1 Tuesday, 24 September 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
8 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Good morning, Witness.
10 THE WITNESS: Good morning.
11 JUDGE LIU: Did you have a good rest last night.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did, yes.
13 JUDGE LIU: It became chilly.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But I'm managing.
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Are you ready to start?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am.
17 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, please continue your cross-examination.
18 WITNESS: MLADEN ANCIC [Resumed]
19 [Witness answered through interpreter]
20 Cross-examined by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
21 Q. Good morning, sir.
22 A. [In English] Good morning.
23 Q. Sir, just one or two more questions just in general, sort of
24 background questions, before we turn to a bit more of your report itself.
25 We left off at the end of the day talking about the statement that
1 ethnic nationalism had become the only real value by mid-1992, which was
2 leading me to this point when we ended yesterday: You also say in your
3 report on page 28 that these things you've told us about practically
4 meant -- I'm quoting now "practically meant that one's own --" that is,
5 the phrase of concept of one's own, one's own people -- "had to be backed
6 up even when they were evidently doing wrong."
7 I was wondering if you could provide some additional insight to
8 the Judges about what you meant about that.
9 A. As usual your extraction of a sentence or even part of a sentence
10 from the idea -- from the context in which it appears brings into question
11 its meaning. If we look at the sentence as a whole, because I have it in
12 the Croatian original -- I'd like to read it and then it will be quite
13 clear what this is about. So it says: "The mechanisms of such national
14 rationalisation is -- it is not difficult to understand the mechanisms of
15 the social operation. Any potential authority dependent on the loyalty of
16 the members of its own community, which practically meant that one's
17 "own," that is, those who belong to my group had to be backed up even
18 when they were evidently doing wrong because it meant fulfilling the basic
19 task, the protection of one's "own," that is, a person who is in any post
20 presuming authority, in this place, in that situation that person is there
21 only because he or she belongs to a group. If he or she belongs to a
22 group, then he/she must also stand behind it as a whole. Otherwise, that
23 person loses the authority he enjoys with that group.
24 Your Honours, may I continue, only two more sentences.
25 Fortunately last night I went through my text once again and I was very
1 grateful to you for taking out several sentences out of their context
2 because it made me read the text with new eyes.
3 Q. Well, sir, let me submit to you -- I'm not going to argue with
4 you, but I have -- everyone in the courtroom has your report, and I
5 believe that I have accurately pointed out certain passages to you which
6 you've had every opportunity to explain and in many instances indeed have
7 gone on at some length and have put any greater context on your statements
8 as you wish. So I think you'll find, sir, that you've been afforded every
9 opportunity to explain your report, which is the reason for my questions.
10 Now, right above the passage you read to us just now, you say "The
11 world was now divided nearly exclusively into 'us' and 'them' and the only
12 line of distinction was that of the logic of national affiliation." Now,
13 taking that also context of your report and the statement that you just
14 told us about, can you give to the Judges some examples of where members
15 of one group did something to back up that group even though it was a
16 situation where that group had "evidently done wrong"? Can you give us
17 some concrete examples of that.
18 A. Concrete examples for this claim -- actually, I mean history of
19 the whole war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Countless cases in which an
20 individual did -- committed acts which under normal circumstances -- for
21 which under normal circumstances he would be brought to account, in such
22 circumstances in which there is neither state, nor agencies of state
23 power, in which everything is extemporised.
24 Q. Well, can you give me one specific example, sir. So far you
25 haven't given us any specifics to back up your statement. Can you give me
1 an example, please, of something that a senior Bosnian Croat official did
2 to support his own group or one's own, as you say, even though that group
3 had evidently done wrong. Can you give the Judges one example of that.
4 A. One example of such behaviour -- one example of such behaviour is
5 the conflict which arose regarding the distribution of fuel at a petrol
6 pump in Novi Travnik. People who had words about the distribution of fuel
7 on both sides were not brought to account by either commanding side. I
8 think that there is a whole series of such examples, and I even quoted
9 some of them, explaining that it is such situations which could arise to
10 the atmosphere of mutual distrust.
11 Q. Moving on to your report. Did the inhabitants of the medieval
12 states such as Bosnia, Raska, and Hum, around the Mostar region, for
13 example, did these people during medieval times have any notion of being
14 Serbs or Croats or anything else?
15 A. Yes. Those people, or to be quite precise, a segment of the
16 population, that which belonged to the ruling elite, those people were
17 aware of their membership in an ethnic community. Documents,
18 unfortunately very few, from Hum, which you have just mentioned,
19 demonstrate that there is an awareness of one's membership in an ethnic
20 community, that there is awareness about the membership in a broader
21 ethnic community, a kingdom. At lower social echelons, the majority of
22 the population today, it is very difficult to say what they could really
23 think, because the life of an overwhelming majority of them was not
24 recorded in any written document at any point in time.
25 Q. Do I understand you to say, then, sir, that among the -- perhaps
1 the political or economic elites there might have been some sense of
2 ethnic identification, but among the vast majority of, if we can use the
3 term, "everyday people," there was not such ethnic identification?
4 A. I think I was quite precise, because I also expressed the
5 reservation as to how far our cognition can go, what is the scope of our
6 cognition. In my field of work guesses can go only as far as reasonable
7 doubt goes. Anything that is beyond that is not considered as knowledge.
8 Q. Well, in that regard, sir, in fact do you have any way of proving
9 who are what some might call the real descendants or the authentic
10 descendants of the medieval Bosnians?
11 A. I need to correct you and warn you that the medieval term for
12 those people was Bosnjanin, that it was added that today it is to all
13 intensive purpose impossible to show who is whose heir. Political
14 upheavals have brought about immense ethnic and geographical changes so
15 that today any attempt to establish who is whose direct descendant is
16 practically tantamount to an illusion.
17 Q. So can we understand from that, sir, that anyone who would attempt
18 to say that any particular modern ethnic group are the most ancient
19 people, if you will, in Bosnia-Herzegovina, whether that be claimed to be
20 the Serbs or the Bosniaks or the Croats or, for that matter, somebody
21 else. Nobody can really make that claim. Correct?
22 A. Generally speaking, yes.
23 Q. When you use the word -- go ahead.
24 A. What we can establish today with certainty is the moment when for
25 the first time the documents mention members of those communities which we
1 know today under their national names.
2 Q. In your report, sir, you repeatedly used the word "cult," or at
3 least that's the way it's translated in the English version. And just so
4 there's no misunderstanding that we're not talking about something --
5 sometimes "cult" can have a particular other -- a number of meanings, I
6 suppose. You're talking about religious groups here, in the sense of
7 Catholic, Orthodox, Jews, or Muslims, for example. When you say "cult,"
8 you're talking about religious groups; is that correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You've give one story of a conflict in 1737 in Fojnica, page 11 of
11 your report at the bottom. You say, "this speaks volumes about deep
12 distrust and fear, which surfaced easily and caused violent behaviour."
13 How is it that you draw such a broad conclusion from a particular anecdote
14 from 1737?
15 A. The incident I described is an illustration of a fundamental
16 idea. If, however, you want to have a list of all other similar events
17 that are -- that we know about, then I could -- then I would have to
18 present to that Honourable Court tomes and tomes of books. It is a
19 historian's job to investigate events, and from those events to glean
20 what -- those things which represent a pattern.
21 Q. Sir, if Bosnia's interreligious or inter-ethnic relations in the
22 19 -- sorry, let me start again. Given what you've told us about medieval
23 history and leading up to the present time, is it your position that the
24 inter-ethnic or interreligious relationships in Bosnia-Herzegovina or the
25 former Yugoslavia, for that matter, in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s were better
1 or worse than the rest of Europe during the same period?
2 A. The rest of Europe in this regard offers us a motley picture. If
3 you want me to, we can draw a comparison with the situation in Belgium in
4 the 1960s, the situation in Northern Ireland in the 1970s -- and in the
5 1970s and in the 1980s, but we can also draw comparison with the situation
6 in Denmark and then all these pictures will prove to be very different.
7 Q. Well, sir, if relations were so bad and so -- just barely beneath
8 the surface, going back to medieval times, as you seem to suggest, why
9 then during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were there not a string of
10 continuous conflicts? Why is that?
11 A. Your question, to begin with, contains something which is
12 glaringly inaccurate. Between 1969 and 1971, there was an open conflict
13 in the former Yugoslavia based precisely on ethnic sentiments. That
14 conflict ended in a very crude repressive measure supplied by the State,
15 and therefore it is not correct to say that there were no conflicts.
16 Another thing: Such measures of extreme repression beyond any
17 doubt instilled fear in people and prevented any public debate about those
19 Q. While we're on this time period, sir, maybe could you just refresh
20 both my memory and perhaps assist the Judges. There's been -- there's
21 general knowledge of something that might be referred to as to "Croatian
22 spring." When was that?
23 A. That is exactly what I referred to a moment ago.
24 Q. All right. I just wanted to be sure if we were talk -- thinking
25 the same thing or not.
1 Now, you say that you left Sarajevo in 1993. Can you tell us how
2 it is you left Sarajevo at that time under siege? How did you leave the
3 city and why did you leave Sarajevo?
4 A. I -- in the war I was, among other things, the editor of a
5 newspaper published -- which came into being in 1990, and the name of
6 which was "Herceg-Bosna."
7 Q. What was the nature of that newspaper? What kind of -- what news
8 or events or what have you, what did you cover? What was the paper
9 about? What were the articles about?
10 A. It was a weekly which carried articles similar to the ones
11 published by a news magazine. The fact that I was its editor and I became
12 the editor when the previous editor left Sarajevo, enabled me to obtain
13 the United Nations credentials. With these credentials I had the right to
14 be transported by airplane, and that is how I was able to leave Sarajevo,
15 in which no civilised life was possible at the time. So that's that.
16 Q. Where did name of the newspaper "Herceg-Bosna" come from?
17 A. The name comes from the Croatian tradition in which, since the
18 nineteenth century, the name used for Bosnia and Herzegovina has also been
19 Herceg-Bosna. One needs to understand what I bring in my expert report,
20 and that is that the term "Bosnia and Herzegovina" became a political and
21 a geographical term only in 1878. It appeared for the first time in
22 German, in the German language, written as "Bosnien und Herzegowina."
23 Before that, that term was not used.
24 Q. When you say you received UN credential, can you tell us a bit
25 more about what that means. I'm not sure what you mean when you say you
1 received UN credentials.
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
4 MR. KRSNIK: I'm not clear why this expert is being asked about
5 facts. I don't see the point. I really don't see the point of that. Why
6 would this Honourable Court want to know why he obtained credentials or
7 why he didn't obtain credentials. Is that what he is here for? We know
8 exactly what this witness is here for and what answers he is supposed to
9 give, so I don't know why we should all know why he obtained the UN
10 credentials, for what reasons, and I would kindly ask my learned friend to
11 stick to the topic for which this witness has been called.
