

16 setting it up?

17 A. I cannot say anything about documents, but I

18 can speak about the time and events. There was a

19 parallel police station, there was a parallel army.

20 That was the Territorial Defence, consisting of members

21 of the Muslim people. And there was the civilian

22 authority, the so-called War Presidency of Novi

23 Travnik, including only representatives of the Muslim

24 people. On the side which was controlled by the Croat

25 Defence Council, I have already explained the situation

1 there.

2 Q. You yourself indicated that after the

3 multi-party elections, there was a form of

4 cooperation. Can you please comment on the version

5 that has been presented to this Court, which suggests

6 that it, in fact, was the Croat ethnic group that set

7 up its own separate institutions to the exclusion of

8 the Muslims? How do you view that?

9 A. Yesterday, I was shown and testified about

10 the document -- and you showed it today also --

11 relating to the establishment of the authority of the

12 Croat Defence Council in the municipality of Novi

13 Travnik, and the institutions of that authority, that

14 is, the government, included three members of Muslim

15 ethnicity, which means that members of both peoples

16 participated in the government.

17 Q. And what happened? Is it possible that the

18 witnesses and the multiple documents attesting to the

19 Croat initiative in creating separateness are wrong?

20 A. I cannot speak about something that I have

21 neither seen nor heard, but, as I have said, there is a

22 document and there are people who throughout the war

23 were members of the Croat Defence council, and also

24 members of the HVO government, Muslims who were in the

25 Safet Koco, Mr. Feriz Rizvic, who was a construction

1 engineer.

2 THE INTERPRETER: And the third member, the

3 interpreter, I'm sorry, missed the name.

4 Q. Why were the Muslim police thrown out of the

5 police station that had once been a joint police

6 station?

7 A. If you followed my testimony yesterday

8 carefully, I said that in June 1992, what was the

9 target and purpose of the attack on the Territorial

10 Defence made of Muslim members, it was all the

11 strategic places around the town.

12 Nobody ever expelled Muslim policemen from

13 the police. They kept coming to work for several days,

14 and then one day they simply stopped coming because

15 they had been ordered to do so by somebody.

16 Q. On June 19th there was a meeting in the

17 workers' hall, I believe my date is correct. Following

18 that meeting, you and two other, at least two other

19 soldiers, took out Ragib Zukic and Salih Krnjic and

20 proceeded to beat Mr. Zukic into unconsciousness and to

21 incarcerate in the Cafe Grand Mr. Krnjic. Can you

22 please explain what motivated that on a police

23 executive?

24 JUDGE MAY: The first question is did this,

25 in fact, happen?

1 A. I testified about it yesterday. I said that

2 I found Mr. Salih Krnjic with a couple of soldiers

3 treating him inhumanly, trying to beat him or rather

4 beating him and I protected him. And this other

5 gentleman, I did not see nor heard, nor hear.

6 Q. When you heard about what happened to them

7 ultimately, and did you hear about these assaults

8 later, were they reported to you?

9 A. I said it loudly and clearly that I protected

10 Mr. Krnjic, and I took him in my vehicle to the lower

11 part of the town and provided him with safe

12 accommodation.

13 In the morning I turned him over to Colonel

14 Filip Filipovic, the local HVO commander, and he took

15 him to the village of Kasapovici where the Territorial

16 Defence was headquartered and left him there.

17 And Mr. Jozo Sekic, President of the Croat

18 Defence Council of Novi Travnik came back with me on

19 that day. He was detained the next day near the

20 intersection of the fire brigade by members of the

21 Territorial Defence manned by Muslim soldiers.

22 Q. Was Krnjic beaten at the time you took him

23 into custody for his own safety?

24 A. Had I not protected him, before I protected

25 him, he received several blows.

1 Q. Cafe Grand is owned by whom?

2 A. The owner of the cafe is Mr. Marinko

3 Marelja.

4 Q. Who was also a high-ranking member of the HVO

5 in your municipality; is that correct?

6 A. Yes, that is correct.

7 Q. Are you aware of his having raised money to

8 finance the publication of Anto Valenta's book?

9 A. Yes. He participated in the funding to help

10 publish that book and some other people too, those who

11 were better off.

12 Q. Are you familiar with the book I mean the

13 book on the separation of populations, the voluntary

14 resettlement of population. Are you familiar with it?

15 A. Yes, I am familiar with that book. That book

16 was often the subject of discussion at various meetings

17 held abroad among representatives of all three peoples

18 with the mediation of the international community.

19 Q. What types of discussions surrounded the

20 book?

21 A. Well, you know, when there are conflicts

22 going on, and in our country the international

23 community sent its representatives to our country they

24 were Lord Owen, Mr. Stoltenberg, Mr. Vance. And there

25 was several discussions of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the

1 manner of its organisation. And I suppose that that

2 book and many other materials must have been used in

3 different plans which are known under different names,

4 as you must be aware of.

5 Q. Excuse me for interrupting. Have you read

6 it?

7 A. No, I have not, but I perused it, and I saw

8 that it contains a lot of statistical data and maps.

9 The appearance of Bosnia-Herzegovina before that and

10 all the models of how to arrange it, how to organise it

11 and the like.

12 Q. The theme of the book was discussed at the

13 meetings with the International Community, was it not?

14 The theme of separation of populations? Just yes or

15 no.

16 A. Well, there were several documents which were

17 to serve as a basis for the organisation of

18 Bosnia-Herzegovina and this book, in all likelihood,

19 was also used for such plans.

20 Q. Are you able to comment on your views having

21 just perused it or is that not possible to do?

22 A. I couldn't really say anything interesting

23 about that book.

24 Q. Was the -- excuse me. Again, you were the

25 first person to put before us as far as I could go

1 through the evidence and understand that the October

2 1992 conflict was initiated by the Muslims.

3 Do you have documents that can back that up?

4 A. I said it loudly and clearly that the first

5 day of conflict -- excuse me, what month did you

6 mention?

7 Q. October of 1992?

8 A. I said it clearly that on the first day of

9 the conflict, I was not in the town, and the conflict

10 allegedly started with the attack on the gas station

11 which was next to the military staff, and that was

12 the -- however the information that I received after I

13 returned to Novi Travnik, and I already described how I

14 came to the town.

15 Q. Though you claim you were not in town, can

16 you tell me: Were you aware of checkpoints being set

17 up in advance of this incident?

18 A. Excuse me, could you repeat that question? I

19 don't quite understand it.

20 Q. Although you were not in -- you claim not to

21 have been in Novi Travnik on that date, are you aware

22 of checkpoints having been erected prior to this

23 incident? I can ask you specifically if you'd like.

24 Are you aware of a checkpoint that was visited by Dario

25 Kordic in Novi Travnik on the 17th of October?

1 A. I do not know which checkpoint was visited by

2 Mr. Dario Kordic. And as for the setting up of

3 checkpoints, yes, of course I know about them, because

4 they began to be set up a long time before that and

5 they were changed from time to time. We set up those

6 checkpoints even before the war broke out.

7 Q. Who set them up? You said "we". To whom are

8 you referring?

9 A. Well, initially the checkpoints were manned

10 by police members, including the reserve force, under

11 the orders we received from the Ministry of the

12 Interior or, rather, it was the Presidency of the

13 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina which took the decision

14 insisting on that.

15 Q. You indicated that no order had ever been

16 given to you, as far as you knew, by Dario Kordic.

17 Again, turning to an exhibit which is already in

18 evidence, and just for reference it is October 21st,

19 1992, which is Z243 -- before I ask you specifically to

20 address this, may I just ask you, where were you on the

21 21st of October, 1992?

22 A. I was in Novi Travnik.

23 Q. But you were not in the midst of the things

24 happening that you claim were tantamount to an attack

25 by the ABiH. What were you doing?

1 A. You mean the day when I arrived in Novi

2 Travnik or the 21st?

3 Q. The 21st.

4 A. On the 21st, the fighting was under way in

5 the town, and I was with members of the police in the

6 premises in the lower part of the town.

7 Q. But when you cite specifically the fighting

8 beginning, what day; 20th, 21st, 19th? Give a specific

9 date, please.

10 A. I believe it was the 19th that the fighting

11 began.

12 Q. Did you ever meet with Colonel Bob Stewart

13 from BritBat in Novi Travnik or anywhere else?

14 A. Yes. I knew Colonel Bob Stewart, and I was

15 present at a couple of meetings which he also

16 attended. However, I do not remember that we ever met

17 one on one.

18 Q. Were you present in Novi Travnik on the 20th

19 of October, when Colonel Bob Stewart went to see Dario

20 Kordic and came to the conclusion that without Kordic's

21 authority, no cease-fire agreement could happen?

22 A. I do not recall being with Mr. Bob Stewart

23 then, and I do not know what Mr. Bob Stewart said.

24 Q. Looking at the document that I did ask to

25 have brought to you, if you look at the last item, item

1 10 -- and of course this document is on the situation

2 in Novi Travnik, authored by Blaskic and Dario

3 Kordic -- can you comment, please?

4 "While defence operations are being

5 conducted, the vice-president of the HZ HB, Dario

6 Kordic, and I in Novi Travnik, continuously leading the

7 military operations with deep knowledge of the

8 situation and by keeping all the forces under control,

9 Commander" -- and then there's a slight illegibility in

10 English -- "Filipovic is also here at the Novi Travnik

11 HVO HQ."

12 Does this order bind you? Would anything

13 that Kordic may have done to implement this position,

14 would it have bound you?

15 A. At that time, I met both Mr. Kordic and

16 Mr. Blaskic. Of course, I would be bound only by

17 orders coming from Mr. Blaskic.

18 Q. Did you attempt to reach out to --

19 JUDGE ROBINSON: What's the number of that

20 document?

21 MS. SOMERS: That was, Your Honour, 243,

22 Z243.

23 Q. Did you ever attempt to try to reach any type

24 of accord with your Muslim counterparts?

25 A. Why, yes. After the conflict, a meeting was

1 organised in the new hotel in Novi Travnik, attended by

2 representatives of both sides. I believe some had come

3 from Mostar and some from Sarajevo. And there we

4 agreed on the cessation of fighting, abolition of

5 checkpoints, and some other matters.

6 Q. And was there success?

7 A. Yes, it was successfully done, and the

8 fighting stopped after that meeting which, as I said,

9 took place in the hotel in Novi Travnik. I can't

10 remember the date exactly, but I believe it was some

11 seven or eight days after the conflict broke out in

12 October '92. So it could have been perhaps the 25th or

13 the 26th.

14 Q. You were working, according to your --

15 THE INTERPRETER: Your microphone,

16 Ms. Somers.

17 MS. SOMERS: I'm sorry.

18 Q. You were working, according to your evidence,

19 in Mostar for a ministry, and how long did you hold

20 that position? How long into 1995 did you hold that

21 position?

22 A. Yes, first Foreign and then Interior. I

23 worked for the Ministry of the Interior from May '95 to

24 April '96.

25 Q. And then prior to that, you were working for

1 the Ministry of -- I didn't catch that, please. There

2 was another ministry you were working for? Oh, Foreign

3 Affairs. And who was the minister?

4 A. No, excuse me. You said that I worked for

5 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I'm not a diplomat, I

6 never was that, and I don't think I shall ever be, so

7 that I never worked for the Ministry of Foreign

8 Affairs. I was always only with the Ministry of the

9 Interior, and --

10 Q. I'm terribly sorry. The transcript does read

11 "Foreign", so perhaps I misconstrued something you

12 said.

13 So you were in Mostar in 1995, in November?

14 A. Yes, I was in Mostar.

15 Q. Was Dario Kordic also working in Mostar in

16 1995, in November? He was, wasn't he?

17 A. I think he was in Mostar. Well, he was a

18 politician and he was the president of the Croat

19 Democratic Union, except that I don't remember whether

20 it was at that time.

21 Q. Can I just ask you, the Ministry of the

22 Interior, is that essentially like a police ministry?

23 Would you describe it as having the highest level of

24 law enforcement function?

25 A. Yes, that is so.

1 Q. What were you doing for that ministry? Were

2 you a lawyer for the ministry?

3 A. I was responsible for the training, the

4 training and education of young policemen.

5 Q. Do you recall what the reaction was in that

6 ministry in November of 1995 when Dario Kordic was

7 indicted by this Tribunal, by the Office of the

8 Prosecutor? Was there discussion, was there rumour,

9 was there some comment?

10 A. I don't remember talking about that to anyone

11 in the ministry specifically, but it must have

12 resounded amongst the public.

13 Q. Are you aware of any efforts by the supreme

14 law enforcement body to try to bring Mr. Kordic to the

15 Tribunal?

16 A. No, I do not know anything about that, nor

17 did the nature of my office require me to do so,

18 because I was in a different section of this

19 organisation which was dealing with completely

20 different matters.

21 Q. And the particular ministry, if you can just

22 clarify something, was it at that point considered part

23 of the Federation, as a result of Washington, or was it

24 still using a Herceg-Bosna appellation?

25 A. It was the ministry of the Croat Republic

1 Herceg-Bosna, and that is how it operated until the

2 conclusion of the peace accords in Dayton, when all

3 three sides committed themselves -- undertook to

4 implement whatever was said in that accord. So after

5 the conclusion of the accords, the mechanisms were set

6 in motion to organise the state along the lines as set

7 out in the Dayton Accords.

8 Q. Between '95 and now, how many times have you

9 seen Dario Kordic, exclusive -- when I say "now",

10 exclusive of your coming to court. Between November of

11 '95 and now, how often did you see Dario Kordic?

12 A. I don't think I ever saw him.

13 Q. Excuse me just a second. Were you ever asked

14 to testify on behalf of Tihomir Blaskic?

15 A. No, unfortunately not, but I would have

16 gladly responded to that.

17 Q. Did you volunteer to testify on his behalf if

18 you were not asked to do so if you felt it was

19 important?

20 A. No, I did not volunteer.

21 MS. SOMERS: Thank you.

22 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you,

23 Your Honours.

24 Re-examined by Mr. Naumovski:

25 Q. Mr. Civcija, a number of topics were touched

1 on but I only have questions on several of them. We

2 talked about Grahovo, the small town where you

3 currently live and the percentage of Muslims was

4 brought up.

5 In order for the Trial Chamber to have the

6 right insight, whose -- which ethnic group has the

7 majority there?

8 A. It's the Serbs. They were the majority in

9 this town before the war and they continue to be so

10 today.

11 Q. Thank you. The document of your appointment

12 as chief of police D221, you said that you assumed that

13 you were proposed for that position by the authority in

14 Novi Travnik.

15 In the document it states that it was the

16 minister who signed the appointment, but that the

17 proposal came from the head of the police

18 administration in Travnik, that is the body that was in

19 charge of all local police stations throughout the

20 area. Does that refresh your memory?

21 A. I believe that I was clear both yesterday and

22 today. I said that my appointment was signed by the

23 head of the department Branko Kvesic in Mostar and that

24 was the position of the head of police in Novi Travnik,

25 but the other document which referred to the

1 appointment of -- went to the appointment of the

2 members of the government, which was signed by Mate

3 Boban, went to Mr. Kvesic first and the first document,

4 the first document of my appointment to the chief of

5 police was cleared through the regional police

6 administration in Travnik, and it's head at that time

7 was Mr. Ivo Rezo.

8 Q. Thank you. A question relating to this

9 document, that's D219/1. Your appointment as a member

10 of the municipal government of the HVO of Novi Travnik,

11 a single question relating to that.

12 Were members of the government appointed by

13 the decision of the president of the Croatian Community

14 of Herceg-Bosna, Mate Boban, including Croats and

15 Muslims obliged to take any oath of loyalty?

16 A. I do not remember our taking any special

17 oaths but I know that we seriously and responsibly

18 attempted to organise the life in Novi Travnik and do

19 it in the best possible way.

20 Q. Mr. Marinko Marelja's name was mentioned

21 today as the owner of the Cafe Grand. At that time

22 Mr. Marelja was the deputy of Jozo Sekic, that is, the

23 vice president of the municipal government?

24 A. Yes, he was deputy commander of the HVO in

25 Novi Travnik.

1 Q. Questions were asked about your

2 participation, that is, your involvement in the army as

3 a person who had graduated and gotten a higher

4 education, you only served for 11 months.

5 A. Yes. That was a compulsory duty according to

6 the laws of the country at that time. I went in 1980

7 and served for 11 months in the city of Split.

8 Q. I'm reminded that on page 61, line 6 when we

9 spoke about Mr. Marelja without my trying to lead you,

10 what was he the vice president of?

11 A. Mr. Marelja was the vice-president of the

12 Croatian Defence Council in Novi Travnik. Mr. Jozo

13 Sekic was the president, and Mr. Marinko Marelja was

14 his vice-president, his deputy, and together with other

15 members, they made up the local government.

16 Q. So you're talking about the civilian

17 government and here on page 61, it says that he was the

18 deputy commander of the HVO, so that is why I read it,

19 and also a percentage that did not make it to the

20 transcript. You were talking about the percentage of

21 Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991, but what is the

22 percentage today?

23 A. I am sure that it is less than 10 per cent.

24 Q. In connection with that, there was the

25 question of the concern about the position of Croats in

1 the former Yugoslavia.

2 You know, according to the constitution of

3 the former Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina all

4 three ethnic groups regardless of their side were

5 absolutely equal, and they were all constituent

6 elements of the Bosnian state; is that correct?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. We also had Z243 shown to you, and I believe

9 you may have the Croatian version. And throughout this

10 document, it is referred to as an "order", but if you

11 look at the top corner, it says that it's a report on

12 the situation in Novi Travnik, in Jajce, and up to the

13 right, that it should urgently -- that it is to be

14 urgently delivered to all municipal staff in Central

15 Bosnia.

16 JUDGE MAY: Is that a question?

17 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation]

18 Q. The question is whether Mr. Civcija agrees

19 with what the document says.

20 A. Yes, that is correct. As you said, this is a

21 report by the commander of the military district,

22 Mr. Blaskic, and all HVO military headquarters or staff

23 were subordinate to him, and they reported to

24 Mr. Blaskic who was the commander of the Central Bosnia

25 Operative Zone.

1 Q. Can you please look at the last page of the

2 document. What is the title of Mr. Kordic, which is

3 also mentioned in paragraph 10 of the same document?

4 How is he addressed?

5 He is addressed as Mr. Dario Kordic, and his

6 position is also mentioned. What does it signify for

7 you? What is Mr. Kordic's position according to this

8 document?

9 A. I said, when giving evidence, he was a

10 politician. He was one of the vice-presidents of the

11 Croatian Democratic Union whereas Mr. Blaskic was

12 obviously an officer.

13 Q. In relation to the period of this document,

14 you said that in -- on the 25th, on the 26th of

15 October, there was a meeting between the two sides to

16 try to overcome the disputes and which eventually

17 resulted in a cease-fire.

18 My question was: Was Mr. Kordic in any way

19 involved in these negotiations between the Croatian and

20 the Muslim sides on those days, the 25th or the 26th of

21 October which you referred to?

22 A. For the most part, our guests who came from

23 Mostar and Sarajevo did most of the discussion, and

24 Mr. Marelja was present there as a local representative

25 of Novi Travnik. I was present, and I don't recall who

1 else was there.

2 And of course, there were representatives of

3 the military staff, and the agreement was reached to

4 stop with the hostilities, to try to normalise the

5 situation and to -- and we agreed to new meetings where

6 further details would be arranged.

7 Q. You mentioned who was there and you did not

8 mention Mr. Kordic so he was not present in that

9 meeting.

10 A. I don't recall that Mr. Kordic was there.

11 Q. And a couple of questions relating to a

12 document Z518.3. And could the usher please provide it

13 for you, your report for February 1993 which you

14 submitted to the police administration in Travnik.

15 I'm interested in paragraph four where you

16 mentioned about two murders; known perpetrators. The

17 first victim was a person by the name of Halilovic, and

18 you say that the perpetrator was identified and that

19 was a member of the HVO. Do I interpret this document

20 correctly?

21 A. Yes, that is very precisely set out in the

22 document. It was Mr. Ismet Halilovic, son of Ramiz,

23 who unfortunately was killed in Novi Travnik by an HVO

24 soldier.

25 Q. Did you, as chief of civilian police, have

1 any competence in cases where a crime was committed by

2 members of the military organisations?

3 A. Absolutely not. I said that yesterday in my

4 testimony. And even though we were the civilian

5 police, I requested -- I asked that every crime be

6 registered. We even did on-site investigations in some

7 cases, but then the case would be taken over by the

8 military police and other military bodies.

9 Q. And another question relating to the other

10 murder which you mentioned here. It was an HVO member

11 this time; a Croat, in any event. Do you remember any

12 details about this crime which was committed in the

13 Cafe Bamboo on the 10th of February, 1993?

14 A. Yes, I remember it. The person killed was

15 Zoran Jukic, also known as Juka, who was a person with

16 a criminal history, a repeat offender from before the

17 war. He was among the people who was released when the

18 prisons were opened after the war started up, and he

19 continued to cause trouble in town. And on this

20 occasion, he had to be stopped from doing these things

21 by being killed by the HVO members.

22 Q. On that occasion when this individual was

23 killed, was it the intervention of the HVO following an

24 attack by him on a Muslim?

25 A. I could not confirm that, even though

1 Mr. Jukic was prone to violence.

2 Q. Very well. I think we need not belabour that

3 point.

4 I have just one additional document. That is

5 Z223, which is a voluminous document. I don't know if

6 you have it in front of you, a rather long document.

7 We're not going to go through all of it. It's excerpts

8 from minutes from a meeting of the leadership of the

9 HDZ for Central Bosnia held in June. As far as I could

10 see on the front page, your municipality was

11 represented by Jozo Sakic, the president, and Marinko

12 Marelja, the vice-president. I could not find your

13 name. Do you remember, were you there?

14 A. No, I certainly was not.

15 Q. There is a heading which is titled "Remarks

16 On All --" 0032079, I believe. It states that: "The

17 civilian and military sides -- the authority of the

18 military and civilian sides should be clearly

19 separated." This had something to do with your duties

20 in Novi Travnik at that time in 1992. That was a

21 problem in 1992, until both authorities were firmly

22 established?

23 A. Yes, and my appointment confirms that; that

24 is, my appointment of the head of the police

25 administration, as head of the local police.

1 Q. I would like to draw your attention to

2 page 6, the next-to-last paragraph. The HVO military

3 authorities are asked to follow the procedures for

4 arrest of persons who are suspected of having committed

5 illegal acts in order to protect the safety of

6 citizens. That was precisely the gist of your work,

7 and this document and the previous document clearly

8 point to this.

9 JUDGE MAY: What was the question?

10 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] The question

11 was that -- whether Mr. Civcija could confirm that that

12 was really the focus of his work, to tell us who was

13 competent to take steps and measures in cases when

14 certain crimes were committed.

15 A. Of course, this was a problem which we were

16 facing, and we asked of the military authorities, the

17 commanders of staffs, to be more successful in the

18 establishment of the military police and military

19 bodies in order to better carry out those duties.

20 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] There are a

21 number of other things in this document, Your Honours,

22 but I think that this document speaks for itself and I

23 will not pursue it any longer. Perhaps just one more

24 point at page 7, Mr. Civcija.

25 Q. The Ministry of Defence, who at that time was

1 still the defence department of HZ HB, was asked to

2 define its own competencies in order to prevent

3 overlaps between the civilian and military

4 authorities. I think that this again reflects the

5 types of issues and problems that you had to address in

6 your work in the police force.

7 A. Yes. I have already spoken about this, and

8 from here you can glean the issues that we had to

9 address at the time, the separation of military and

10 civilian affairs, so that in the field and in practice,

11 we would avoid misunderstandings.

12 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Thank you,

13 Mr. Civcija.

14 Your Honours, no further questions.

15 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Civcija, that concludes your

16 evidence. Thank you for coming to the International

17 Tribunal. You are free to go.

18 [The witness withdrew]

19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, before we get to the

20 next witness, there's a matter I wanted to raise with

21 you. Have you provided a list of the witnesses for

22 next week?