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, whenever we have an expert witness, Mr. Krsnik,
13 I think you're entitled in your direct examination first to establish this
14 expert witness; second, ask some questions about his report, that is, his
15 statement. During the cross-examination, of course the Prosecutor is
16 entitled to ask any questions which arises from the report itself, but
17 also the Prosecutor is entitled to ask any questions about the background
18 of this expert witness, to challenge the credibility of that witness. I
19 don't think anything is wrong with asking this question to that witness.
20 And this witness has already answered that question. I think he's
21 entirely in the line of our proceedings.
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, I agree with
23 everything that you have just said, if only this was adhered to. I just
24 want to avoid the situation that we saw -- I believe that it was at the
25 detriment of the Defence that we saw with the first expert witness who was
1 here and who in the cross-examination, just like you said, it did not end
2 in this way. Here I mean the expert on demography that we had here who
3 testified and who came here to testify about demographics, and in the
4 cross-examination you -- I believe you remember the whole situation, that
5 something was introduced that didn't have anything to do with the expert
6 witness, with his testimony, or with the topic for which he was called.
7 The testimony all focussed on the book that he said he didn't know
8 anything about.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, I'll take note of your statement just now and
10 I'll look into the transcript about that first expert witness. But now I
11 think you have to allow us to continue.
12 Mr. Scott, you may proceed.
13 MR. SCOTT:
14 Q. Sir, you raise in your answer the reason that you were able to
15 leave Sarajevo during these circumstances, that you obtained something
16 which you called a UN credential. And I just don't know what you mean by
17 that. What papers did you receive from the UN, you say, that allowed you
18 to leave Sarajevo at that time?
19 A. It was not even a paper. It was a plastic ID badge or card which
20 showed that the person holding it was a journalist, that he was on a
21 United Nations list as a journalist, and that he was entitled to use the
22 services of the UN agencies, amongst which was the entitlement to use the
23 United Nations aircraft.
24 Q. Did you at any time during the early to mid-1990s have any role
25 in, any position, function, membership in the HDZ party?
1 A. No. Never in my whole life have I been a member of any political
3 Q. And during that same time period did you have any role or
4 relationship with either the HV or the HVO?
5 A. During my stay in Sarajevo, from mid-1992, I had a military ID of
6 the HVO issued in Sarajevo. I would like to add to that that already from
7 mid-1992 in Sarajevo there was not a single man of my age, and I was 35/36
8 at the time, who didn't carry a military ID. Due to a chronic illness, I
9 did not have to do the compulsory military service in the former
10 Yugoslavia. I was given a certificate that I'm not capable of serving in
11 the army. Therefore, my military ID served as some sort of protection in
12 the conditions of the lack of public order that prevailed in Sarajevo at
13 the time.
14 Q. You say that you -- in the CV that was provided to us, sir, by
15 counsel, you talk about being employed at the history institute. And I'm
16 not sure. Is that the same place you're working today, or have you
17 changed jobs since 1993 -- or 1997? It wasn't clear to me, sir. Where
18 are you currently employed?
19 A. I believe I was quite clear and precise and that my CV is very
20 precise in those terms. From 1997 [As interpreted] until 1993 I worked at
21 the history institute in Sarajevo. From 1993 I have worked at the
22 institute --
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there is a mistake in
25 the transcript which I would like to correct. Can you please look at the
1 transcript. It is not 1997 but 1987. That is what the gentleman said.
2 He worked between 1987 and 1993 in Sarajevo.
3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
4 MR. SCOTT:
5 Q. My question specifically, sir, is: Where are you employed at the
6 present time? Please.
7 A. At the Institute of the Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences in
9 Q. And is that a private institution or is that a institution of the
10 state of the Croatia?
11 A. It is an institution that belongs to the Croatian Academy of
12 Sciences and Arts. And the whole academy and therefore the institute
13 itself are funded from the state budget. And in such a small state as
14 Croatia, which on top of it is also very poor, it is inconceivable to --
15 for anybody to engage in the kind of work that I'm doing if this was not
16 funded from the state budget. There is no other source of financing that
17 could provide for this kind of activity.
18 Q. In what capacity, sir, are you testifying here in The Hague? Are
19 you testifying here as a private individual, or are you testifying here on
20 behalf of the institute or on behalf of the Croatian government, or in
21 what capacity exactly are you here?
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, from now on I will
24 disallow such questions, and I would kindly ask you to accept my view. I
25 believe that Mr. Scott has gone over the top and he is here because the
1 Defence has called him, and what Mr. Scott is now doing is very typical of
2 his cross-examinations. So far please disallow any further questions of
3 this kind. I strongly object.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, we understand where you are going in
5 this question, but we all know that this witness came here as the expert
6 witness called by the Defence counsel. You may put your question in
7 another way.
8 MR. SCOTT:
9 Q. You talked about the institute, sir, being state-funded. Is the
10 report that you've given to the Judges which is marked as D1/316, was
11 your report and the work on that report state-funded?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you receive any payment or compensation, remuneration of any
14 sort for the work you did in preparing this document?
15 A. I sent my invoice to counsel Krsnik, based on the customs applied
16 to the work of experts engaged by this Tribunal.
17 Q. And when did you write or prepare this report, sir?
18 A. I prepared my report towards the end of 2001 and the beginning of
20 Q. In the course of your report, did you consider or rely upon any
21 significant volume of material, source material or information, which is
22 not described or cited in your report?
23 A. For my report, I used a vast amount of sources of various nature.
24 Q. Is all that material reflected in your report, in your
25 footnotes -- what I'm trying to understand, sir, have you given us all the
1 information you've relied -- substantially relied upon? Not -- I allow
2 certainly there may be other things that came to mind. But generally sir,
3 can the Judges understand that the authorities on which you base and your
4 conclusions are those cited in this 29-page document?
5 A. I've been a historian professionally for 20 years now. The vast
6 amount of documents coming from various sources has created a base from
7 which I derive the substance for my reports. As for the footnotes, they
8 will reflect only the documents that I am referring to directly at a given
10 Q. In the course of preparing your report, sir, did you take
11 instruction or direction from any person other than Mr. Krsnik and his
13 A. No.
14 Q. Is it true, sir, that you also worked on the Defence team in the
15 Blaskic case?
16 A. I received an offer from the Defence team in that case to prepare
17 a report. I indeed prepared that report, but it hasn't been used.
18 Q. Is it true that you also worked on the Kordic Defence team?
19 A. Yes. My report has been admitted in the Kordic case. And if you
20 read this report more carefully, you will notice that I am referring to
21 what I did in the Kordic case.
22 Q. And the report that you've given to the Judges in this case,
23 marked as D1/316, is that substantially the same report that you
24 prepared in the Blaskic case and the same report that you prepared in the
25 Kordic case?
1 A. No. These three reports can be regarded as one whole. What
2 differentiates them, what is different, are the years in which I have
3 matured as a historian, during which I have deepened my insight and during
4 which I have been able to look at the things from a new perspective, from
5 a new angle. And I hope that the day will come when all these reports
6 will end up as parts of a book. However, this is not the job of this
7 Honourable Court, isn't it [As interpreted]?
8 Q. Let me ask you a question very concretely, sir: If I put before
9 you the two prior reports and put it together with this one, are you
10 telling these Judges that the three documents would look substantially
11 different, or would they in fact be essentially the same?
12 A. They would not be essentially the same because they are talking in
13 different ways about the things which is the subject of the matter before
14 this Honourable Court and in this Tribunal.
15 Q. But you did not testify, correct, in either the Blaskic case or
16 the Kordic case? Isn't that so?
17 A. In the Blaskic case, I repeat, the Defence team did not use my
18 services any further. My report wasn't used and my services were not
19 used. The Defence team in the Kordic case submitted my report to the
20 Tribunal, and I did not testify before the Trial Chamber. Why is that the
21 case, you would have to ask the Defence team in the Kordic case.
22 Q. Sir, your real expertise and what you've studied and what you
23 teach about is medieval history; correct?
24 A. Your question, sir, again contains an inaccurate fact. The
25 question of my real expertise is not the same that I teach. I consider
1 myself, very immodestly, an expert on the issue of modern national
2 identities in the area of the former Yugoslavia. My second professional
3 specialty is the history of medieval times.
4 Q. In terms of modern Yugoslav history, sir, your report seems to
5 rely rather heavily on a man named Benedict Anderson and another man
6 named Milorad Akmecic. Do you consider Mr. Akmecic a reliable
8 A. Not Akmecic, but Ekmecic, with an "E."
9 Q. My question stands, sir. Do you consider Mr. Ekmecic a reputable
10 academic source?
11 A. I consider Mr. Ekmecic one of the better experts on the materials
12 which lend themselves as the sources for the history of the area of the
13 former Yugoslavia. If I may draw your attention to my report, you will
14 notice that in it I have used Milorad Ekmecic's work mostly as my source
15 for the facts. My attitude towards Milorad Ekmecic's authority and the
16 authority of Benedict Anderson differs greatly.
17 Q. When you say relied on Mr. Ekmecic for your facts, your report is
18 primarily based on secondary sources, isn't it?
19 A. In my report I have quoted only secondary sources. And for the
20 research, which is another thing and differs from writing a report, I used
21 a number of primary sources that were available to me. In all that I used
22 my experience that I have gathered over the period of 20 years.
23 Q. We've talked about Dr. Robert Donia. Are you actually familiar
24 with Dr. Donia's CV? Have you ever actually seen his CV?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. All right. Well, perhaps we'll assist you then and assist the
2 Chamber -- if the usher could assist in showing you Exhibit 943.
3 MR. SCOTT: And usher, I'm going to suggest that the documents
4 have been arranged in a single bundle in the order in which I hope to use
5 them, so you could put the whole bundle in front of the witness, please.
6 It would save time.
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Well, had you indeed wanted to save
10 time, you could have given it yesterday, rather than put up this whole
11 performance with the cross-examination.
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I don't think Mr. Scott has decided
13 to use it until now. It depends on your direct examination and the
14 cross-examination. But you made a very good suggestion.
15 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, counsel has had the entire bundle since
16 yesterday. And we had not gotten to any exhibits with the witness this
17 morning until now, and I don't see any reason to belabour the point.
18 Q. Sir, if you could look at Exhibit 943. I think you said yesterday
19 you've never met Mr. Donia. Have you? Dr. Donia?
20 A. That's right. That's right.
21 Q. You've never spoken to him.
22 A. Never.
23 Q. And in terms of any of his writings as reflected, his books or
24 articles, reviews, reflected on Exhibit P943, you've not reviewed any of
25 his working papers or discussed with him at all the methodology that he
1 applied; correct?
2 A. With regard to his writings, I read them carefully.
3 Q. That wasn't my question, sir. The working papers, -- I assume
4 when you prepare a book or a paper, apart from the final product you have
5 a large set of working papers, notes, source material. You've not
6 reviewed any of Dr. Donia's working papers and you don't know the
7 methodology that he applied in preparing these books, articles, reviews;
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You said yesterday that Dr. Donia, because he was working, you say
11 at Merrill Lynch at the time, was not reviewing the literature. He was
12 not staying in touch with the literature on the former Yugoslavia. Now,
13 how do you know that, sir?