23 MR. SAYERS: Yes, Your Honour. We

24 hand-delivered a letter yesterday with the batting

25 order for next week and the week after that as well.

1 JUDGE MAY: That, presumably, was not the

2 same as that listed on the 10th of May.

3 MR. SAYERS: That's correct, Your Honour. It

4 was delivered yesterday, and I have a copy of it here.

5 We actually copied it to Ms. Featherstone.

6 JUDGE MAY: Yes. We now have it. Now, have

7 you got an application in respect of the next witness?

8 MR. SAYERS: Yes, Your Honour, and he only

9 told us about it while he was being prepared

10 yesterday.

11 I wonder if I might go into private session

12 to explain the reasons.

13 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

14 [Private session]

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 [Open session]

11 MR. SAYERS: While the witness is coming in,

12 if I might just alert the Court to the method behind

13 our selection of witnesses for the next two weeks. The

14 first two deal with the municipality of Fojnica, which

15 is one of the municipalities identified in the amended

16 indictment, and all of the remaining witnesses deal

17 with Busovaca.

18 [The witness entered court]

19 JUDGE MAY: Let the witness take the

20 declaration.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly

22 declare that I will speak the truth, the whole truth,

23 and nothing but the truth.

24 WITNESS: WITNESS DB

25 [Witness answered through interpreter]

1 JUDGE MAY: If you'd like to take a seat.

2 Examined by Mr. Sayers:

3 Q. Good afternoon, sir, and thank you,

4 Mr. President.

5 A. Good afternoon.

6 Q. Let me just tell you, sir, that the

7 application for protective measures that was requested

8 by you yesterday has been granted by the Court and so

9 for purposes of testifying before the Court today,

10 you've been assigned a so-called pseudonym which is

11 Witness DB, and that's how we will refer to you

12 throughout the course of your testimony.

13 Do you understand that?

14 A. I do.

15 Q. All right, sir. Let me take you through a

16 few items of personal information fairly quickly, but

17 before I do, let me distribute this page and just could

18 you confirm that this is actually your name, but don't

19 mention it aloud, please.

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Very well. Witness DB, you were born in the

22 village of Senkovici on (redacted); is that right?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. And before September of 1993, I believe that

25 you lived there all of your life.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Senkovici is located seven kilometres

3 south-west of the city of Novi Travnik and it is

4 located in the municipality of Novi Travnik; is that

5 right, sir?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Of which country are you a citizen, Witness

8 DB?

9 A. Bosnia-Herzegovina.

10 Q. And I believe that you are a Croat by

11 ethnicity and a Roman Catholic by religion?

12 A. Yes.

13 MR. NICE: Your Honours, I'm sorry to

14 interrupt. The witness has taken his summary out. I

15 don't know what the Court's preferred course is in

16 relation to that.

17 MR. SAYERS: I don't think that it's

18 necessary to read the summary or have it before him,

19 Your Honour.

20 JUDGE MAY: No, no. Witness DB, don't read

21 your summary, give us your evidence. If there's some

22 matter you particularly want, you need to refresh your

23 memory about, then look at your summary.

24 MR. SAYERS:

25 Q. Where were you educated, Witness DB, just

1 tell the Court that, please.

2 A. In Vodovod.

3 Q. That is where, in which municipality?

4 A. Novi Travnik.

5 Q. Do you have any high school education, sir?

6 A. No.

7 Q. I believe, sir, that you have a passport.

8 Could you let the Court know what country issued you

9 the passport and when you were issued it?

10 A. Bosnia-Herzegovina.

11 Q. When did you get that passport, Witness DB?

12 A. Excuse me?

13 Q. When did you receive the passport?

14 A. I didn't understand your question. When was

15 I issued the passport; is that it? I was issued it a

16 couple of days ago.

17 Q. I believe, sir, that you are married and that

18 you have four children.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Where do you live now, Witness DB?

21 A. Novi Travnik.

22 Q. Could you just tell the Judges what your

23 profession is, what you do right now?

24 A. (redacted).

25 Q. And for whom do you work?

1 A. Vilenica, it is a public utilities company in

2 Novi Travnik.

3 Q. Have you ever been a member of any political

4 party, sir?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Could you give the court an idea about the

7 ethnic make-up of Senkovici before the war, sir, before

8 the events about which you are going to speak about

9 today? How many people were Croat? How many were

10 Muslim? Where did they live?

11 A. There were about 450 inhabitants altogether,

12 Muslims and Croats, in Senkovici, and we lived there

13 together. Of that number, 150 were Croats and 300

14 Muslims.

15 Q. Was the village divided into a number of

16 parts or was it simply whole?

17 A. Yes, in two parts, yes.

18 Q. Could you explain to the Court, sir, who

19 lived where?

20 A. In the upper part, the upper part were mostly

21 Muslim and the lower part, it was a Croat village.

22 There was the mosque which separated us. Below the

23 mosque were the Croats, and above the mosque were the

24 Muslims.

25 Q. All right, sir. How many of the 150 Croat

1 residents were men of military age? Can you tell us

2 that?

3 A. Thirty.

4 Q. And the remaining residents consisted of

5 what?

6 A. Old people and children and women.

7 Q. Now, before the civil war broke out between

8 the Croats and Muslims in your area, sir, could you

9 tell the Court how the two communities, Croat and

10 Muslim, got along with each other?

11 A. Excellent.

12 Q. Was there a -- were there many intermarriages

13 between Croats and Muslim residents of your village or

14 not?

15 A. No.

16 Q. All right. I understand, sir, that when the

17 Bosnian Serb army started shelling Novi Travnik and

18 neighbouring villages around April of 1992, and you'll

19 appreciate that the court has heard a lot of evidence

20 about that already. What did you do? Did you join any

21 military unit and if so, what unit and what did you do

22 in it?

23 A. I was a member of a home guard unit. I

24 reported and registered with the home guard unit and I

25 stood guard around my village. That was my duty.

1 Q. About how many weapons did you have at your

2 disposal?

3 A. The lower part, the Croats, only some 10

4 rifles is what the Croats had at their disposal.

5 Q. Now, before your village was attacked, I

6 believe that you were a farmer by profession?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. Could you just describe to the Court, Witness

9 DB, what happened in the early morning hours of June

10 9th, 1993? Just tell it in your own words.

11 A. On the 9th of June in the morning at 5.15,

12 Croats, in the lower part of the village, were attacked

13 at all sides because the Croat village is surrounded by

14 Bosniaks. The Croat village is practically encircled

15 by Bosniaks.

16 Q. Where are the villages of Vodovod, Pecine and

17 Sebesici located, sir?

18 A. They are around Senkovici, because Senkovici

19 is in the middle and here are Senkovici and to the

20 right is Pecine, Vodovod, Ruda and Kovaci.

21 Q. Were these villages attacked as well as

22 yours?

23 A. Yes, yes.

24 Q. Now, after the attack happened, could you

25 describe to the Court what happened next after the

1 military activity started, the shooting and so forth?

2 A. Well, after the shooting at half past five on

3 the 9th of June, four men were killed and then we -- I

4 mean were detained all by members of the ABiH, and we

5 were all put under custody; women and old people and

6 children and we men in one house.

7 And we were all detained until exchange and

8 we were guarded by members of the Bosniak people, of

9 the BH army. They stood guard and we could not go

10 anywhere because there were guards all around us.

11 Q. When the attack started, did anything happen

12 to the water supply in the village, sir?

13 A. And in Vodovod, there were also Croats and it

14 all happened on the same day. Villages of Senkovici,

15 Vodovod, Pecine and this one, it was all attacked in

16 one day. It was all one operation.

17 Q. Yes, Witness DB, don't be nervous, but did

18 anything happen to your water supply during or after

19 that attack?

20 A. When the attack started, yes, of course,

21 above there our men made lakes, the water reservoirs.

22 At that morning, at half past five, water was switched

23 off until we were detained, and then we were detained

24 and then they let water run again.

25 Q. Did you surrender or did you -- or were you

1 captured?

2 A. Well, surrender, you can't go anywhere. We

3 were all captured.

4 Q. You've referred to being held in detention,

5 Witness DB. Can you tell the Court how long you were

6 actually kept prisoner in Senkovici?

7 A. My captivity lasted 101 days.

8 Q. All right. And do you recall approximately

9 when you were exchanged for Muslim detainees made

10 prisoner during the war?

11 A. Sorry, I was captured on the 17th of

12 September, 1993.

13 Q. Are you saying that you were saying that you

14 were captured on the 17th or released on the 17th,

15 Witness DB?

16 A. Released, and I was captured on the 6th of --

17 no, on the 9th of June, and then exchanged on the 17th

18 of September.

19 Q. Now, while you were detained for these 101

20 days, sir, could you tell the Court whether or not you

21 were forced, compelled to perform manual labour for

22 your captors.

23 A. Because we, who were able-bodied and were

24 captured, we had to do all sorts of things. Those

25 Croat plots, that is those places from which the ABiH

1 had driven us away, wheat and rye and barley, we all

2 had to cultivate it until we were exchanged.

3 Then they also forced us go to the front

4 lines to dig trenches against the Serbs where it was

5 very rocky. And we were digging through those rocks

6 for the HVO and we did all the harvest that had been

7 abandoned by the Croat people.

8 Q. Let's just take it one step at a time,

9 Witness DB. Let's take it slowly.

10 Were you forced to harvest wheat from your

11 own lands by hand and then hand it over to the people

12 who were keeping you prisoner?

13 A. Why, yes.

14 Q. And you mentioned that you had to dig

15 trenches in -- on the front lines with the Bosnian Serb

16 army and were those in places such as Ruda and Pecine?

17 A. This was Ruda and Pecine. We call it

18 Kamenjar, the rocky place.

19 Q. What about you personally, sir? In addition,

20 were you forced to dig trenches anywhere else?

21 A. I was forced, and a couple of other guys, to

22 dig trenches on the side between the Croats and

23 Bosniaks in Novi Travnik in the direction of the

24 high-rise building.

25 Q. That high-rise building, was it known by any

1 name?

2 A. I can't really know exactly whether it has

3 any other name. I know that that skyscraper is on the

4 high street -- on the main street in Novi Travnik.

5 It's where -- how shall I put it -- where a bank or

6 something like that -- where the auditing offices are,

7 something like that.

8 Q. Does the name Soliter or Stari Soliter ring a

9 bell?

10 A. Yes, Soliter, where we were digging this, to

11 dig those trenches so that the Bosniaks would move

12 their line so as to take the skyscraper from the

13 Croats, because they were higher up. And we were

14 digging right up to that Soliter, to that skyscraper,

15 because they wanted to take that part of the

16 skyscraper.

17 Q. Let me just go back to the detention which

18 you endured, Witness DB. Could you tell the Court

19 whether you were beaten at any time during the course

20 of your detention, and if so, how many times?

21 A. Yes. It was almost day in and day out.

22 Mr. Ismet Zec would come, a member of the ABiH military

23 police. He came every day, forcing us to -- compelling

24 us to go to forced labour. And there were beatings

25 every day; not only myself but also a number of other

1 colleagues who had been detained.

2 Q. I believe, sir, that the ladies imprisoned in

3 the village were permitted to prepare food for you, but

4 was that food provided to you in quantity or in limited

5 quantities?

6 A. It was in limited quantities. Only these

7 women could prepare it for us, because all the things

8 were there, and they let them feed us.

9 Q. During the course of your detention, did you

10 lose any weight?

11 A. Yes. I was -- I weighed 99 kilograms, and

12 unfortunately I returned with 79 kilograms.

13 Q. All right. One of the witnesses in this

14 case -- and this is page 8120 of the transcript, Your

15 Honours -- has testified that he visit Senkovici, found

16 Croats gathered in five houses, with the women and

17 children free to move around, and the local ABiH

18 commander explaining that the HVO had abandoned the

19 village. Could you tell the Court whether that's

20 correct or not?

21 A. No.

22 Q. Why not?

23 A. I mean women and children were not free

24 either. How could they be free to move when children

25 and women and men were kept under custody and there

1 were guards around them? So how could they be free to

2 move around?

3 Q. All right. Two other witnesses in this case,

4 Witness DB -- and for the Court's information, it's

5 page 943 of the transcript, Witness C, and pages 7720

6 to 7723, Witness Q, both witnesses from Novi Travnik --

7 these people have said the following, Witness DB, and I

8 would like you to tell the Court whether it's correct,

9 since you were there and you know these things from

10 your own personal knowledge: Witness C said, on page

11 943, that villagers in Senkovici, the Croat villagers,

12 did not want to leave the area that was held by TO

13 forces. Is that correct?

14 A. It is not correct.

15 Q. All right. And then Witness Q was asked

16 whether the UNHCR, the United Nations High Commission

17 for Refugees, had made up a list of civilian Croats

18 detained in the village of Senkovici, and the answer

19 was:

20 "No, I don't agree with that. They were

21 people who were living in their own homes, who tilled

22 their own land, who lived with their families in their

23 own homes, and, as I said yesterday, most of those

24 people did not wish to be exchanged. That was the

25 problem."

1 Now, is there any truth in that, Witness DB?

2 You were there, you know. Could you tell the Court?

3 A. Let me tell you. The International Red Cross

4 came, and they registered all women and able-bodied and

5 children. These were all in captivity. And it's not

6 true, what he said, that we did not want to go, you

7 see, because it was all registered with the

8 International Red Cross.

9 Q. The same witness described a visit of a

10 Dr. Zdenko Kranjc to your village. Were you there when

11 this person visited, sir?

12 A. No. At that time, I was doing forced labour

13 when the doctor came. I was working -- that is,

14 harvesting all that wheat. And when I came back, I

15 heard that somebody had put a note in the gentleman's

16 pocket so as not to tell the Bosnian -- so as to tell

17 the Bosnian authorities that we wanted to be exchanged

18 as soon as possible, that we wanted to be rescued as

19 quickly as possible.

20 Q. And the final point to which Witness Q

21 testified on page 7723, he was asked this question:

22 "When we're speaking about the inhabitants

23 of Senkovici, they were forced to hold the front line

24 both towards the Serbs and towards the HVO; is that

25 correct?"

1 And here is what Witness Q had to say.

2 Answer:

3 "That is not correct. No, it's not true,

4 it's not true. If I may be permitted to say something,

5 they were in a much better position than many Bosniaks

6 who went up to the front line to fight. They were with

7 their own families in their own homes."

8 What do you have to say to that, Witness DB?

9 A. To begin with, the village of Senkovici was

10 in a much worse position than the Bosniaks, because the

11 Bosniaks are above the Croats, all around us are

12 Muslims. So how could we be in a better position? And

13 we were -- but as for the trench-digging, it is quite

14 true that we had to dig trenches against the Serbs and

15 Croats.

16 Q. So you -- how shall we say -- you disagree

17 with the version of events told by Witness Q, and you

18 were one of the people that were actually forced to dig

19 these trenches up on those front lines, you yourself?

20 A. I disagreed with that, because I had to dig

21 trenches confronting the Serbs and the Croats.

22 Q. All right. Now, what happened to your house

23 in Senkovici, Witness DB, your family's house?

24 A. My house and quite a number of other houses

25 were destroyed. Nobody can live in them again.

1 There's nothing but walls standing, and that's how it

2 is to this day.

3 Q. Are there any Croats living in Senkovici

4 today, as far as you know?

5 A. No.

6 Q. Do you know Dario Kordic?

7 A. No. I only saw him on television once, and

8 that was that. Nothing else.

9 MR. SAYERS: I have no further questions,

10 Your Honour. Thank you.

11 MR. MIKULICIC: No questions, Your Honour.

12 MR. NICE: I have a few questions. There's

13 something I'd like to check. Might it be convenient to

14 take it all after the adjournment?

15 JUDGE MAY: Yes.

16 Witness DB, we're going to adjourn now.

17 Don't speak to anybody about your evidence, please,

18 until it's over, and that does include members of the

19 Defence team. Would you be back, please, at half past

20 2.00.

21 We'll adjourn.

22 --- Luncheon recess taken at 12.58 p.m.

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the

14 English and French pagination

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 --- On resuming at 2.32 p.m.

2 Cross-examined by Mr. Nice:

3 Q. Witness DB, I think the position is that

4 you've never had any contact with representatives of

5 the Office of the Prosecutor of this Tribunal. Would

6 that be correct?

7 A. I didn't understand the question.

8 Q. You haven't ever spoken to one of the

9 investigators who worked for the Prosecutor of this

10 Tribunal, have you?

11 A. Yes, I did speak to them.

12 Q. When was that?

13 A. It was in December when there was snow in

14 Central Bosnia about one metre of it.

15 Q. Did that meeting lead to the preparation of

16 any witness statement or anything of that sort?

17 A. I didn't understand the question. Can you

18 repeat it.

19 Q. Did you make a written statement?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Well -- I think it maybe that the witness is

22 confusing the OTP for someone else, because what I was

23 going to say to you, Witness DB, is this: I'm not in a

24 position to accept the detail of what you complain

25 about by way of your treatment, but I can accept that

1 you were named as a victim in a complaint in a Travnik

2 court about a man called Atif Haskic.

3 Do you recall being involved in making such a

4 complaint, that would be in 1996?

5 A. Again, I didn't quite understand the

6 question. What was it about Atif Haskic that you were

7 driving at?

8 Q. Did you -- this is the last question I'm

9 going to ask on this topic and then I'll deal with it

10 in another way, Your Honour.

11 Did you, Witness DB, speak to some

12 investigators, maybe an investigator in Bosnia about a

13 man called Atif Haskic in 1996?

14 A. No. Because Atif Haskic is from my own

15 village.

16 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, there it is.

17 In dealing with matters that I don't want to contest

18 but I can't agree, I obviously have to look at what

19 material we have. We don't have an OTP statement, but

20 I can see complaints were made, maybe not on the basis

21 of this particular witness, but were made about him in

22 relation to digging trenches and forced labour,

23 interrogation and the burning of houses in 1996 in case

24 that assists generally.

25 Q. Perhaps we could all be assisted by looking

1 at a map to become 1960.2. This -- if you have a look

2 at it there on the screen, Witness DB.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. This helps us because we don't know the area

5 very well, to see that Senkovici is in the bottom

6 left-hand corner of the map and Novi Travnik or

7 Pucaravo is to the right.

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. And it's not very easy to see, but if you

10 follow the road from Sekovici up to Pucarevo, there is

11 another little village called Torine; is that correct?

12 A. Senkovici is down and then where they say

13 Pucarevo, first to come past Bratstvo, then to Torine

14 and only then to Senkovici.

15 Q. I think the Court can see Torine it's not

16 very well marked. For what it's worth, I haven't been

17 able to find the villages of Vodovod and Pecine. If

18 you are handed the pointer by the usher, and sit in

19 your seat because your face is not to be seen in any

20 camera, if you point it out on the screen, then we'll

21 find out where they are just to help us.

22 You should lean back into your seat, Witness

23 DB so that your face --

24 A. Here it goes, this is Vodovod and then it

25 goes further on.

1 Q. It's off the map, is it? It's unlikely

2 because it's hardly a neighbouring village.

3 A. It's like this [indicates] past Vodovod, then

4 it's lower Pecine, then upper Pecine, then Ruda and so

5 on.

6 Q. Well, it may be nothing turns on it. I

7 wanted it for completeness.

8 The position is this: that you were a Home

9 Guard. Have you ever been anything more in the

10 military than a Home Guard?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Even after the exchange, you weren't involved

13 in the fighting?

14 A. Yes, I was.

15 Q. In what capacity?

16 A. I'm sorry, I didn't understand you.

17 Q. After the fighting, if you were involved --

18 after your exchange, if you were involved in the

19 fighting, in what capacity were you involved in the

20 fighting?

21 A. I was feeding my family. I was there with my

22 wife and my children. I was just a member of this Home

23 Guard unit.

24 Q. Very well. You are aware of the high-rise

25 building in Novi Travnik, aren't you; you know of it?

1 A. For what? Oh, yes.

2 Q. It's the high-rise building that you say

3 you --

4 A. The Soliter, which is the high-rise. I just

5 did not quite understand what the gentleman wanted to

6 ask in respect of the high-rise or Soliter.

7 Q. We deal with things in order, and I was just

8 simply checking that you knew which the building was.

9 Now, the next question is this: When you

10 were detained in Senkovici, were you getting

11 information from outside, getting reports on what was

12 happening elsewhere, and particularly Novi Travnik?

13 A. No.

14 Q. You were visited by the Red Cross and by

15 other people from time to time. Did they not tell you

16 about what was happening in Novi Travnik?

17 A. We worked, those of us who were capable of

18 working. And I did not fully answer.

19 As far as the registration of the inhabitants

20 of Senkovici, here is the paper [indicates]. I have it

21 in my hand.

22 Q. You may have been working, but when

23 international observers visited your village, like the

24 Red Cross and like people called European Monitors, if

25 they spoke to the women or the older people, you will

1 have been informed later that day of what they said.

2 Now, did you receive information from those people, the

3 Red Cross or the Monitors, of what was happening in

4 Novi Travnik?

5 A. Listen. We absolutely had no contact with

6 our wives and children. We were locked up in one

7 house, and then we were taken to forced labour. We had

8 no contact, only when there was a lunchtime, because

9 there were guards all around those houses.

10 Q. Let's just have a look at this photograph,

11 please, just to remind yourself, if you may be

12 reminded. Just put it on the ELMO. This is a man

13 called Morsink. You've been asked about him a little

14 bit, but just have a look at the photograph. It's

15 quite a memorable face. Do you remember that face?

16 MR. NICE: It doesn't need to become an

17 exhibit, Your Honour.

18 A. No, I never saw him or have I seen him.

19 MR. NICE: Can we look at Exhibit 1085,

20 please. Thank you very much.

21 Q. Now, this is a document that's in English,

22 Witness DB, so I'm not asking you to read it because I

23 don't think you speak English. But I'm going to put it

24 on the overhead projector so that the rest of us can

25 see what it says, remind ourselves of what it says.

1 This is -- just to explain it to you, this is

2 the report of the man whose photograph we were just

3 looking at. It was on the 20th of June, and he spoke

4 of what was happening in your village in the middle of

5 the page, when he says that: "In the village of

6 Senkovici, 187 Croats are still living with the

7 Muslims." Well, now, is it right that it was about 187

8 Croats?

9 A. I don't know the exact figure, but it's not

10 true. They didn't live like that.

11 Q. He goes on to say this, just so that you can

12 follow the detail: "All Croats men between 20 and

13 50 years old are held in five houses, and the women and

14 children are free to move." That's what he found, you

15 see, on the 20th --

16 A. Not correct, not correct.

17 Q. Well, first of all, you're saying that all

18 the men were held in, what, one house?

19 A. Yes, in one house.

20 Q. What about the women and children; were they

21 free to move within the area of the village?

22 A. Women and children were in three houses, and

23 they were surrounded by guards. You couldn't get out.

24 You couldn't go anywhere.

25 Q. He went on to report this: that there were no

1 complaints -- this is as early as the 20th of June, but

2 he said there were no complaints. Well, now, are you

3 aware of a visitor from the International Community, as

4 it's called, coming to your village and people

5 making -- the Croats making no complaints?

6 A. No.

7 Q. It may be argued or it might be even

8 suggested that you were forced by your Muslim captors

9 to make no complaints, so I want you to think of every

10 possibility before I move on. Can you think of any

11 circumstances in which --

12 A. No, no, no.

13 Q. Very well. He then said this: "All civilians

14 feel insecure, due to the direct artillery fire by the

15 Serbs." Well, that would be true, wouldn't it?

16 A. How do you mean? I didn't quite figure out

17 this question.

18 Q. All right. I'll rephrase it, hoping not to

19 get it wrong. He said that the civilians feel anxious

20 because of artillery fire from the Serbs. Would that

21 be about right?

22 A. Would that be when the Bosniaks were up above

23 Senkovici? And they walk around freely, and the Croats

24 were down there. How were they to feel safe?