14 A. Because reading that literature is my livelihood. Because to be
15 able to keep up with literature, I need eight working hours every day;
16 sometimes even more than eight working hours a day. In my kind of work,
17 there are no weekends, there are no Saturdays, there are no Sundays.
18 Q. Sir, how do you know that Dr. Donia wasn't reading Yugoslav
19 literature every night and every weekend? The fact of the matter is you
20 simply don't know, do you?
21 A. I cannot affirm that I know that.
22 Q. Well, why --
23 A. There is -- excuse me. May I finish.
24 Your Honours, may I finish my sentence? But there is a highly
25 reasonable doubt that a man who works for a major investment house and
1 does it full time, of ten hours, who also has to commute to get to his
2 workplace and from it, who has a family life, has such -- that he has such
3 physical abilities that he can devote three or four hours a day to keep in
4 touch, only in touch. Not follow the literature, but keep in touch with
6 Q. Sir, why would you come into this courtroom under oath and make
7 the completely bald assertion that Dr. Donia was not reading the
8 literature on the former Yugoslavia, would having any basis to say so?
9 A. I did not say that he does not read.
10 Q. And obviously from his CV he obviously publishes quite
11 extensively, does he not?
12 A. Shall we look at the dates of the things that he published?
13 Q. Well, sir, why do you think that you as an academic in medieval
14 history are more qualified than Dr. Donia to express views on what
15 happened in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the 1990s?
16 A. I repeat, I am not an expert on the medieval history. I do not
17 think -- I do not consider myself better qualified than Dr. Donia. I
18 merely warned -- I merely drew attention to some facts related to
19 Dr. Donia which in the same way that you are applying to bring into
20 question my credibility attests to the credibility of Dr. Donia.
21 Q. Okay. Mr. -- If Dr. Donia, sir, is not to be trusted as a source,
22 why is it that indeed you cite him as a source in a number of places in
23 your report?
24 A. Yesterday I said it very precisely, that when reading Dr. Donia's
25 texts I saw two faces of a historian, and I drew the attention to the fact
1 to -- in his book "Islam under the Double Eagle," I think it is a very
2 valuable and interesting book.
3 Q. Have you worked -- ever worked or been involved with any group of
4 association which might be called or considered a human rights group?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Do you recall being involved in a publication called "The Ethnic
7 Cleansing of Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina 1991-1993," in which you are
8 thanked for your contribution on the last page along with people like
9 Marko Rados, Ivan Bagaric, Jozo Maric, and a number of others? What
10 contribution did you make to that publication?
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if he is talking about
13 a publication, about a document, then shouldn't the witness be shown it
14 rather than ask him to speak off the top of his head?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I'd like to see what this is
17 MR. SCOTT:
18 Q. You don't recall it, sir? Before I do that, you don't recall
19 being involved in a publication by that name?
20 A. No.
21 MR. SCOTT: If I could have the usher's assistance. I only
22 brought one copy because I didn't realise that the witness would draw this
23 into question, and it's not marked. But perhaps the usher can give us an
24 exhibit number.
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think we are once
1 again in a disagreeable situation. The Defence cannot even get the text
2 of it to cast a look at it. I don't know if it is translated. I don't
3 know what we can -- with this document.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I ask to see it.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, furnish us with more information,
6 background information about this article, this publication, whatever, you
8 MR. SCOTT: I would --
9 JUDGE LIU: Has it been translated, you know, when it was
10 published, you know, where did you find it, or something like this.
11 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, it appears to be a publication titled
12 "Ethnic Cleansing of Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina 1991-1993," published
13 in Mostar in August 1993, with an introduction by Mate Boban dated the
14 25th of August, 1993. Printed by the -- printed in Grude. The publisher
15 being the Office of the President of the Croatian Community of
16 Herceg-Bosna. And it's not -- at least the one that I have with me --
17 obviously the original document -- well, presumably the original document,
18 given the information I've just given you, is written in Croatian. I
19 don't have it with me, and frankly I'm surprised that it would be an
20 issue. I expected the witness would identify his involvement in this.
21 I'm happy to make extra copies of it.
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, you are allowed to show this document to the
23 witness. And be sure to furnish with us a copy.
24 THE REGISTRAR: The Exhibit number is P960.
25 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, if we could finish on this point, then,
1 I think by that time we'd be ready for the break then.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can answer straight
3 away. When the Prosecutor described what it was about, I then remembered
4 that there was indeed such a publication in which I do not figure as an
5 author of any kind. And for your information, that publication exists
6 even in English.
7 MR. SCOTT: Yes. We have it in front of us as P960.
8 Q. You didn't think, sir, that in giving us the CV that in your in
9 your CV it was worth telling the Judges about your involvement with that
11 JUDGE LIU: I think, Mr. Scott, you know, the witness is -- did
12 not answer your previous question, that is, what contribution did you make
13 to that publication.
14 Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the gentleman, the
16 witness, has been answering for the past five minutes that he does -- he
17 did not figure here as an author and that he had nothing to do with this
18 publication. I really don't know how to interpret all this. He has
19 answered immediately.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, we have that, you know, article at our hands,
21 you know, but the witness said -- the article said that the witness was
22 thanked for his contribution to that article, so the Prosecution asked him
23 a question, "What kind of contribution did you make to that article?",
24 which is a very logical question. We are waiting for the answer from this
1 Witness, you may answer that question, please.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What is my contribution to that
3 publication? That is something that one should ask its authors. My name
4 appears here alongside 30 or so other names. I really know one of the
5 authors of this publication. But what Ms. Vesna Ivanovic saw as my
6 contribution, that is something that you should ask her.
7 MR. SCOTT:
8 Q. You really don't know, sir? You really -- you're telling these
9 three Judges under oath that you don't know what you were being thanked
11 A. I don't.
12 Q. And can you tell us -- the last question, I believe, before the
13 break: Can you tell us, sir, have you written or assisted or contributed
14 to any publications about war crimes allegedly committed by Bosnian Croats
15 against Muslims?
16 A. No.
17 MR. SCOTT: We can stop there, Mr. President, if you wish.
18 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll resume at quarter to 11.00.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.17 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Scott, please continue.
22 MR. SCOTT:
23 Q. Sir, in your paper, I believe it may have been mentioned
24 yesterday, but I'm not -- I admit I'm not completely sure. But I -- the
25 phrase "internal secession" has been used. I think you said that some
1 other historian had coined the phrase. But what do you understand that
2 phrase to mean, "internal secession"?
3 A. I wasn't the one who coined it. I found it in a text. I shall
4 repeat it once again -- of a professor of political sciences teaching at
5 the Central European University in Budapest, Daniele Conversini. The term
6 "internal secession" according to his interpretation, means separation of
7 the parts of the former Yugoslavia and unification with Serbia and
8 Montenegro. And the whole process looks as if Slovenia and then Croatia
9 were the first to try to secede from Yugoslavia. To -- in confirmation of
10 Conversini's conclusion, in the text I quoted also a diary note of the
11 then-member of the Presidency of Yugoslavia from Serbia, Borislav Jovic,
12 which -- of course if it is to be believed directly, confirms -- directly
13 confirms Conversini's conclusion. I do not know if Conversini was aware
14 of that material, but if he -- even if he did, he did not quote it or
15 directly use it, and so it seemed to me that it might be useful to draw
16 the attention to this confirmation of the thesis propounded by my
17 distinguished colleague.
18 Q. Now, apart from discussing medieval history, sir, two main points
19 of your report appear to be that the Serbs started the war and the Serbs
20 in the various conduct that they were engaged in were worse in that
21 respect than the Croats and Muslims. Is that correct?
22 A. In principle, yes.
23 Q. And taking -- assuming that your observations in that respect are
24 true, assuming that the Serbs started it and assuming that the Serbs were
25 worse than the other two principal parties, do you see that as somehow
1 being helpful to Mr. Naletilic's defence or somehow contrary to what you
2 understand to be the Prosecution case?
3 A. I have to admit that I follow your question with difficulty,
4 because after all I am not all that familiar with the entirety of your
5 induction -- indictment and especially not with the -- I'm not that
6 familiar with the strategy and all the postulates of the Defence. In my
7 work, I was guided chiefly by what I might call my professional
8 consciousness, my knowledge.
9 Q. I'm just trying -- let me put it different, then. Assuming again
10 that your two observations are true. And I'm not quarreling with them at
11 the moment. Does the fact that the Serbs did it first, or did it on a
12 larger scale, reduce the seriousness of Croat or Bosniak crimes?
13 A. The seriousness of any crime cannot be reduced. The question
14 remains about the context within which every individual crime took place.
15 Q. In your report, when you called -- when you talk about the Bosniak
16 Army, you describe it as, in quotation marks, "BH Army." Why do you say
17 BH Army in quotation marks?
18 A. The quotation marks are due to the fact that, in contrast with the
19 other two armies, which resorted to national names in the identification,
20 the Muslim -- the Bosniak Army used a name which did not imply that it was
21 ethnically exclusive, as the case was.
22 Q. On page 16 of your report, you used the phrase "anti-democratic
23 nationalism." Can you tell us what you mean by that.
24 A. Could you just tell me what the context is, because the pages in
25 English and Croatian do not overlap.
1 Q. Well, if it will assist you, if you can find your footnote 41, the
2 use of the term -- use of that term falls between footnote 41 and footnote
3 42 of your text.
4 We've talked about nationalism, sir, but you specifically use or
5 have quoted from somewhere, you have quotes "anti-democratic nationalism."
6 And what is anti-democratic nationalism, as opposed to just plain old
8 A. This is a term which I took over from a Hungarian historian
9 Istvan Bibo. He uses a whole string of terms which I quoted here. The
10 "insecurity of national frameworks," "existential fear for the
11 community," "anti-democratic nationalism." In other words, these terms
12 are used to describe a type of political culture, which in Istvan Bibo's
13 view, exists in central -- which existed in Central East Europe in the
14 mid-twentieth century.
15 Q. All right. Well, I must admit, sir, that I have your answer, and
16 I think I understand the words you've used, but I still don't know what is
17 meant by the concept of "anti-democratic nationalism." You've given us
18 the source and you've talked about Mr. Bibo, but what specifically does
19 "anti-democratic nationalism" mean?
20 A. According to Mr. Bibo, there is a possibility for nationalism to
21 be democratic, and he sees such a type of nationalism in the majority of
22 the Western European countries. And as for the world that he lives in, he
23 believes that the nationalism there doesn't have that characteristic; in
24 other words, that it is anti-democratic.