25 Q. Well, this is on the 20th of June, and what

1 I'm asking you is were you all frightened because of

2 Serb gunfire; "yes" or "no"?

3 A. When they force you to go and dig, you're not

4 afraid of anything because you're just forced.

5 Q. He's speaking of the people in the village,

6 and he then says that on his visit, they experienced

7 five shells. So is it right that shells were falling

8 from time to time in the area of the village?

9 A. I don't remember that.

10 Q. He says that shells were being aimed at the

11 local mosque. Do you remember the local mosque being

12 attacked? I think the mosque lay between the Croat

13 part of the village and the Muslim part of the

14 village. Do you remember the mosque being shelled?

15 A. No.

16 Q. He then went on, however, to say this: "The

17 part of the village where the civilians are living now,

18 including the Croats, has not been targeted since the

19 HVO went to --" and I think that must mean "the Serb

20 front line." So he says the particular bit of the

21 village where you were all living, including the

22 Croats, as he says, hadn't been targeted since the HVO

23 went to the Serb front lines. Would that be right,

24 that your houses were not actually shelled while you

25 were detained there?

1 A. I cannot quite recall. And this question of

2 yours, I cannot quite make it out.

3 Q. Sorry about that. It is, of course, my

4 fault.

5 The houses where you and where your families

6 were being kept -- imprisoned, as you would say -- were

7 not, in fact, shelled, that is, shells weren't sent in

8 their direction, between the period June and September,

9 1993; correct?

10 A. I cannot understand this shelling. But when

11 we were detained there, what kind of shelling? I don't

12 understand this question at all.

13 Q. Well, I'm not going to take any more time

14 with it. If you can't understand it, I assume you have

15 no memory of any shelling. Would that be right?

16 A. Because when we were imprisoned then there

17 was nothing from the Bosnian because Bosnians lived

18 there too, it's about 500 metres from their houses to

19 our houses.

20 Q. The last couple of things I want to ask you,

21 so you know there's not many more questions to come

22 concern the visit of the doctor, Dr. Kranjc, you

23 remember who that person was?

24 A. I absolutely do not recall because I was at

25 forced labour.

1 Q. Well, I'm going to ask you in any event for

2 your comments on this proposition. That that man was a

3 Croat himself. Do you know the name of the doctor?

4 A. No, absolutely not.

5 Q. Were you told by your families, your women

6 folk and so on before the exchange on September 29th

7 that a Croat doctor had called and that following his

8 visit, you were to be exchanged?

9 A. I was at forced labour when this doctor

10 came. This was an elderly man, that's what I hear, put

11 a little note in his pocket so that we would be rescued

12 down there.

13 Q. You obviously do remember something about the

14 doctor and what I'm going to suggest to you is this:

15 There were two meetings, first there was a --

16 A. No, no. I don't recall, but I know that he

17 came once because I was at forced labour. Because we

18 went to harvest Croatian peoples' crops in order to

19 feed the Bosnian people.

20 Q. He came on a visit and he came with a Muslim

21 person, and at the first meeting, the Croats who were

22 living in your village said they wanted to stay. And

23 then there was a second meeting with the doctor, on his

24 own, so that it was all Croats together. And after

25 that meeting, people said that they wanted to move.

1 Now, were you told anything about that by

2 your family?

3 A. No. It is not correct that we did not want

4 to be exchanged. We wanted to be exchanged as soon as

5 possible, because I had no conditions to -- go on

6 living there with my wife and children. And the fact

7 that he came and the fact that he came with a Bosniak,

8 I don't know about that because perhaps he couldn't

9 talk in front of him.

10 We had to harvest and it was our -- we had to

11 turn it over to the Bosniaks and we ourselves had

12 nothing to eat.

13 Q. Just about three or four more questions, I

14 think, at the most. Your village and Torine were two

15 of the very few villages where any Croats -- very few

16 Muslim-dominated villages where Croats insisted on

17 staying behind following the start of the conflict in

18 June of 1993. Would that be correct?

19 A. Before the conflict, we lived in that area

20 all the time. And then on the 9th June when the

21 conflict came, I had no longer any conditions for life

22 there because Senkovici was surrounded by Muslims.

23 There was no way out. That's how it was in Torine too.

24 Q. And you Croats were prepared to stay living

25 in that village right up and until September. And

1 although the conditions may well have been harsh or

2 very bad, one advantage of staying in the village was

3 that you didn't get obliged to get involved in the

4 full-scale fighting. Now, would that be right?

5 A. No, we did not want to stay there at all

6 while the Bosniak people were there because you

7 couldn't stay there when every day they harassed you

8 and beat you and forced you to work. How would you

9 stay there?

10 Q. And that you must have been told at some

11 stage that the Croats were trying to take possession of

12 the Soliter building in Novi Travnik, and that the deal

13 was that they would release or exchange those people in

14 the Soliter building who were Muslims if the Croats in

15 your village, and indeed, in the next door village of

16 Torine moved out into Croat areas. That was the deal.

17 Were you aware of that?

18 A. Could you please just repeat that question?

19 Q. Of course. The deal was that the Croats in

20 Novi Travnik wanted to take possession of the Soliter

21 building which had a number of 50- or so-odd people

22 living in it and they wanted possession of that

23 building and to get it they offered to release, for

24 exchange, the Muslims who were in the high building

25 providing that the Croats in your village and in Torine

1 were compelled to move out of a Muslim area into a

2 Croat area.

3 A. I did not know about that. I couldn't hear

4 about it because I was detained.

5 MR. NICE: Very well. Thank you very much.

6 MR. SAYERS: No questions, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE MAY: Witness DB, thank you for coming

8 to the International Tribunal to give your evidence.

9 It's now concluded and you are free to go.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you too.

11 [The witness withdrew]

12 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, may we begin to deal

13 with the affidavits first and then the exhibits

14 hopefully deal with them by this afternoon.

15 MR. NICE: As I find myself embarrassed to

16 this extent that I haven't -- we thought we were going

17 to do it on Friday, I haven't prepared the affidavit

18 position completely at all.

19 There was also a general matter I wanted to

20 raise about the affidavits and perhaps I could deal

21 with that straight away, and it's the problem that

22 requires, perhaps, a preliminary consideration of the

23 position we found ourselves in.

24 As the Chamber will know, the Defence have

25 argued in respect of affidavits generally that the rule

1 that deals with affidavits should be interpreted as

2 meaning that if a party objects to an affidavit, either

3 the witness is called or the affidavit cannot be used

4 in evidence.

5 That was the position they took in argument

6 here and it is the clear and emphatic position they

7 have taken in documents lodged before the Appeals

8 Chamber therefore presuming its position from which

9 they have no intention whatsoever of resigning.

10 JUDGE MAY: Let me just get that argument.

11 If that's how they interpret it, it's a normal

12 interpretation.

13 If one looks at the rule, it states that,

14 "The affidavits or statements are admissible." And

15 then there is a proviso that they be filed prior to the

16 giving of testimony by the witness to be called and the

17 other party does not object within seven days after

18 completion of the testimony through whom the affidavits

19 are tendered. If the party objects and the Trial

20 Chamber so rules, or if the Trial Chamber so orders,

21 the witness or witnesses should be called for

22 cross-examination.

23 It may not be entirely plain.

24 MR. NICE: In any event, Your Honour, it's

25 not -- it's not for the purposes of arguing the

1 interpretation that I raise the matter now because, of

2 course, we know what your interpretation is following

3 your decisions in relation to the Prosecution

4 affidavits, and it's a position with which we -- it's

5 the same position as that which we adopt.

6 The problem is a rather more practical one

7 and it arises in this way: Given the clear and

8 emphatic approach of the Defence when -- whenever I'm

9 served with one of their affidavits, I could, if I

10 chose, and that's why I haven't done anything in part,

11 say, simply to every affidavit, "We object," because on

12 their interpretation they would either have to call the

13 witness or the affidavit would be withdrawn.

14 I'm certainly not going to make objections on

15 that basis because that would provide probably very

16 little judicial economy.

17 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Wait,

18 Mr. Nice. I believe that the text is clear. I

19 followed its operation, and I believe everything is

20 clear. The last thing -- the objection of the

21 affidavits or statements and the decision, the final

22 say is the Chamber.

23 So it is quite clear you have the right to

24 object to an affidavit, but -- and that is what it says

25 here -- if the Chamber accepts your objection, at that

1 moment the witness needs to come here and appear before

2 the Court for cross-examination. But it is the Chamber

3 which so rules, and you are free to make your

4 objections, if you wish to do so. The Chamber,

5 however, can do it proprio motu, that is, itself.

6 So one should not say that you are entitled

7 to make objections and that the Chamber will then have

8 to take up your objection, because that is not how this

9 text reads. So it is your right -- you're even bound

10 to do so -- to raise objections which you deem

11 necessary for reasons that you need to explain to the

12 Chamber. That is what is being done now. And it is

13 then up to us to rule on the basis of the reasons which

14 you have presented and which form the basis of your

15 objection. But it is always up to the Chamber to make

16 a ruling. That is clear, and it does not necessitate

17 any interpretations. The text is clear.

18 MR. NICE: I entirely agree, and I wouldn't

19 raise this if it wasn't for the fact that the Defence

20 take a different line. And I raise it because I think

21 there is a small practical problem that's got to be

22 overcome.

23 I agree with His Honour Judge Bennouna, that

24 what would happen or what should happen is that an

25 affidavit is served, we either say, "No objections," or

1 we say, "We object and for this reason." The opposing

2 party, in this case the Defence, would then join the

3 debate and make representations why the affidavit

4 should be admitted, and the Chamber would then rule.

5 Now, what I'm concerned about, given the

6 position that the Defence take, is that -- because they

7 will not want the trial to miscarry in any way as a

8 result of what they will be arguing would be a complete

9 misinterpretation of the Rules -- what I'm concerned

10 about is that the Defence may not themselves be

11 prepared to make arguments on the basis of this

12 interpretation because they believe it to be wrong and

13 flawed, and therefore there is the risk that in

14 discussing affidavits, you'll have our objections, and

15 unless -- which I'm quite prepared to do. I try and

16 fulfil both roles, arguments both ways -- or unless the

17 Chamber itself becomes more involved than it might want

18 to be, the matter isn't going to be fully and properly

19 argued out. That's my concern.

20 JUDGE MAY: The justice of the matter is

21 simply dealt with. These affidavits are produced, and

22 we then have to decide whether the witness should be

23 called for cross-examination or not.

24 MR. NICE: That's my interpretation, yes.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes. Well, I know it's not your

1 argument. It doesn't seem to raise any difficulty. I

2 think the simplest way is to deal with it as we're

3 going to deal with these affidavits, and that is by

4 batches, dealing with them, rather than one at a time,

5 in a batch of 12, I think it is.

6 Now, you're not ready to deal with it today?

7 MR. NICE: I'm not ready, no, and I had

8 forecast dealing with it tomorrow morning, I'm afraid.

9 JUDGE MAY: Well, we'll have to think about

10 that.

11 Mr. Sayers, is there any difficulty about

12 following what is suggested?

13 MR. SAYERS: Yes. It seems to us that as the

14 Trial Chamber has noted, the Rule appears to be pretty

15 clear. It imposes time limits. It tells counsel

16 exactly when affidavits should be submitted prior to

17 the filing -- that they should be filed prior to a live

18 witness testifying, and that's exactly what we've been

19 doing.

20 It's really a live-witness-by-live-witness

21 analysis, and I'm concerned that dealing with it in

22 batches just gives the Prosecution an advantage that we

23 were never given when the Prosecution put on affidavits

24 in violation of this Rule, I might add, and that's the

25 position that we're taking before the Appeals Chamber

1 currently, as the Court knows.

2 It seems to me the best way to deal with it,

3 and it doesn't take too long because the affidavits

4 that we have been submitting are very short and they

5 are focused on specific facts that corroborate

6 specific-fact testimony of a live witness. I don't see

7 why it's particularly time-consuming to spend five

8 minutes or less in considering whether the particular

9 affiant needs to be called for cross-examination. It

10 seems to be rather easy.

11 JUDGE MAY: What is the prejudice in dealing

12 with it in batches, which is a much more convenient way

13 of dealing with it, I must say, than breaking off the

14 evidence to considering affidavits?

15 MR. SAYERS: Well, our position is the Rule

16 says what it says and it's pretty easy to apply. I

17 don't think that it's --

18 [Trial Chamber deliberates]

19 JUDGE MAY: By a majority, we have decided

20 that we will go through the procedure of ruling on the

21 affidavit on an affidavit-by-affidavit basis.

22 Very well. You're not ready today,

23 Mr. Nice?

24 MR. NICE: No, I'm afraid not, and I'm not

25 ready because I hoped to be able to object to only

1 limited numbers, if I have objections at all. I'm not

2 expecting to be objecting to large numbers, but I need

3 to discuss matters with everybody who's available to

4 assist before I take my final position.

5 JUDGE BENNOUNA: May I add something. I

6 would like to recall to you, Mr. Nice, that you must

7 abide by the Rule as it is. That means that we have a

8 delay in objecting. You cannot object at any moment.

9 I have the text in French, but I hope it is

10 the same in English, 94 ter. It says that you have to

11 object within seven days.

12 MR. NICE: Yes, exactly.

13 JUDGE BENNOUNA: Within seven days after the

14 witness has given his testimony. That means that you

15 have to -- and we will be very strict to respect this

16 Article and the delay. That means if you have to

17 object then, you have to object in a maximum of seven

18 days after the witness has given his testimony. That's

19 it. And if you object, that means that we have to --

20 it will be very, very short. Your objection has to be

21 heard by the -- why do you want this witness, for this

22 to be held in cross-examination. It has nothing to do

23 with the admissibility of the affidavit itself. It has

24 to do with having the witness present here for

25 cross-examination. It's your right, and it's up to you

1 to object if you want, but within the delay.

2 MR. NICE: It's for that reason inter alia

3 that I raised the matter at the beginning of the week

4 and sought an extension.

5 JUDGE MAY: Which was granted.

6 MR. NICE: Which was granted, and I'm

7 grateful. Of course, I'll abide by the seven-day

8 rule.

9 As a matter of practicality, it's rather

10 difficult to accumulate all the information you want to

11 know about what position you should take within seven

12 days. The consequence may be that I'll be objecting

13 more than I would otherwise want. It may, of course,

14 always be the case that I will have to object out of

15 caution, and then I might be able to withdraw an

16 objection later.

17 But that's my position, and that's all I can

18 say about it. I'm grateful for the extension on this

19 occasion to the end of this week.

20 JUDGE MAY: I had better see whether your

21 application to be heard tomorrow is agreed or not.

22 [Trial Chamber confers]

23 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Nice, we will hear you

24 tomorrow. I trust the matter could be dealt with as

25 briefly as possible at half past 9.00.

1 Now, what about the position about the

2 exhibits?

3 MR. NICE: The position about the exhibits is

4 something I'm certainly able to deal with now, subject

5 only to the fact that, of course, it has an

6 institutional significance, and I've had some

7 institutional input.

8 At the moment, I've got a draft document that

9 I haven't yet, for reasons of dealing with other

10 matters, been able to consider. But I suspect that

11 when I've taken a chance to read it, it will simply

12 repeat or reflect what I was going to say in any event,

13 but rather more fully. Subject to reading that and

14 seeing if there's anything I want to add to it, and

15 checking whether Ms. Greenwood is available, because

16 she wanted to be present at this discussion, I can at

17 least outline the position in summary, and it may be

18 that that will help.

19 The practice of this institution has changed

20 over time, so that I think in the first case of Tadic,

21 there were quite a lot of original -- or some,

22 certainly, original documents produced, whereas now it

23 is almost never the case that original documents are

24 produced to the Chamber in any case.

25 Dealing, as an example, with two cases with

1 which Your Honour may be familiar -- if I'm right, it

2 was, I think, in Dokmanovic.

3 JUDGE MAY: Yes, of course, I was in

4 Dokmanovic. I didn't know that the exhibits were being

5 kept in the way you now say they were.

6 MR. NICE: Well, in that case I've got some

7 transcripts of that which I can perhaps refer you to

8 later. I think the matter was addressed, and as a

9 concession at that stage, it was suggested that copies

10 would serve the purpose, and that's what happened for

11 the most or for all part.

12 In Kupreskic as well, I think all produced

13 exhibits were copies. One document was produced in the

14 court exactly in the way that a document was produced

15 yesterday. I think it was an HVO log, if my

16 information is correct, because a witness wanted to

17 look at it. Having looked at, it was returned to the

18 Evidence Unit, where it then stayed.

19 JUDGE MAY: Well, if I'm wrong about my

20 recollection about that, I certainly do have no

21 recollection of these arrangements and had I no idea

22 that they were being applied in this case.

23 MR. NICE: Well, Your Honour, I'm very sorry

24 that there's been a misunderstanding, but I think that

25 so far as we and the Defence are concerned, and the

1 Court offices, there has been no misunderstanding

2 because, of course, as the Court will remember,

3 whenever documents are produced they are usually

4 produced in stacks and everyone gets the same stack,

5 and the position, therefore, is that obviously

6 everybody is getting the same document.

7 So far as the Court documents are concerned,

8 the Chamber will have in mind that they sit in

9 lever-arch files having had holes punched into them

10 which, of course, should not be done if the documents

11 were original.

12 When the Defence have produced documents,

13 again, I will be corrected if I am wrong, they have

14 been produced in the same way. At any time it's open

15 to any party or the Court, of course, to ask to see an

16 original as we saw yesterday.

17 Now, the reason for this practice is to be

18 found in the nature of the proceedings here and in, I

19 dare say, perhaps modern practice so far as documentary

20 exhibits are concerned.

21 What happens once a document is properly

22 logged in this place for the OTP is that the document

23 goes to a dedicated unit, the evidence unit, where it

24 is scanned. Now, scanning converts the then image of

25 the document once and for all to an electronic format

1 and associates it with an unique number, the number you

2 see on all the documents that come before you.

3 Thereafter, the document goes to the secure

4 unit where 99 out of 100 or 999 out of 1.000 cases the

5 document stays never to be disturbed. If, and whenever

6 it is moved, its movement is logged. It's logged out

7 of the unit.

8 JUDGE MAY: But is the Court asked?

9 MR. NICE: Your Honour, was the Court asked?

10 JUDGE MAY: You say that when a document is

11 moved, it's logged, logged out of the unit. But what

12 I'm asking is if somebody moves an exhibit, does

13 anybody ask the Court?

14 MR. NICE: No, because notionally or not

15 notionally, what is the exhibit in these cases is the

16 master copy, the copy that comes from the electronic

17 version, and that's been the understanding in all cases

18 recently.

19 If it's been a misunderstanding or not a

20 commonly held understanding, then it's a good thing

21 that it's being sorted out.

22 JUDGE MAY: All we want is that Rule 81(C) is

23 complied with, and promptly. Now, that is -- that is

24 what should be done.

25 MR. NICE: Well, from a personal point of

1 view, I have no particular interest one way or the

2 other, but from an institutional point of view which is

3 why I must, perhaps, read the institutional response

4 that I have, there is grave concerns.

5 Let me say a few more things about the

6 preservation of the documents and the reason for them

7 being preserved in this way.

8 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I'm sorry. Where

9 is the secure unit? Is that in the OTP or where?

10 MR. NICE: It's a vault here.

11 JUDGE ROBINSON: It's the only one?

12 MR. NICE: It is in the OTP vault, yes, and

13 it is, I think, without a doubt, the most secure unit

14 here subject to the most stringent regulations.

15 Documents are kept there and they are not moved without

16 being documented.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Nice.

19 MR. NICE: Mr. Sayers may want to say

20 something.

21 JUDGE MAY: If you would deal with the

22 practice -- we'll hear Mr. Sayers in a moment, of

23 course. Just a moment.

24 MR. NICE: While you've been conferring, I've

25 been reading the institutional response which has been

1 drafted from my name, but comes from the institution

2 generally. I will get that copied, if I may, but I

3 think it sets out the history and the current practice

4 quite well. I'll just get that down.

5 The practicalities or the practical

6 advantages include that where you have one document for

7 production in two, three or more cases, each case has a

8 master copy as its exhibit and there is no problem as

9 there would be if the document has to be produced for

10 one Chamber, and then another Chamber then wants it as

11 an exhibit in this case and so on. So that problem

12 ceases to exist.

13 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Regarding

14 the practicality, there is no big difference between

15 the fact of having a master copy, as you call it, the

16 document with the Registry.

17 If the document is with the Registry, if you

18 have the master copy or the original with the Registry,

19 then you, as the OTP, want to use it in some other

20 case, you also turn to the Registry and apply to the

21 Registry. That is quite clear. So I do not really

22 understand this practicality.

23 Evidently something was done wrong at some

24 point in time, and once you are off to a bad start, it

25 is very difficult to redress it. It should be the --

1 it is quite clear that it is the Registry which should

2 keep the original. However, things evidently were off

3 to a bad start, and one will have to study it very

4 seriously in order to redress the situation.

5 When you have an original with the Registry

6 and you have to apply to the Registry for any other

7 case in which you want to use it, I don't think that

8 changes the problem.

9 MR. NICE: I don't think it's off to a bad

10 start, we've got off to a misunderstanding because of

11 the practice in other cases.

12 As to whether there's little or great

13 difficulties in real originals or whatever we like to

14 call them, some are themselves copies, some are true

15 original documents that may be degrading over time if

16 exposed to less than perfect circumstances and so on.

17 Where they lie with the Registry, ease of

18 access to another Chamber is by no means guaranteed.

19 We have only, I think, to bear in mind the difficulties

20 that the Defence are encountering subject to the recent

21 application where they've been seeking now for months

22 to get orders from one Chamber releasing material to

23 another Chamber. Difficult enough when the Chambers

24 are still composed in the forms they were when trials

25 were ongoing. It's more difficult thereafter. But

1 there's a more fundamental problem with this and it's a

2 practical problem.

3 The arrangements that the OTP evidence unit

4 has in line with its duties under the order to which I

5 drew your attention a couple of days ago, are of the

6 highest possible security, and documents don't move

7 from there, as I say, without effectively, in all

8 cases, chain of custody, records.

9 Once a document goes to the Registry,

10 although the Registry has its own secure system,

11 documents are not going to be monitored on an

12 item-by-item basis. They will simply be on the trolley

13 or in the secure room which I think is, in any event,

14 shared with others, but maybe not, I don't know.

15 You saw yesterday one original brought up for

16 inspection and indeed returned against an unique chain

17 of custody record that was prepared in respect of it.

18 If the Chamber will cast its mind back to some of those

19 occasions where we've been producing several documents

20 in the course of a morning; 10 to 15, 20, some have

21 been produced and then at the end of the exercise, half

22 a dozen are returned and some are ruled not to be in.

23 Each of those documents has got to be

24 separately tracked, some to be returned, some to go to

25 the Registry and, frankly, the risk of loss of a

1 document is very much greater in those circumstances

2 than under the practices which presently obtain.

3 Indeed under the practices which presently obtain, as I

4 understand it, there has been no loss of a document

5 that we're aware of so far.

6 JUDGE MAY: These are arguments you can apply

7 in any court and what you're suggesting is that the

8 body which is responsible for the administration of the

9 court is incapable of keeping a document secure.

10 MR. NICE: I didn't say that. I said that

11 our systems are preferable, more secure, and less

12 likely to lead to error.

13 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, you may be right

14 saying they may be more secure, but in matters of this

15 kind, I am sure you will be sensitive to the matters in

16 that justice must also be done, but be seen to be

17 done.

18 I, personally, am concerned about the

19 impression that this will give to the International

20 Community that exhibits are in the hands of a party to

21 the proceedings. I mean that is now -- how does that

22 appear to the International Community, first of all,

23 that exhibits on the basis of which the Tribunal must

24 determine the guilt or innocence of an accused person

25 is in the hands of a party.