25 Q. All right. Well, moving on -- and perhaps some of these things
1 will come up again -- page 17 -- excuse me, on page 17 of your report, you
2 say -- and it's right after footnote 47, if that will assist you. About
3 the middle of the page of the English version on page 17, you said, "For
4 the Croats, this same 'Yugoslavia' quickly became a kind of prison. This
5 should definitely be brought into connection with the centralist political
6 organisation of the country and the privileged position occupied in it by
7 the Serbs." Now, what are you saying here, sir, when you say that for
8 Croats Yugoslavia became a kind of prison? How so?
9 A. I am quoting one of the largest authorities for that issue, today
10 the respectable historian Ivo Banac, and his key work for this area,
11 for this historical area, and I'm talking about the picture of Yugoslavia
12 in the minds of those who consider themselves Croats. They consider to be
13 deprived of equal opportunities in the society. And if you don't enjoy
14 equal opportunities in a society, then that society is for you and in your
15 perception a sort of a prison.
16 Q. Might the -- sir, might the Bosnians, the Muslims, in the
17 territory claimed by Herceg-Bosna considered Herceg-Bosna to be a prison
18 for them?
19 A. Probably just in the way Croats felt like being in some sort of a
20 prison in the areas controlled by the government in Sarajevo and by the BH
21 Army. And as Croats and Muslims certainly felt this like some sort of a
22 prison in the areas controlled by Serbs.
23 Q. So would that --
24 A. And so on and so forth.
25 Q. Excuse me. Sorry. I thought you were finished. So with that
1 explanation, sir, the answer to my question is yes, you can conceive or
2 would agree that many of the Muslims in the territory claimed by
3 Herceg-Bosna may have felt that Herceg-Bosna for them was a prison;
5 A. I cannot answer directly yes or no, but if we apply the principles
6 of the strict ethnic affiliation, they may have felt that way indeed.
7 Q. On that same page, sir, you use the term "mass political
8 mobilisation." It appeared between your footnote 46 and footnote 47. And
9 at least as applied to what was happening in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the
10 time, what do you mean by "mass political mobilisation"?
11 A. Mass political mobilisation is form of political activity typical
12 of modern societies. In that form of political activity, in a dynamic
13 relationship between the political elite and masses, there is an
14 area of political activity. The political elite listens to the requests
15 and the opinions of the masses, indirectly influences those opinions and
16 uses those masses at the same time in order to achieve some of their
17 political goals.
18 Q. Can you give the Judges, please, just one or two concrete examples
19 of form of mass political mobilisation. How was it in Bosnia-Herzegovina
20 that the masses were mobilised, politically mobilised?
21 A. An example of political mass mobilisation is the notorious murder
22 of the participants in a wedding in the old part of Sarajevo which took
23 place in March 1992. It was a wedding of two Serbs who came to an
24 Orthodox church to -- in Sarajevo to be married. There was an incident in
25 which one of the participants in the wedding, a Serb, lost his life. With
1 the help of the mass media, a picture was created according to which the
2 person -- it was not the person AA who killed the person BB but, rather,
3 the whole entity called Muslims shot at the whole entity called the
4 Serbs. It is a classical example how mass political mobilisation can be
6 Q. How does mass political mobilisation relate to such things as the
7 use of culture religion, art, or music?
8 A. Cultural elements in this form of political activity become the
9 marker of affiliation or belonging to a community. It is a sign showing
10 to others that the person belongs to one community.
11 Q. In that regard, sir, would it be fair to say - and just bear we me
12 for a moment on this - would it be fair to say that nationalist fervour or
13 identity can be fostered one way as by promoting or strengthening the
14 group identity of your own group by means of common culture, common
15 tradition, common heroes, and another way is to denigrate or make less
16 legitimate in some fashion the other group? Do you agree?
17 A. Yes. This is a second way in which this can be done. You are
18 right there.
19 Q. And would it also be correct, sir, that some things can be done to
20 increase the national fervour of one group, to strengthen perhaps the
21 identity of that group, without explicitly attacking the other group;
23 A. The choice of such methods, if there indeed is a choice at all,
24 will depend on the social context in which such things happen. In some
25 social circumstances the answer is yes; in some others, on the other hand,
1 the answer is no.
2 Q. In the course of your historical work, sir, which you've told us
3 since yesterday is quite broad, did you come across -- are you familiar
4 with two individuals, one named Jure Francetic and the other one Rafael
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And can you tell the Judges, please, who was Jure Francetic?
8 And if it will assist you, I will draw you're attention and the Chamber's
9 attention to -- it should be 830.2, which you should have -- it should be
10 in the bundle in the order in which we've been proceeding.
11 There's a Croatian language original or a copy of the original,
12 sir, from a book called "Who is Who in the NDH." And to put the topic
13 in context, can you tell the Judges who was the "NDH."
14 A. The NDH was a state creation formed after the German army,
15 followed by the Italian army, occupied the former Yugoslavia. Under the
16 patronage of Germany and Italy, in the territory of the former Kingdom of
17 Yugoslavia, a number of different political and state creations were
18 formed, one of them being also the NDH.
19 Q. NDH standing for what, sir? What's the full name?
20 A. The Independent State of Croatia.
21 Q. And during what time did the Independent State of Croatia exist?
22 A. Between 1941 and 1945.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may ask what is --
25 what is the relevance of this with our case and with this expert witness's
1 report and what is the relevance of Croatia during the Second World War to
2 our case. You will remember that the Prosecutor has tried to have the
3 same document tendered through another witness, but it wasn't admitted.
4 If you will remember, you did not admit that document. Now it is marked
5 as a new document, but it isn't because it now appeared for the second
6 time in a bundle. The first time it appeared it was through another
8 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, you may establish the relevance of
10 your questions to this case.
11 MR. SCOTT: The relevance is, Your Honour -- and it ties directly
12 into what this witness has testified to in the last two days -- the
13 Chamber has allowed him to give the broadest possible testimony on a range
14 of topics. He's talked about nationalism, the use of symbolism, the use
15 of common heroes to create group identification. The Chamber has heard
16 for the past one year about -- from many witnesses, including Defence
17 witnesses, about a certain song called "Jure and Boban," that certain
18 Muslims were forced to sing that was the anthem, the organisational anthem
19 of the HVO. And this witness can tell us -- I think the Chamber after all
20 this time might want to hear a little bit more about who this "Jure and
21 Boban" was and what the song was. It's highly relevant.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Then this is the way my learned
24 friend could have put the question. But the song, the so-called "Jure and
25 Boban" with which we wanted to assist the Chamber and even had it
1 translated, you did not admit because you didn't consider it to be
2 relevant. That is why I raised the issue of relevance. It says on the
3 list that this document is not tendered. That's the last document on the
4 Prosecution's list. We have even translated it. You haven't admitted
5 it. We wanted to tender it in evidence. You didn't admit it, obviously,
6 considering it not to be relevant. I really, really wonder about the
7 relevance of all these issues, questions touching upon Croatia during the
8 Second World War.
9 Secondly, the Prosecutor cannot give testimony by claiming that
10 this song, the folk song or whatever that song was, was the HVO hymn.
11 This is not correct because the HVO anthem is public, has been published,
12 and the Prosecutor can certainly gain access to it.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, it seems to me you're talking about two
14 matters. The first matter is admission of the documents. The other
15 matter is the particular question the Prosecution is going to ask.
16 Mr. Scott, you may ask this question. We believe that all the
17 Judges would like to know about this historical person and the relevance
18 of this person to the present case.
19 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
20 Q. Now, let's go back to where we start add few moments ago, sir,
21 with that -- some additional background in mind now. I asked you if you
22 knew who the two individuals, one named Jure Francetic and the other
23 one Rafael Boban, not to be confused with Mate Boban. If you knew who
24 those two individuals were and you said yes. So let's start with
25 Mr. Francetic? Who was he and what role did he play in World War II?
1 A. He was an officer of the army of the state, which was called the
2 Independent State of Croatia.
3 Q. He's described here in this publication, sir, and it's not my word
4 but the publication in Croatian language, he's described as an Ustasha
5 general, correct, in Exhibit 830.2?
6 A. Yes. He was an Ustasha officer.
7 Q. And in fact if we look at the original Croatian language excerpt
8 of the publication, on page 118, do you see that he has a -- the letter
9 "U" prominently displayed on the front of his helmet?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And in a similar fact --
12 A. I apologise. If I may.
13 Q. Please.
14 A. And you can also clearly see that he is wearing a military
15 uniform, so he is an army officer.
16 Q. Of course. And can you in a similar fashion, sir, tell us what
17 you know about Rafael Boban?
18 A. He was also an officer of the army of the state called the
19 Independent State of Croatia.
20 Q. Again regarded as an Ustasha commander; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Weren't both Mr. Boban and Mr. Francetic notorious for being
23 involved in very extreme activities during the war, not -- given the
24 descriptions, won't say more except what's stated in Exhibit 830.2. Isn't
25 that true?
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, at this time the Prosecution, with the
3 assistance of the transcript that was previously provided by the Defence,
4 which has been marked as D1/233, which I think has been provided for the
5 Chamber's assistance, I hope, in the bundle -- with that in hand,
6 Mr. President, we would propose for the video booth to play Exhibit P945,
7 which is a tape of the song "Jure and Boban" -- what we call "Jure and
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, do we have the translation here?
10 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Mr. President. There's one in B/C/S -- excuse
11 me, I'll say Croatian. And the first page of that exhibit should be in
12 English. If you don't have it, I can certainly put it on the ELMO, but --
13 it follows immediately after Exhibit 830.2, I believe.
14 Do you have it, Mr. President?
15 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
16 MR. SCOTT: Then I request the booth to please play Exhibit P945.
17 [Videotape played]
18 MR. SCOTT:
19 Q. Sir, moving on then. You've indicated, again in your report, that
20 it's your view that the Serb group in the former Yugoslavia initiated the
21 war, which became a war concerning territory, and carried out a number of
22 notorious acts; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And isn't it true, sir, I put the Prosecution case to you, that as
25 I said to you a few moments ago, perhaps not identically and perhaps not
1 as extreme, but isn't it true, sir, that the HDZ and the HVO embarked on a
2 similar programme in connection with the project, if we can use that term,
3 called "Herceg-Bosna"?
4 A. I thanked you earlier this morning because you made me reread my
5 text and look at it in a new way and even draw conclusions that I couldn't
6 draw when I was writing the text. My conclusion would be as follows: The
7 political leaderships of the HDZ of Bosnia-Herzegovina, probably under the
8 pressure of the political leadership from Zagreb, by their activities,
9 actually, preserved Bosnia and Herzegovina despite the pressure which came
10 from beneath to unite those parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina in which
11 Croats constituted a majority with the Republic of Croatia. In keeping
12 with what I wrote in my report, one can clearly see that the mass
13 political will led towards the redefining of the borders, whereas the
14 political elite, by its actions and manipulations, managed to channel that
15 request in such a way as to keep the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
16 At the symbolical level, what is formed is the thing that we call
17 the view of the world. The political leadership at precisely that level
18 managed to preserve the picture of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In every
19 official document starting with IDs, which are called personal IDs, to
20 driving licences and everything else that is perceived as icons in the
21 life -- everyday life of every person, the picture of Bosnia and
22 Herzegovina remained present.
23 If you want me to, if you need it, I will gladly point to all the
24 places from which you took parts of the sentences out of the context, and
25 I will read the entire context surrounding these words, and then you will
1 be able to draw the same conclusion as I did. The technique that you're
2 using is not unusual. You are taking parts of a thought and then you put
3 them together in a new way in order to prove your thesis. However, I
4 don't think you have been successful in this particular case.
5 Q. Well, thank you for that, sir. I appreciate your commentary. The
6 report is in evidence. The entire report is in the chamber, and everyone
7 can read the entire report and draw their own conclusions ultimately, of
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, after this tape I
11 expected, I don't know, to see the purpose -- I guess the Prosecutor
12 knows -- suffer the questions [As interpreted]. But I think it would be
13 good manners to tell the Defence and this Honourable Court, I believe,
14 which year is it? Who are these people? What is it? What does it
15 represent? Who recorded it? When? Where? It could have been shot
16 yesterday in my yard. I mean, I don't understand.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, I thought we have already passed that issue
18 already. So you want to go back to that issue again?
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. I don't. It
20 would be good manners. It would be civil to know some basic information,
21 some basic things about this tape. But never mind, Your Honours. Forget
23 JUDGE LIU: I believe the Prosecutor will take your advice in his
24 future proceedings.
25 You may move on, Mr. Scott.
1 JUDGE CLARK: Can I just say something.
2 MR. SCOTT: Of course.
3 JUDGE CLARK: I have sometimes said, Mr. Krsnik, maybe a little
4 cruelly to the Prosecution that we're not children. Credit us with some
5 intelligence. We don't need to have everything spelled out to us.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Why, of course, Your Honours.
7 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, before we move on, then, perhaps -- in
8 light of the exchange in the last few minutes to comment only to this
9 extent. The song was played for itself, not about anything else that was
10 depicted or about what was happening or not happening, but for the Chamber
11 to hear, I think for the first time, this actual song being played. Now,
12 I have heard no objection that that is not the "Jure and Boban" song.
13 I've heard no objection that the transcription provided from the
14 Defence -- it was a Defence prescription, D1/277 was not accurate. So and
15 so there appears to be no dispute in the courtroom that the music -- the
16 song has been played and the lyrics that were provided to the Chamber were
17 accurate. And that was the only purpose it was provided to the Chamber.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think that's a matter for the admission of the
20 MR. SCOTT: Of course.
21 JUDGE LIU: At a later stage. You may move on, Mr. Scott.
22 MR. SCOTT:
23 Q. Sir, isn't it correct that as you've told us in your report and as
24 we've talked about since yesterday, that in fact not all, of course, but
25 many of the Bosnian Croats, those represented by the HDZ and the HVO
1 identified themselves with the term used yesterday was "the mother
2 national state," that they identified, to use your terms, linked the
3 future not to Bosnia-Herzegovina but to their mother country. As a step
4 in that direction established Herceg-Bosna, the ultimate goal or hope of
5 becoming part of Croatia. Isn't that what was happening?
6 A. I am not sure that your claim is accurate. How individuals
7 perceived the establishment of Herceg-Bosna is very difficult to assess
8 today what we know. Yes. The fact that there is only one problematic
9 document of Herceg-Bosna and it explicitly says that it is a provisional
10 product pending the resolution of the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 What individuals expected in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 could be the subject
12 of a very lengthy argument. It is also a fact that in view of the
13 historical experience one could really expect anything. Do I need to
14 remind you that the territory which we call Bosnia and Herzegovina today
15 in the course of the twentieth century was made part of five -- as many as
16 five states, different states. Do I have to remind you that in 1918 the
17 Austro-Hungarian monarchy disappeared, that then the European political
18 stage was entered by the idea of self-determination and with a big bang
19 too, that at that time borders began to be drawn in conformity with the
20 idea that the majority of people living in a territory have the right to
21 decide in which country they will live and what that country will be
22 called? In 1918 that principle was strictly complied with to the extent
23 that in territories which were then -- this kind of distribution were in
24 dispute, became the subject of a special referendum.
25 Q. Sir, I'm not talking now about 1918. But let me direct your
1 attention back to the 1990s. You appear quite prepared, sir -- I put this
2 case to you: You appear quite prepared to make broad conclusions as to
3 the Serb movement, the Serb plan, at pages 23 and 24 you say that the
4 Serbian nationalist movement had clearly developed plans and a strategy of
5 central secession, even a developed strategy of how to present its
6 attempts in the media and hide its true aims and methods. Now, you seem
7 to be quite prepared, sir, to state broad conclusions as to the Serb
8 programme but you seem to be reluctant to draw conclusions about the
9 Bosnian Croats, who were doing the same thing, weren't they?
10 A. It is far from -- they were far from being the same, because the
11 plan that I talked about was the fruit of the action of a whole system of
12 state institutions and non-governmental organisations.
13 Q. Sir, the Bosnian Croats did the same thing, didn't they? They
14 established the HDZ party, which you described yesterday as the local
15 branch of the Croatian part. They established something call
16 Herceg-Bosna. They established the HVO. They established a government.
17 They established a military. They established the police. They
18 established a tax system and took control of most of Herzegovina during
19 1992 to 1994. Correct?
20 A. No, it is not. They did not do the same thing, because in order
21 for them to do the same, they would need to have an organised system which
22 was already drawing -- which was drawing such plans as early as the
23 1980s. And you must know, and I believe you do, that the HDZ as a
24 political party came into being in 1989 in a shed in Zagreb, that in
25 Bosnia and Herzegovina the HDZ kept changing its presidents all the time,
1 that this organisation was far from being a firmly -- a properly organised
2 system, and that those two things are simply beyond comparison, and that
3 all that I wrote and all that I said allows me to draw the conclusions
4 which I do draw, and the conclusion that you draw, I cannot arrive at it
5 nor can I agree with you.
6 Q. You said, sir, in this regard, in your direct testimony, but you
7 said -- and I think this is pretty much a quote "For a historian, the key
8 thing is to be in constant contact with documents that pertain to the time
9 that he is dealing with"; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. In preparing your report and stating the conclusions but you have,
12 sir, did you examine or have the use of documents at the HVO archive in
13 Zagreb? Did you consider those materials?
14 A. No, because I have no access to them.
15 Q. It's a public archive, sir. Anyone can walk in off the street and
16 access the documents, and many people, in fact, have done so. Isn't that
18 A. I frequently visited that archive, but that archive keeps certain
19 documents out of reach because there is a law which says that documents
20 will be -- or rather, stocks made of these documents can be opened only
21 after 30 years.
22 Q. My question stands, sir. Whatever limitations you want to put on
23 and it what is there are not there. You have not used or considered any
24 of the material at the HVO archives in preparing your report or reaching
25 your conclusions; correct?
1 A. I do not know how could I look at them if they were not accessible
2 to me.
3 Q. Have you, sir, in doing your work interviewed any of the senior
4 Croat and Bosnian Croat leaders or figures who were involved in the war
5 during 1991 to 1994?
6 A. Personally I did not, no. I did not interview anyone.
7 Q. You've never spoken -- you've never spoken or heard from directly,
8 as this Chamber has, for instance, Slobodan Praljak?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Have you ever talked to man named Ivic Pasalic?
11 A. No.
12 Q. What was his position in the Croatian government or in Croatian
13 politics during the war?
14 A. He was an adviser to the then-President of the Republic of
16 Q. Wasn't Mr. Pasalic in fact one of Franjo Tudjman's closest
18 A. According to what I know from the press, yes, and information that
19 I had access to.
20 Q. Have you ever interviewed or spoken -- obtained information
21 directly from a man named Ivan Bender?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Have you ever interviewed any of the SDA or Muslim leaders in the
24 Mostar region who were active in these events during 1992 and 1993?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Have you read or considered, sir, in reaching your conclusions
2 materials from UNPROFOR, from the UN Protection Force, or from, for
3 example, the British or Spanish peacekeeping units who were on the ground
4 at the time? Have you considered any of that material?
5 A. Yes, those things that were published. But it is a very small
6 number of documents, who, in one way or the other reached the press, be it
7 Croatian or Bosnian or foreign.
8 Q. Have you read any reports or materials from any other UN
9 organisations or from the UN security council, for that matter?
10 A. Some of the decisions of the security council, some of the
11 documents of some other United Nations agencies, yes.
12 Q. Have you read any reports or materials from the European Community
13 Monitoring Mission, also known as the ECMM? Have you ever read those
15 A. Such material was never accessible to me. But in its view I read
16 all that was accessible that was published as material, as reports of
17 different government and non-governmental organisations, that is,
18 everything that I had access to, just as I have read books of
19 reminiscences of various participants in the events, journalists who
20 covered the developments in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I read books of
21 reminiscences from -- by Richard Holbrooke -- from Richard Holbrooke to
22 the general of the BH Army. I have read memoirs carried by newspapers,
23 memoirs different peoples, again from generals to foot soldiers.
24 Q. Have you read any transcripts coming from the offices of the
25 President Franjo Tudjman?
1 A. I said yesterday that I had read the transcript which was
2 published in Ciril Ribicic's book.
3 Q. Have you read any other transcripts?
4 A. And yesterday I said -- sorry, may I be allowed to finish my
6 Q. I thought you were finished. Sorry. Please continue.
7 A. Ergo I read those texts which were published by the Croatian press
8 and about which it is claimed that they are transcripts of the audio
9 recordings done of various meetings held by Dr. Franjo Tudjman at the time
10 when he was the President of the Republic of Croatia.
11 Q. Well, how many such transcripts have you read, sir, the actual
12 transcripts -- not the newspaper accounts but the actual transcripts in
13 the Croatian language, how many have you read?
14 A. I have absolutely no access to that material, my dear sir, because
15 that material is inaccessible to anyone except those authorised by one of
16 the state agencies of the Republic of Croatia.
17 Q. Are you aware, sir that, the government of Croatia has produced a
18 number of those transcripts and provided them to the Judges in this case?
19 A. I don't. Now, how on Earth could I know that?
20 JUDGE LIU: What's the problem? Mr. Krsnik.
21 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Well, the problem is that I would
22 also like to see -- I do not know that it was supplied by the Republic of
23 Croatia -- by the government of Croatia. We heard different statements
24 which were ad variance with what the Prosecutor is saying. And the
25 government of the Republic of Croatia, Your Honours, has not provided a
1 single transcript. This is not how we can behave in this courtroom that,
2 the Prosecutor can say whatever occurs to him, especially when that is not
3 true. We've had testimony when transcripts were tendered and we also had
4 the testimony of the Prosecutor himself. And what the Prosecutor is now
5 saying is not the same thing, but it happens to him very often. He always
6 claims whatever suits him at any given time.
7 JUDGE LIU: Well -- well, Mr. Krsnik, you have to understand the
8 rules of the proceedings, you know. The Prosecution put a question to the
9 witness. All we want to hear is the answer from this witness. We are not
10 asking about your opinion, your views concerning this matter.