1 MR. NICE: In my respectful submission, your

2 sensitivity is well understood and appreciated, but in

3 the particular circumstances of this and these cases,

4 not what should be the guiding principle for this

5 reason.

6 The reason that nearly all documents remain

7 undisturbed in the vaults of the evidence unit,

8 disturbed so far as the dedicated custodians of that

9 unit are concerned, because it's not an unit which I

10 have access, save on specific protocols or whatever it

11 may be, is because in nearly all cases, the documents

12 are not required to be seen in their original form.

13 In our case, unless I've forgotten something,

14 I don't think any document was required to be seen in

15 its original form up and until yesterday. I may have

16 forgotten one, and that's hardly surprising with ECMM

17 reports, BritBat reports and so on.

18 If, at any stage, any document is required to

19 be seen then, of course, its production is called for,

20 up it comes. Interestingly enough, when this matter

21 was first ventilated, Mr. Sayers raised the issue of a

22 Jelisic document.

23 Unfortunately, it was a quotation completely

24 out of context. And since it seemed to be being

25 launched at me, I will just take time to explain

1 actually what happened there, for it rather supports

2 the general proposition that I am advancing.

3 What happened was that a witness turned up

4 and out of his own back pocket produced something. It

5 was a pass that he said was signed by Jelisic. It was

6 copied and it was agreed all around that the case was

7 going to proceed on the basis of a copy.

8 There was then some cross-examination as to

9 its genuineness and indeed as to the issue of whether

10 any such pass had ever been issued. But unfortunately,

11 given that the defendant in his interview had

12 acknowledged drafting such a pass.

13 An application was made by Defence counsel by

14 that particular original document should stay in

15 court. But the judges, at that stage, ordered

16 otherwise and they said, "No, we will carry on dealing

17 with the copy."

18 The judges then, as was the practice in that

19 court, asked their questions which were many. One of

20 those questions, not from Judge Riad as the note

21 suggests, but from Judge Rodrigues, returned to the

22 issue of the genuineness of the document.

23 It seemed to me, and perhaps I was actually

24 being sympathetic to Defence counsel that where this

25 issue was alive, whatever the problems he faced arising

1 from the interview of this defendant, it might be

2 preferable for the document to stay here in The Hague

3 rather than to return to the witness.

4 So what I was doing there was reflecting an

5 exception to the general rule but rather than to incur

6 the wrath of the bench by suggesting that their initial

7 ruling was wrong, I suggested to them that in light of

8 the Judge's question, the way the judges might want to

9 investigate handwriting, and for that reason the

10 document might remain in court and indeed so it did.

11 But that's the history of that, and that

12 again shows the general practice that copies were

13 acceptable, save in exceptional and articulated

14 circumstances. Here and in any of these cases, these

15 documents are, of course, available for inspection by

16 the Defence, if they ask to see them.

17 JUDGE MAY: It's not the inspection which is

18 in issue, it's the custody of the exhibits which is in

19 issue.

20 I don't think we're going to get very much

21 further with this, except to really enquire as to what

22 the sensitive exhibits are and, particularly, the

23 audiotape which is, in my view, something which should

24 clearly have been from the outset, once it was

25 produced, in the custody of the Registry and not in the

1 custody of the party.

2 MR. NICE: Can I do two things? First of

3 all, can I distribute perhaps for reading overnight the

4 institutional response? It's not signed, but I hope

5 you'll accept it in its present form.

6 [Trial Chamber confers]

7 MR. NICE: That's what I meant, the OTP.

8 "Jargon", well, yes, jargon, the OTP's institution.

9 There it is. The audiotape --

10 JUDGE MAY: Let us see that.

11 MR. NICE: Certainly. You can have it now.

12 While that's being distributed, can I turn to

13 the tape.

14 What's true for documents is true for all

15 forms of tapes as well. They come to the building and

16 they are copied. At the time of that tape, there

17 weren't digital copying facilities. I think there are

18 now.

19 Would the Court rather read this document

20 first, or should I --

21 JUDGE MAY: No, let's hear this.

22 MR. NICE: Let's hear me; right.

23 Now, the history of the audiotape is not

24 uninteresting, for matters have never been fully

25 articulated on the Defence side.

1 What happened was that the tape arrived --

2 the first tape arrived here. It was copied

3 immediately. That, therefore, was the master copy. It

4 was distributed to the Defence, and they were invited

5 to deal with whether the voices were the voices of

6 Kordic and Blaskic. They acknowledged that they were.

7 Nothing was said as to the nature of challenge to that

8 tape, save questions in the most imprecise format about

9 it, and then at a later stage from Mr. Stein, a

10 reference to the possibility of words, odd words, being

11 added in.

12 The witness came and gave evidence about the

13 tape. On that occasion, I think the original, as

14 produced by the witness, was signed out under chain of

15 custody to come to court to be played. The witness

16 produced from his briefcase another version, I think

17 one in time that hadn't even left his possession. That

18 was played for a short period of time, but the Court

19 concluded that it was too difficult to make use of as a

20 piece of real evidence and that it had to be listened

21 to in different circumstances. That tape was copied

22 not by the OTP but by the Audio-Visual Unit

23 straightaway, and copies of that tape, master copies,

24 were distributed to everyone. The Defence and, indeed,

25 the witness himself wanted to take a copy home with

1 him, and I think he had one. That second tape was then

2 presented in due course to the Evidence Unit in the

3 same way as the earlier one had been presented much

4 earlier.

5 Now, at that moment and from that moment on,

6 master copies were the exhibit, effectively, and the

7 possession of the original tapes remained with the OTP

8 and were well known to remain with the OTP, for the

9 Chamber will recall that the next issue about the tapes

10 was whether tape 1, the first tape, was identical in

11 content to tape 2. And Mr. Stein, who then appeared

12 for the defendant, came to our office or to an office

13 here in order that he could listen to and compare both

14 tapes, one with the other. So it's always been known

15 by the Defence that we had possession of those tapes.

16 Following that exercise, the tapes, both of

17 them, were returned to the Evidence Unit. Nothing had

18 been made clear in cross-examination as to what was

19 being said about the tape or as to which bits of it

20 were not accurate or otherwise. There was no material

21 cross-examination at all.

22 I think, and I'll be corrected by

23 Ms. Verhaag, if I'm wrong, about the order of events,

24 but I think the next thing that happened was we got a

25 summary of the Defence witnesses, but I'm not sure

1 whether it was that way around or not. But, in any

2 event, when we got a summary of the Defence witnesses,

3 again absolute imprecision, save to say that some

4 expert was identified as going to speak about the tape

5 no doubt on the basis of the master copy in the

6 possession of the Defence.

7 We have no reason to believe in this case

8 that we are going to get more than the minimum three

9 weeks' notice for experts' reports, or whatever it may

10 be, and so at that stage it was decided, it not having

11 been thought necessary earlier, to see what, if

12 anything, an expert could say of this tape so as, at

13 least to that extent, to be ready to deal, in the short

14 period of time, with whatever the Defence expert may

15 say.

16 The experts identified were those who have

17 been used by the Tribunal or for the Tribunal before

18 here in Holland. They asked to see the original

19 original, as it were, and it was signed out under chain

20 of custody to them, digitally copied, and has, in due

21 course, been returned.

22 JUDGE MAY: It is that document, the original

23 original, which should be in the custody of the

24 Registry. People should have copies, including the

25 Prosecution and the Defence. But what is wrong is that

1 the Prosecution has the original, and it's that item --

2 I called it a document -- that item that should be in

3 the custody of the Registry, in my view.

4 MR. NICE: If I may say so, in that case I

5 accept that if we, between us, articulated the position

6 more, that's almost certainly what would have happened

7 and that particular exhibit would have been under --

8 either gone to the Registry or -- and this is an

9 alternative that I mention without discussing it too

10 much with Ms. Greenwood, save in the most general

11 terms -- or in respect of such exhibits, that they be

12 marked not to be moved from the secure environment in

13 which they, we say, exist, save on notice.

14 And I make that last point, I think, for this

15 reason: I'm just going to check something first.

16 [Prosecution confers]

17 MR. NICE: No, there's nothing else I want to

18 add following on my last observation. But there is

19 this:

20 Exhibits that are in the Evidence Unit of

21 this type are under a strict chain of custody recording

22 system. I'm not going to go into the detail for

23 obvious reasons, because it's a secure system, and I

24 can -- possibly in other circumstances, the Chamber

25 would like to know, and probably at some stage and in

1 some setting, that wouldn't be a bad idea. But it's an

2 extremely strict system, because as you may have been

3 able to glance through the document, all exhibits have,

4 as their underlying purpose, not only the instant trial

5 but other investigations in the continuing functioning

6 of this place, another reason for keeping them perhaps

7 in one place and in atmospherically-good conditions, so

8 far as possible.

9 JUDGE MAY: You don't object to the Defence

10 keeping exhibits?

11 MR. NICE: No, on the same basis that if we

12 ask to see an original, no doubt the best original will

13 be produced to us.

14 JUDGE MAY: And you invite us to ignore the

15 Rule, as has been done?

16 MR. NICE: No, I don't invite you to ignore

17 the Rule. Two points on that.

18 There's Rule 41, which I've already drawn to

19 your attention, which is the duty to us to keep

20 exhibits for investigations which are continuing. But

21 I respectfully suggest that the proper approach in

22 these documentary cases can be to say that the exhibit

23 is -- the master copy of the document is the exhibit.

24 But, of course, at any stage up until deliberations,

25 probably any stage up until appeal, any party can

1 require the original original to be produced for

2 consideration, and that could always be done. I think

3 conceptually that is the proper way to look at it, and

4 then there is no breach of the Rules because what is

5 produced, which is what has been produced here, is a

6 master copy. And in the same way as some of our

7 original originals are copies --

8 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] If I may

9 interrupt you just for a second, Mr. Nice.

10 Why is it said that exhibits need to be kept

11 carefully by a neutral authority because they serve

12 as -- you say Judge May and Judge Robinson have to

13 decide on the innocence or guilt of somebody, that is,

14 [indiscernible]. Why is it said that exhibits -- we're

15 not inventing anything new, that they need to be kept

16 without the reach of parties concerned so that there

17 can be no alteration possible. That is the problem, so

18 that one really is assured that no alterations, no

19 changes, are made.

20 You say that this is an exception, that

21 something really exceptional is needed to have

22 something changed, because an exhibit is such and such,

23 and this alteration, if it is done, then it has to be

24 evidently well done, and so on and so forth. But there

25 is a practical matter in this regard, and that is to

1 avoid, indeed, all the alterations of any exhibit.

2 You are saying that we are now involved in a

3 case based on documents. In a documentary case, does

4 that change anything? You know well that here there

5 are texts which are barely legible, one cannot see very

6 well, and I suppose they will be less legible as time

7 goes by. Here we have only text. It is the fact that

8 there is nothing else but the text, most of the

9 exhibits are text.

10 Now, you're saying we are following a

11 particular practice in the Tribunal, in our Tribunal,

12 that the things were organised in such and such a

13 manner. My idea is that we shall have to decide about

14 the audiotape which has stirred all this, the

15 audiotape.

16 As for the problem in general, I believe that

17 will have to be raised at the institutional level, as

18 you said. We shall do it. Don't worry about that

19 where the institutions are -- and I think this matter

20 will have to be discussed in depth, so that we shall

21 raise this matter.

22 As for the specific case, the audiotape, if

23 there is a master copy, it should be kept with the

24 Registry and you should have a copy of it, and that is

25 all. I believe that is the principal that I shall have

1 to raise, of course, with my colleagues and speaking in

2 my own name, and we shall have to discuss it at the

3 institutional level and we shall have to then --

4 because this is an institutional problem, it will have

5 to be discussed at the institutional level.

6 That is all.

7 MR. NICE: I need only make two points in

8 answer to that. Obviously --

9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, sir.

10 MR. NICE: I need only make two points in

11 answer to that.

12 First, there is, of course, no reason to have

13 any distrust of the OTP, historically or otherwise, and

14 the suggestion that any document would ever be altered

15 is, of course, one that is -- it's hard to say

16 "resisted" and I don't want to say "offensive", but

17 it's obviously one that we don't in any sense accept.