11 You may proceed, Mr. Scott.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] But ...
13 MR. SCOTT: The witness has already said that he's not aware -- he
14 was not aware of the fact that the transcripts have been provided,
15 Mr. President. I would only make the shortest possible response. And
16 perhaps counsel would like to, among other things, review the testimony of
17 Mr. Prlic.
18 Q. Sir, I can direct your attention to -- you've said that the HDZ
19 was not -- to paraphrase, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. I
20 think you've said a few moments ago that one of the reasons that the --
21 you wouldn't reach the same conclusion as to the HDZ as and HVO as you --
22 conclusions you reached concerning the Serbs is that they were not
23 sufficiently organised. Now, you are familiar, are you not, sir, with the
24 judgements in the Blaskic and Kordic cases? In fact, you've written about
25 those judgements, haven't you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. If I could ask you to please look at Exhibit 946. Sir, have you
3 reviewed -- does this refresh your memory about the conclusions that have
4 been unanimously reached by six different Judges of this Tribunal about
5 the fact that the conduct of the HVO, certainly in Central Bosnia, was a
6 well-carried out planned campaign? And if you have something specific, I
7 invite you -- if you have specific information to the contrary of these
8 findings, please tell the Judges.
9 Can you give us anything specific?
10 A. Yes, yes, I can. I can give you a very simple answer. With
11 respect to what it says here, the persecution of the Bosniak population by
12 Croat political and military authorities in the municipalities of Vitez,
13 Busovaca, and Kiseljak, gained momentum between January to April 1993, and
14 in April 1993 resulted in a joint plan or idea, started and carried out by
15 the leadership of Bosnian Croats to cleanse the Lasva Valley -- to
16 ethnically cleanse the Lasva Valley of Muslims. Every year I travel
17 through the Lasva Valley at least twice a year travelling from Zadar to
18 Sarajevo, where my parents live today, and I can tell you that the Lasva
19 Valley has not been ethically cleansed, neither of the Muslims nor of the
20 Croats. If you can assure me that my eyes -- that my sight deceives me,
21 that I do not see what I see when I go home travelling through an area
22 called the Lasva Valley, then I will accept it.
23 Q. Sir, I didn't ask --
24 A. But what I see with my own eyes remains.
25 Q. Are you finished?
1 A. No, I have not finished.
2 Q. Please continue. Then I'll ask a question.
3 A. The campaign of persecution of the Muslim population by Croat
4 political and military authorities culminated in fierce military attacks
5 on towns and villages in the municipalities of Busovaca, Vitez, and
6 Kiseljak. All these localities which are the centres -- what in
7 Bosnia-Herzegovina is called a municipality hardly deserved the name of
8 towns. That is it. But I do not know what is meant by the fact that the
9 Croatian forces attacked Vitez, Busovaca, and Kiseljak. I know nothing
10 about that.
11 Q. Well, sir, yesterday you talked about Busovaca and you felt -- you
12 felt quite knowledgeable about it.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, while all due respect
15 for your decision, I did not want to react until the witness answered, and
16 always heeding -- heedful of -- mindful of the words of Her Honour Judge
17 Clark and others. We really have excerpts from non-final judgements.
18 These are not final judgements, and these are fragments of judgements that
19 are not yet final. Do you really think it is proper to examine a
20 historian about judgements which are not yet final, which have not been
21 finally adopted by this Tribunal, and to use only fragments from them?
22 But of course -- I mean, it is your decision.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik --
24 Yes, Mr. Par.
25 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I want to second the
1 objections to this kind of examination. I cannot understand how can it be
2 allowed to ask the witness to say a Chamber composed of six Judges
3 established this or that. Do you agree with them or do you disagree? I
4 think it is inadmissible. And then to be shown the witness fragments of
5 judgements that he's not familiar with, that he is not shown, the things
6 that have been established to be different, meanwhile not that mention how
7 many differences there are between what the witness was asked and what is
8 in the case truly. So my objection is that I cannot accept that the
9 witness be asked the questions and that he is -- that he is invited to
10 give his opinion about the decision of the Courts or that he testify
11 against a Trial Chamber. I simply cannot accept that as an admissible
12 question, and I am objecting to it.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, I agree with Mr. Krsnik that those decisions
14 have not reached the final stage, which means that in certain cases
15 there's still appeal of the decisions made by the Chamber of the first
16 instance. But the Prosecution invite this witness to make some comments
17 about this judgement. In the legal -- you know, in the legal systems
18 maybe the Trial Chamber have to be bound by the decisions made by the
19 Appeal Chamber. But as a layman, as an outsider, especially as a
20 historian, he has the right to comment on those judgements. I don't see
21 there's any problem, you know, with this question.
22 But it is time for a break, you know, Mr. Scott. Would you please
23 save your question until we resume.
24 MR. SCOTT: Yes, of course. Of course.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll resume at 12.30.
1 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
2 --- On resuming at 12.35 p.m.
3 JUDGE LIU: Well, before the witness comes into the room, I would
4 like to say that it is our intention to finish the testimony of this
5 witness today, and I would like to ask Mr. Scott how long are you going to
6 take for your cross-examination.
7 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'll ask the Chamber to please accept
8 my representation that during the break I slashed through, if you could
9 see my outline, several pages of notes. I would very much prefer to
10 finish today, but I think it would take me a full -- a full session, even
11 with the edits -- even with the matters that you have cut, at the pace
12 that we've gone today, I would say one session, this session.
13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
14 So in this case, I would like to ask the opinions from both
15 parties which we would sit in the afternoon. As far as I know, that we'll
16 have the courtroom available this afternoon.
17 Do you agree, Mr. Krsnik?
18 MR. KRSNIK: I absolutely agree, Your Honour. [Interpretation]
19 Especially given the fact that I have deadlined, I have to travel to
20 Mostar urgently in order to comply with all your requests, and that is
21 another reason for which I am absolutely ready to work for as long as you
22 tell us to stay here.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par.
24 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] As far as the work in the afternoon is
25 concerned, I agree, but I do not agree with the Prosecutor using the
1 entire of today's session for several reasons: Firstly, his
2 cross-examination is continuously longer than the direct examination. It
3 would be justifiable if the cross-examination tackled relevant issues.
4 Today we have been talking politics, which has opened this court through a
5 very wide open door. I'm not here to talk about politics. I'm not here
6 to defend my client's work from the Second World War onwards. We have the
7 right here to deal with the indictment. We have the right here to deal
8 with the things which are relevant for the indictment, and we shouldn't
9 allow ourselves to turn this courtroom into a political platform. Our task
10 from the beginning and our Defence has tried from the beginning not to
11 address political issues. All the discussions that are being pursued here
12 and all the questions, whether something has anything to do with the
13 politics, we tried to reduce to the guilt of our client, whether he's
14 guilty or not. But the way that Mr. Scott has cross-examined today means
15 that we have opened the door to the politics, and that's why we have to go
16 on working in the afternoon. I object to the Prosecutor being allowed to
17 abuse our time in that way. Thank you very much.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Par, to allow us to sit in the
19 afternoon. I think we are talking about different matters.
20 And as you know, that we are having a expert witness. In these
21 situations, we will have the statement or report of that witness already.
22 So I don't think you'll spend much more time on the direct examination.
23 But in the cross-examination, there is a lot of questions that could arise
24 during the report and during the direct examination. So generally
25 speaking, the cross-examination should be a little bit longer than the
12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts. Pages 15842 to 15844.
1 direct examination in the case of an expert witness.
2 So we'll -- we'll sit in the afternoon.
3 Could I turn to Mr. Naletilic. Mr. Naletilic, we are going to sit
4 in the afternoon. Can you -- microphone, please.
5 THE ACCUSED NALETILIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't think
6 that there will be any problems with that.
7 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much for your cooperation.
8 So we decided that we will resume the afternoon session at 2.30 in
9 the same courtroom, and we will finish this witness today.
10 Madam Usher, could we have the witness, please.
11 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
12 [The witness entered court]
13 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] With your permission,
14 Mr. President, I would like to ask --
15 JUDGE LIU: I'm sorry, we did not get translation. Would you
16 please repeat again.
17 THE INTERPRETER: Can you please repeat. We didn't get the
18 translation into English.
19 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] I was saying that before the
20 Prosecutor resumes, I would like an explanation to an answer that I didn't
21 understand. The witness said as follows, that the culmination of the
22 military campaign were attacks on Vitez, Busovaca, and Kiseljak. After
23 that I believe that the witness tried to deny the reality of those
24 attacks. If we do not go back to that answer, I will not be able to
25 understand all that. I didn't understand. I don't know whether it was
1 something absurd that was said. Can you please explain before we
2 proceed. Can you please shed some light on that.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I get the paper but you -- that
4 I had in front of me before and from which I was reading?
5 MR. SCOTT: I think he's --
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These were the excerpts from the
7 indictment -- from the Court decisions.
8 MR. SCOTT: It's --
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's --
10 MR. SCOTT: No, I'm sorry. It was probably put back together.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I was reading as follows:
12 "Culminated in fierce military attacks on towns and villages in the
13 following municipalities." The fact that towns are mentioned here reveals
14 that it was written by somebody who doesn't know the situation in the
15 area. And secondly, I, as a historian make a huge distinction between the
16 term "attack" and the term "conflict." And if I may also add, it seems to
17 me that here we come to a misunderstanding. As much as I respect this
18 Honourable Court and its work, I still have something that one may call
19 professional consciousness, and I don't think that the decisions of the
20 Judges of this Tribunal imply the decisions for the history or the
21 judgement passed on the history. I don't think that this Court testifies
22 to the history or writes the history. And fortunately enough we do not
23 live in a society in which the decisions of any Court are binding on the
24 historians who will write history. That's what I meant to say.
25 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do not want to
1 disturb either the examination or the cross-examination, but if somebody
2 tells me that an attack is not the same thing as a conflict, then this
3 confuses me even more. Maybe I am still asleep. But if an attack is not
4 the consequence of a conflict, then I really cannot understand how the
5 attack on Kiseljak, Busovaca, and Vitez can be a culminated point of the
6 conflict. How can you say there is a difference between an attack and a
7 conflict. I really do not understand and which maybe this gentleman who
8 is a historian may help me so as to make my day really fruitful.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The difference rises from the
10 following: It arises from the way I make judgements and the way the
11 Judges of this Court make judgements. The decisions of the Judges of
12 this Court are influenced by the skills of the two sides that you have in
13 front of you, and that is Defence on the one hand and the Prosecution on
14 the other. And your decision will be influenced by the way they present
15 things, i.e. the decision of the six Judges in question. My view of
16 things is based on a different approach: I study what I find accessible
17 in the way of documents, and based on that I create my own picture, my own
18 judgement, and in my picture a conflict is generated from minute details,
19 and it is a big question as to who in such a conflict is the side who
20 launches an attack and who, on the other hand, is the side who defends
21 itself. This depends on the point of view, on the materials that one uses
22 in order to create his own picture, and certainly there must be a huge
23 difference here between what I am saying, what is available to me, what
24 I've used, and things that the Judges have used in order to arrive at
25 their decision. Obviously there could be a debate on that, but it would
1 require quite a lot of time.
2 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
3 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Scott, do you mind if I say something to the
5 I don't believe but you appreciate fully, Professor Anicic, what
6 the basis of a decision in the Trial Chamber s it is not based on the
7 skill of the two sides in how they present things, but it is based on the
8 evidence and the documents which are presented to the Court. If the Court
9 arrived as a decision based uniquely on the skill of lawyers, the Judges
10 could very easily be manipulated and blinded by skill. We have to make a
11 decision exclusively on the evidence that's presented here, and that's why
12 we have the system of cross-examining witnesses to see whether their
13 evidence is credible. That's just by the way.
14 The other thing they wanted to ask you just before the break, and
15 I see that my colleague Judge Diarra has the same difficulties. Now,
16 normally we would wait to the end, but as your evidence is very
17 wide-ranging, sometimes asking a question at the very end brings us a way
18 from the momentum of the dynamics of the evidence that you are giving.
19 You stated that one of the criticisms but you made of the findings in
20 Kordic and Blaskic is that they were based on an assessment or a verdict
21 by the trial Judges that ethnic cleansing of Muslims had taken place in
22 the Lasva Valley. And as I understand your evidence, you said but you
23 travel regularly twice a year through that very area and that your eyes
24 don't deceive you, but you see that ethnic cleansing has not taken place.
25 What I wanted to ask you was: Do you mean by that that it wasn't totally
1 successful or that it never happened or that there is an obvious sign of
2 normal living activity in the Lasva Valley of people who were thought to
3 have been expelled? I just wanted you to tell me on what basis do you
4 make that finding. Did you stop and talk to people? Did you take lunch
5 in an area that had a thriving Muslim community? Or is it just that you
6 were driving through at 70 kilometres an hour and a few mosques were still
7 standing? I'd just be interested in the basis of your assessment.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The basis of my assessment is the
9 fact that I stayed in the area for a while on several occasions. And to
10 be very precise, you have to know that travelling at a speed of 70
11 kilometres an hour you can pass through it in about 15 minutes. So I
12 spent some time there. I stopped there on several occasions. I had the
13 opportunity to look at things more carefully, to talk to people living
14 there. And given the fact that I've lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina for
15 30 years and that on numerous occasions before the war I travelled through
16 that same area, I could conclude firstly that the successfully carried out
17 ethnic cleansing, as it says here, did not take place and that the results
18 but you can see today show that ethnic cleansing wasn't carried out.
19 The second framework to the problem that appears here is the fact
20 that the Lasva Valley exists in the broader context of the thing known as
21 Central Bosnia, and the mere idea of the ethnic cleansing of the Lasva
22 Valley is absurd in itself and sounds like a part of some grandiose plan
23 because around the Lasva Valley there are a number of little hamlets or
24 areas where conflicts never broke out and for which it doesn't say
25 anywhere that they were ever ethically cleansed. And this is my general
1 objection to what one can read in the decisions passed by this Court, or
2 judgements passed by these Courts.
3 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you. And to follow up from that -- sorry.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And if I can just say in your
6 translation it says [In English] "It is absurd in itself --"
7 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is reading the transcript.
8 THE WITNESS: That makes a lot of sense of what I wanted to say.
9 JUDGE CLARK: Just following up from that so I can understand,
10 because I don't want to interpose myself for counsel in this case. Are
11 you saying that it is your view that there was no ethnic cleansing in the
12 Lasva Valley, or that it was unsuccessful ethnic cleansing, or that parts
13 were excluded? Because it's not clear from your answer.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What I'm saying is that there was no
15 ethnic cleansing as the result of the existence of planned actions. If
16 there had been something that one could consider ethnic cleansing, then it
17 was the result of armed conflicts. And I believe that this should be
18 emphasised very strongly. There is a big difference between the two
19 things. On the one hand, that the conflicts were started with ethnic
20 cleansing in view, on the one hand, and that the movements of the
21 population were a result of the armed conflict, on the other hand. At
22 least to my mind there is a big difference between the two.
23 JUDGE CLARK: Professor Ancic, I'll try and digest what you're
24 saying, but it seems to me that on the grounds, as far as the Muslim
25 population or the Croat population is concerned, whether there's a grand
1 plan or a spontaneous eruption of violence causing people to move, the
2 effect on the ground is that the people are no longer there. But I won't
3 enter into -- I'll wait and see what you have to say, and I'm sure it will
4 be very interesting and Mr. Scott and Mr. Krsnik and Mr. Par can follow it
5 through. Thank you very much.
6 MR. SCOTT:
7 Q. Sir, in reference to that - and my questions were similar actually
8 to both Judge Diarra and Judge Clark before the break - if you look at the
9 conclusions and findings, sir that, were reflected in Exhibit P946, what
10 you have said, I put to you, sir, is that in terms of your coming back
11 through the Lasva Valley and driving through on a couple of occasions, you
12 may have the view that ethnic cleansing was not ultimately successful, but
13 sir, the conclusions don't say -- I do not believe the judgements say,
14 that ethnic cleansing ultimately was successful. The findings and
15 conclusions are those respectfully, we submit, stated here, that there was
16 indeed a plan, that there was a series of attacks, there was a series of
17 persecutions against Bosnian Muslims in the area as found by the Judges in
18 those two separate cases. Whether it ultimately succeeded or not was
19 quite a separate matter, isn't it?
20 A. I wouldn't agree with you.
21 Q. Where did you --
22 A. Can I please finish my thought. I'm waiting for the transcript to
23 arrive at my screen.
24 Q. Of course. Please continue. We'll finish eventually.
25 A. The success criteria are used to measure the degree of
1 organisation, and this is one of the things that needs to be taken fully
2 into account when passing a judgement, and this is what I would like to
3 add on to what you have said.
4 Q. Sir, when were you -- you say you went there not only in response
5 to Judge Clark's question, but you didn't just pass through driving rather
6 quickly but you said you stayed in the areas. Can you tell me when you
7 stayed and where you stayed and for how long.
8 A. Yes. I spent the longest period of time in 1998, when, with a
9 colleague of mine born in that area and who works in Zadar at present, I
10 was going to a scientific meeting in Sarajevo, so we visited the place of
11 his birth and we saw that the house he was born in was demolished in a
12 village in the Lasva Valley in which there are no more Croats. That
13 village is called Putkovici.
14 Q. And who you think were you in Putkovici in this situation? How
15 long were you there?
16 A. The whole day.
17 Q. And any other occasion that you've been in the Lasva Valley other
18 than passing through?
19 A. Yes. I also stayed a while in Vitez in 1996, and that was the
20 first time that I travelled from Zadar to Sarajevo, that is, it was
21 possible to go there by car and one felt safe.
22 Q. How long were you in Vitez on that occasion?
23 A. Three or four hours.
24 Q. Sir, are you aware of the fact that many displaced persons,
25 probably from all sides - Muslims, Croats, Serbs - have returned to many
1 of those areas, including Central Bosnia, since the war ended?
2 A. Yes. Many individuals did return, and it says likely as not that
3 an equal number did not return. I've already quoted an example of the
4 village of Putkovici, to which, for instance, the Croats did not return.
5 Q. So you really can't draw many conclusions from what you saw from
6 one day in 1998 and three or four hours in 1996 about the conditions on
7 the ground to the, or at least in 1996 and 1998, and what was the
8 conditions on the ground in 1993 and 1994; can we? ?
9 A. We cannot draw the conclusions as to what it looked like, but we
10 can draw the conclusions as to how successful it was.
11 Q. Well, sir, let me take you and ask you- and I hope to move on --
12 and Mr. President, you'll notice that unfortunately since the break we've
13 not made a whole lot of progress, I'm afraid. But to try to finish up on
14 this topic before moving forward -- when you say -- I asked you a couple
15 of questions before the break about the evidence that you have
16 considered. Now in this case, but let me ask you similar questions
17 concerning the Blaskic and Kordic cases, are you telling the Judges, sir
18 that, you have reviewed the transcripts, the testimony of all the
19 witnesses in those cases, all the Muslim who is came and testified, all
20 the HVO documents that were put into evidence, all the ECMM reports that
21 were put into evidence, all the British Battalion reports that were put
22 into evidence, did you come to -- to disagree with the judgements arrived
23 at by the six Judges of this Tribunal?
24 A. No. And I've told you that our ideas, our views, came about in a
25 different way and on the basis of different kind of material, and I think
1 that this is quite a clear answer to your question.
2 Q. And in a similar way, sir, when the Judges in this case are
3 asked -- will be asked, of course, to render a judgement, you have not
4 reviewed all the evidence in this case either, have you, as we
5 established, I think, this morning; correct?
6 A. Yes. Yes.
7 Q. In the interest of time, sir, I'm going to direct you only to
8 two -- or three documents, instead of a considerable number more. But I
9 could ask you please to find in your bundle P131.1. It should be in
10 order. And if you will go down until you get to P131 with the assistance
11 of the usher, please. I'll try to do these quite quickly if we can, sir.
12 Exhibit 131.1 is a proposal by Jadran Topic, who was then the --
13 effectively the mayor -- the president of the HVO in Mostar, establishing
14 another -- a number of municipal departments, general administration,
15 finance, economic affairs, et cetera, et cetera. Could I ask you also --
16 I'll ask you the questions once in order to hopefully to move forward as
17 quickly as possible.
18 Could I ask you to also look at P164. It should be a number of
19 exhibits down from that one, again, in order. Again, because of time I'm
20 skipping over the exhibits in the middle.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me, Your Honours. An interpreter's
22 comment. The text -- the Exhibit P131 is a decision, not a proposal of a
23 decision. The original say "Takes decision 2, establish."
24 MR. SCOTT: My thanks to the booth for that. I was looking at the
25 English, of course.
1 Q. Sir, one of the things you've said today, and the reason I bring
2 your attention to these particular documents among many others, is that
3 the HDZ was not sufficiently organised to carry out any sort of plan of
4 the nature that I've suggested to you. Do not these documents indicate in
5 fact a high degree of organisation, a high degree of systems in place
6 established by the HDZ and the HVO?
7 A. I'm sorry. How -- what is it in this document that leads you to
8 the conclusion that the level of organisation was high?
9 Q. You don't consider that setting up the Department of General
10 Administration, the Department of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs,
11 Public Sector Affairs, public services -- sorry, my apologies to the
12 translation. Department of Procurement, et cetera, the departments of the
13 HVO, amendments to the decree on the armed forces, regulations on military
14 discipline, creation of a central bank, you don't think any of those
15 things reflect a high degree of organisation?
16 A. As far as I can see, these are decisions establishing such
17 things. If you cast your mind back, I spoke this morning about it, that
18 the Serb side relied on fully integrated systems of state authority which
19 needed no establishment or organisation, arrangement, and all these
20 systems did not need to be translated into life, because they had been in
21 existence before that for 40 years. And here we see that somebody is
22 trying to organise something. I think that these documents set out to
23 prove what I said.