18 But since Your Honour raises it, the answer is rather

19 reassuring and it's why, under a modern system, what

20 we're doing is actually entirely appropriate.

21 When the document comes in, it is

22 electronically scanned. The number goes on it, and

23 that freezes for all time the appearance of the

24 document at that stage. Whether it degrades, which

25 happens with, of course, fax paper and which is one of

1 the great advantages of scanning material as soon as it

2 comes in -- so it's scanned, it has a unique number.

3 The numbers can indeed tell you something, obviously,

4 about when the document arrives. It's all quite useful

5 material.

6 So alteration of the document isn't a

7 possibility, and it is that exact reflection of the

8 original that is distributed to all parties, either in

9 advance of the trial or at the trial, and that system

10 of security -- and I make no complaint about this -- is

11 bound to be far greater than we can expect, we

12 prosecutors can expect, using the plural to reflect

13 other Chambers, from the Defence, who of course will

14 have an original original of whatever they produce in

15 copy form to the Court but who necessarily won't have

16 the regimes of processing that a big institution like

17 this does have, so that in many ways, as I have been

18 attempting to explain, what you have here is a much

19 more secure system, and its security is more likely to

20 be compromised by moving it from -- moving the paper

21 exhibits routinely from one well-ordered and

22 comprehensive system to various different trolleys

23 around the place.

24 JUDGE MAY: Well, I think we've heard all

25 this, with great respect.

1 MR. NICE: That's --

2 JUDGE MAY: With respect, we've heard this.

3 You have still not dealt with the perception of the

4 International Community, but we'll leave that aside.

5 Now, we've heard the submissions. We're not

6 in a position to make a ruling, and it's now 10 to

7 4.00. But I would like to hear Mr. Sayers on the

8 matter, unless there's something you particularly want

9 to raise, Mr. Nice.

10 MR. NICE: No. You take me to task over not

11 dealing with the perception of the International

12 Community. I deal with that by identifying the secure

13 systems and, in particular -- and I repeat this -- by

14 saying that on either side, when an original is wanted,

15 it's available, and that that, in our submission, is a

16 proper way of dealing with this and with this type of

17 case.

18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, one point we have to

19 consider in all this is whether there has, in fact,

20 been any prejudice beyond the notion of perception as a

21 result of what we have discovered about the way the

22 exhibits have been kept.

23 Now, we've identified the audiotape as a

24 particular sensitive and crucial piece of evidence

25 which the authenticity of which, I understand, that

1 you're challenging.

2 Now, is there any other exhibit that you say

3 should be the subject of an immediate order if we may

4 have to consider this as it's being suggested

5 institutionally, and that is looking at other cases

6 too, but clearly the audiotape is in a different

7 category from anything else.

8 I can say that I, myself, cannot think of

9 any, but there may be some which you would consider.

10 It may be that you would like to think about it over

11 night.

12 MR. SAYERS: Well, I can give you a reaction,

13 Mr. President, right now, if you wish, and I'm more

14 than happy to elaborate on it tomorrow.

15 To answer your particular question, there are

16 over 2300 exhibits in this case. It's not fair, I

17 think, to ask us to remember off the cuff as it were --

18 JUDGE MAY: That's why I said think about it

19 and until tomorrow.

20 MR. SAYERS: I was just going to use as one

21 example the document that was produced yesterday. How

22 in the world could anybody have any faith in that kind

23 of a document? I don't have the exhibit number to mind

24 but I'm sure the Court knows exactly what I'm talking

25 about. A document that supposedly commemorates the

1 anniversary of Sveti Duh company, a company that

2 existed unrebutted and unreputed testimony of the

3 witness for about three months and was founded in

4 February 27th, 1992, yet this document was dated August

5 sometime, I believe, and had another document attached

6 to it of as said yesterday, indeterminate parentage

7 with someone's scratchings on the front of it.

8 Who knows where those documents come from?

9 And I would absolutely like to see the originals of

10 documents such as that. That's what we've been trying

11 to do throughout ...

12 THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down, Mr.

13 Sayers, please.

14 MR. SAYERS: ... making our foundation

15 objections. Surely, it shouldn't be up to the Defence,

16 once these documents flow in tidal waves into the

17 record, to show that they are not authentic. It's the

18 burden of the Prosecution to show that they are

19 authentic, and that's just by way of one problem.

20 But let me just step back a little if I may

21 and address the question that seems to be before the

22 Court today. There are really two issues.

23 The question of exhibits generally,

24 obviously, and I'll have to take a look at the

25 Prosecution's submission on that. But what brought us

1 here wasn't exhibits generally, and no amount of

2 sophistry, no amount of fog, no amount of argument can

3 simply confuse or conceal the fact that there's been a

4 serious wrong committed here.

5 Let me just go back to the exhibit at issue,

6 the tape, it's Exhibit 2801.4, and I'd like to read

7 this into the record, page 13747 where Mr. Nice said.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Would you slow down,

9 please.

10 MR. SAYERS: And the court will recall that

11 Mr. Husic produced the original videotape in the

12 court. That's the tape we're talking about, not any

13 other tape, that tape. And here's what Mr. Nice said,

14 "In those circumstances may the witness please produce

15 the tape, hand it to the usher. Can it be marked as

16 Exhibit 2801.4. It better be marked I suppose 2801.4,"

17 and that's exactly what happened.

18 And under those circumstances Rule 81 comes

19 into play. And I might say that the considerations of

20 justice that was articulated by one member of the bench

21 are absolutely the foundation of what we're dealing

22 with here: Justice. Justice and the administration of

23 justice; fairness and equality.

24 The very principles are enshrined in Article

25 21 and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence breathe

1 substance and life into those principles. And Rule

2 81(C), I would submit to the Court, couldn't be

3 clearer, "The Registrar shall retain and preserve all

4 physical evidence of it during the proceedings subject

5 to any practice direction..." and I don't believe there

6 is one, and certainly one hasn't been pointed to by the

7 Prosecution, "... or any ordinary which a Chamber may

8 make at any time with respect to control or

9 disposition, the physical evidence of it during

10 proceedings before that Chamber."

11 Now we find notwithstanding the plethora of

12 copies of this alleged unitary tape floating around in

13 the -- in our files in the Prosecution's files and in

14 the Court's files. Well, I don't even know -- well, I

15 do not know even know whether they are in the Court's

16 files.

17 But this document, of all documents, is one

18 that should be in the Registry and we find, and found

19 out for the first time last week, that it never was.

20 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, I suspect you are

21 pushing at an open door on this.

22 MR. SAYERS: Yes, I agree.

23 JUDGE MAY: Where this tape should be, the

24 original of this tape, not any sort of copy, even if it

25 can be called a master copy.

1 MR. SAYERS: Yes, I think copies and master

2 copies, Your Honour, that's just the fog of confusion.

3 We're talking about an exhibit, an exhibit in this

4 trial which should be in the Registry and is not.

5 JUDGE MAY: Let us now consider the

6 position.

7 Are you first of all asking us to make any

8 order in respect of the original of the two audio

9 tapes?

10 MR. SAYERS: Well, I think that the tapes

11 should be stricken from evidence. Well, it's not in

12 evidence. I don't know how you can strike it from

13 evidence, but it should not be received into evidence.

14 JUDGE MAY: It is in evidence. It's been

15 exhibited. It's a question of where the original

16 should be. We will deal with that application in due

17 course. If you -- it may be a matter which we should

18 call for a response in writing from the Prosecution to

19 your application on that.

20 Meanwhile, on a practical level, have you got

21 the original as we ordered last week?

22 MR. SAYERS: We have not got the original.

23 We have a digital audiotape copy of it. As the

24 Judge -- as Your Honour points out, I think that that

25 is what was ordered and that's been complied with and

1 we've received that from the Registry.

2 I want to make it perfectly clear, I have no

3 criticism of the Registry throughout this. We have had

4 nothing but the most professional relations with the

5 Registry. They have conducted themselves in a

6 perfectly practical and audible way. Nonetheless, it

7 has to be shocking to any attorney in a criminal case,

8 to find out that an exhibit, especially an exhibit like

9 this has gone AWOL.

10 I've never heard of such a situation in any

11 case in any court even the lowliest court in a national

12 jurisdiction. And yet -- well, I think I've said

13 all -- I cannot believe that the Prosecution tries to

14 defend this situation and argue that it, in fact, has

15 not done -- well, I've made my point, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE MAY: Well, I think we have it.

17 Rhetoric aside, let us consider the position.

18 What are you -- we will deal with the

19 audiotape and make what order we think appropriate in

20 relation to that.

21 We have to consider what should be done about

22 the other exhibits and, of course, that would include

23 Defence exhibits.

24 MR. SAYERS: Yes.

25 JUDGE MAY: Can you -- do you want to make

1 any submissions about that?

2 MR. SAYERS: Well, in the matter of exhibits

3 generally, it seems that where the accuracy of the copy

4 is not contested as it has not been for the majority of

5 these exhibits, I believe, that in this institution, as

6 well as in most national jurisdictions, copies are as

7 admissible as the originals providing there's no

8 challenge to the authenticity of the originals. But

9 where there is a challenge to the authenticity, then it

10 seems to me a basic proposition of fair and equality

11 and justice that that original should be produced so

12 that the Court can be satisfied, itself, that it

13 actually -- that the original document exists and it's

14 not some sort of a fake as that document appeared to be

15 yesterday or there are other problems with it.

16 But that seems the regimen that we've been

17 following where there is contest of the accuracy of the

18 copy, there cannot be objection to the admission into

19 evidence of that copy. But where there is a challenge

20 to the authenticity of that document, then clearly the

21 original should be produced and it should be the only

22 place that is permitted by the Rules and in the Court,

23 with the Registry of the Court, and not within a party

24 especially in a criminal case. I think that's a fair

25 statement of our position, Your Honour.

1 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

2 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Mikulicic.

3 MR. MIKULICIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

4 with the leave, on behalf of Mr. Cerkez's Defence, I

5 should like to articulate our position. And it, of

6 course, fully tallies with the position of the Defence

7 of Mr. Kordic.

8 What I should like to add to all of this is

9 that the Defence considers Rule 81(C) completely clear

10 and our interpretation is that the moment an exhibit

11 has been produced and admitted, and gets its number

12 from the Registry, then it must be the Registry along

13 with Rule 81(C) which will take care of that particular

14 exhibit.

15 I do not think that that rule can be changed,

16 amended, as long as that it is in force and, in

17 particular, but unilateral decision of one party to the

18 proceedings.

19 We are not disputing that the secure system

20 that my learned friend from the Prosecution spoke about

21 is good. Our question is who controls that secure

22 system? I simply see no reason why the same system of

23 the safe-keeping of exhibits could not be under the

24 Registry control as Rule 81(C) makes it possible.

25 So that is the position of Mr. Cerkez's

1 Defence.

2 [Trial Chamber confers]

3 JUDGE MAY: In relation to the audiotape, the

4 number of which was given by Mr. Nice 2810.4, I think,

5 that is to be forthwith, the original is to be

6 forthwith handed into the custody of the Registry.

7 In relation to Mr. Sayers' application that

8 it be excluded from evidence, we will entertain that

9 application and rule upon it in due course.

10 In order to do so, and before we rule on it,

11 we would wish to have from the Prosecution a written

12 document setting out where the tape has been since it

13 was produced in Court by the witness and then, in due

14 course, if we could have that within seven days, we

15 will consider what steps, if any, are needed to take

16 the matter forward.

17 In relation to the other exhibits, we shall

18 consider the situation and decide what should be done.

19 MR. NICE: Can I suggest that you make the

20 order not only in respect of the second tape that was

21 produced by the witness but that if you're going to

22 make that order, but you also make it in respect of the

23 first tape which, as you will recall, was listened to

24 and was found to be identical to the second.

25 JUDGE MAY: Yes, both tapes.

1 MR. NICE: Both tapes. And that will be done

2 forthwith.

3 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Tomorrow morning, and

4 we will consider the affidavits half past nine.

5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

6 at 4.10 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday

7 the 19^th day of May, 2000, at

8 9.30 a.m.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25