24 Q. All right, sir. Could you please direct your attention to P175,
25 which I hope will be the document following 164. If you'll look, sir --
1 if you cast your eyes over that document, in general terms, a report or
2 minutes from a meeting on the 22nd of September, 1992. I believe the
3 Chamber has seen it before. But is this not, sir, a veritable report,
4 municipality by municipality by municipality, on the progress of the HVO
5 in seizing power in each of these municipalities?
6 A. I have to answer to that that my methodology of work requires not
7 to have a look at documents but to read them thoroughly, to know their
8 source, whether they're authentic, what precedes them, and what follows in
9 their wake. I cannot tell you what this document is unless I'm given some
10 time to read it carefully and consider it carefully. So I'm sorry, I
11 cannot give you that answer.
12 Q. Well, on -- in point of fact, sir, it goes back to the point we
13 were making a few minutes ago. You've never seen these documents before,
14 have you? In rendering any conclusions you've stated to this Chamber, you
15 didn't have the benefit and are not considered any of in documentation,
16 have you?
17 A. No. Documents like this I did not have, because I said they were
18 not accessible to me. I used documents which were accessible to me. And
19 on that basis, I drew my conclusions and my ideas.
20 Q. Do you allow, sir, that in the case of both Blaskic and Kordic and
21 in this case, this Trial Chamber, that the Judges of this Tribunal in fact
22 may be substantially better informed on these documents and the evidence
23 that's come before this Tribunal than you are? Not in your expertise. In
24 the evidence that you've considered. Because you've told us today that
25 you've never considered any of this. Correct?
1 MR. MEEK: Mr. President.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Yes.
3 MR. MEEK: This expert is a historical expert, not a legal
4 expert. This calls for a legal conclusion. It calls for speculation. I
5 don't think it's a proper question for this expert, and I object.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Meek, I think this question is a follow-up,
7 you know, from the -- the question asked previously.
8 But Mr. Scott, I really don't think, you know, the manner in this
9 question is quite all right, you know. There's no comparisons, you know,
10 between the Judges and this witness, you know.
11 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, let me rephrase the question. I didn't
12 mean it in any event as a personal comment on either the witness or the
13 Judges but on the evidence available and the information that's been
14 considered in reaching both the judgements in this Tribunal and the
15 conclusions stated and argued for by this witness. And my comment was,
16 and if I could rephrase it:
17 Q. There's every indication, isn't there, sir, that the Judges of
18 this Tribunal have had access to and have considered a wide range of
19 evidence but you say you've never looked at; correct?
20 A. I'm not sure that what you say is correct, because the Judges
21 couldn't have had at their disposal the kind of knowledge which is the
22 product of my life in Bosnia-Herzegovina and my study of the history of
23 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the area for which I was hired. That is, what I am
24 talk about is not -- what I am talking about is not the indictment as a
25 whole. I am talking merely about the historical context of the war and
1 how much history affected the way in which the war was waged.
2 Q. Well, sir, let me recast my question, and I will move on, but I
3 didn't -- my question again was not about your knowledge or expertise but
4 about the materials, the source material, what we call evidence, that
5 you've had available to you as opposed to the evidence that the Judges
6 have had available to them. And you've agreed with me today, haven't you,
7 sir, that everything you've seen, and the documents I've put in front of
8 you, you've never talked to the witnesses. You've never looked at the
9 presidential transcripts. You've never seen HVO documents at the archive
10 that, you simply have not had access to the same -- you say, to the same
11 evidence that the Chamber does. Correct?
12 A. I did not have access to the same documents as the Chambers. That
13 is true, and that is the only truth in what you just said. But I also
14 want you, you and Their Honours, that the Judges neither had access to
15 what I consider to be valuable proof of what I am saying.
16 Q. Of course, sir. And presumably that's why you're here. We
17 understand that.
18 Now, let me go back to the ultimatum but you talked about
19 yesterday, the political pressure that was brought to bear.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Martinovic, what's the problem?
21 THE ACCUSED MARTINOVIC: [Interpretation] One document. Let him
22 produce a single document against Vinko Martinovic. He keeps talking
23 about documents. Well, let him bring out one paper, just one.
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, well, Mr. Martinovic, if you have some views and
25 comments to make, my advice is that you go through your counsel. I
1 believe but you are well represented by Mr. Seric and Mr. Par in this
3 Yes, Mr. Par.
4 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] My client's objection has to do with
5 what I objected earlier, related to the manner of examination, that these
6 things are not relevant to our defence. And we have been pointing out at
7 it for a long time, so that I fully understand -- I fully sympathise with
8 my client.
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I want to
11 ask where does the debate for the -- which is one-hour long, this whole
12 morning, where does it lead us? This debate about the examination, other
13 cases, other Judges, different kind of evidence, a different area of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina which has nothing to do with our clients, except that
15 Mr. Scott was also a Prosecutor in that case. And now with all these
16 questions he obvious sets out to show him to be the champion of justice
17 together with those -- justice. And if we follow the logic of those
18 questions, we are again justice [As interpreted]. In the appeals
19 procedure we have new documents which were not available at the time of
20 the first Judges and these are of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and to
21 the Judges and the Appeal Chamber they shed completely new light on the
22 events that were referred to by these first instance judgements. And to
23 be -- everybody in these Tribunal knows it. All of us who live and work
24 here know that. Documents which were not available at the time of the
25 first instance are available now so that a completely new light is shed
1 and the question is what the judgements will be like, what is being done
2 here, Your Honours, I think we're wasting too much time and -- with an
3 inadequate witness.
4 JUDGE LIU: Well, to answer the question put by Mr. Par, I would
5 like to say this witness is an expert witness. His job is to make some
6 comments on his report, which is not directly related to the counts
7 charged in the indictment.
8 As for the second question, raised by Mr. Krsnik, we believe that
9 the Prosecution asked all those questions on that report, about his
10 sources, about his authenticity, about what document the witness relied
11 on. We believe those questions are allowed in this context.
12 You may move on, Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated] Going back to the question
14 that I was putting -- in the process of putting to you, sir, before the
16 Q. We talked yesterday about the ultimatum of the -- in April 1993,
17 which you called political pressure by the HVO on the Muslim side. You
18 are aware, are you not, as part of your historical research that the --
19 there was a statement prepared -- a so-called joint statement prepared by
20 Mate Boban that Mr. Izetbegovic never signed; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you're in a position to confirm to this Chamber, are you not,
23 that in fact Mr. Izetbegovic never signed that joint statement, did he?
24 A. Yes. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you. Just making a note.
1 Sir, in the -- excuse me, Mr. President. I'm trying to move
2 forward as quickly as possible. I just want to keep myself somewhat
4 Sir, do you recall -- I'm moving on and so the Chamber -- I'll be
5 transparent. The final topic that I'll ask the witness about is so-called
6 international armed conflict.
7 Do you recall, sir, giving an interview in Slobodna Dalmacija
8 about the Blaskic judgement? In fact, it takes us back to some of the
9 topics that we talked about today. Do you recall that, sir?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. If I can direct your attention to Exhibit 944, which I hope will
12 be the next -- one of the next documents in the bundle that you have
13 before you.
14 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, while he's looking at that document, I
15 will make a quick reference, because I am going to tender this document,
16 based on what the witness just told us about the so-called joint
17 statement. But because of time, I won't belabour it -- as Exhibit P273.1,
18 which is in the bundle, which are the minutes of an HVO meeting on the 3rd
19 of April, 1993. I'll come back to eventually. But I just wanted to put
20 that in the record.
21 Q. Now, sir, in your article, do you recall taking the position that
22 in trying to explain the differences between the Blaskic sentence and the
23 Kordic sentence was that Blaskic -- in the Blaskic case they found
24 international armed conflict, and in the Kordic case they did not? Do you
25 recall making that analysis in the article marked as Exhibit P944?
1 A. It is not an article. It is my interview. What is mine in this
2 text is my answers. The layout of the text is the product of a
3 journalist's work. So can we please confine ourselves to what are my
4 answers. And if you tell me where that is, I would appreciate it no end.
5 Q. Thank you, sir. I do agree. And you're quite right. This is an
6 interview format.
7 Among other places, sir, I think if I can direct your attention
8 to -- again, forgive me -- I can only refer you to the English text. But
9 in the first paragraph of the section under "The type of conflict." And
10 if this is not your words, then let me put it -- let me tell you what I'm
11 referring to and then we'll clarify that. And if it's not your words
12 you can tell me that. But it says that "One of the main reasons Blaskic
13 was served a longer sentence compared to Kordic, despite a much more
14 serious indictment of Kordic, is that the Blaskic judgement was reached by
15 adopting the position of The Hague Prosecution, that the conflict between
16 Bosniaks and Croats in BiH had been international armed conflict."
17 Now, let's take it a step at a time. Is that your statement?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Would you -- is that --
20 A. My statement was that General Blaskic's sentence was decided only
21 after an agreement was reached that it was an international armed
22 conflict. My second answer was that I never saw the whole judgement
23 pronounced on Mr. Dario Kordic, and that I do not know in how it
24 happened that his sentence was much milder than General Blaskic's, and
25 that I do not know to what extent has the thesis on the international
1 conflict been embraced in that particular case, and that I do not know
2 whether the duration of the punishment has to do something with it or
3 not. The journalist interpreted my words freely in a way that he chose.
4 Q. All right. Sir, well, you've answered one of my questions about
5 the interview but you gave, because I understood -- just so you know, and
6 so it's transparent, I thought you had taken the position that an
7 international armed conflict had been found in the Blaskic case but not
8 the Kordic case, but that's not what you say. Correct? We've clarified
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. All right. Were you aware, sir, that international armed conflict
12 was in fact found in both cases?
13 A. Obviously I am not, because I've just told you that I am not.
14 Q. All right. Then we can move forward, please, to the question of
15 the involvement -- further involvement of Croatia in the conflict between
16 the Croats and Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is that something that you
17 have specifically studied, sir?
18 A. I can't say that I have studied this specifically in great
20 Q. Well, sir, let me ask the question this way -- and perhaps we can
21 see how far we get and we can shorten the rest of this. But do you -- is
22 it your view that the Republic of Croatia was not involved in actively
23 supporting the fighting on the -- excuse me, on the Croat side, in the
24 Muslim-Croat war? Is that your view, or do you have no view on this
1 A. To the extent to which the Republic of Croatia supported the
2 defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it also was to that extent involved in
3 the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is a number of the pieces of
4 evidence published on that showing that from the very beginning the
5 Republic of Croatia supported all those who stood up against Serb attacks
6 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If we follow that logic, then you can say that
7 Croatia was indeed involved in this war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 Q. If I could ask -- if I can direct your attention, sir, to what's
9 been marked as Exhibit PT8.1, which is -- as we represent, as I will
10 explain to you, sir, is a transcript, what we've called a transcript from
11 the presidential offices in Zagreb. This particular one, dated the 24th
12 of April, 1993.
13 When we talked yesterday, sir, about the fact of this ultimatum
14 and you allowed that perhaps each of the three sides, even including the
15 Serbs, but focussing particularly now on the Croats and the Muslims, had
16 perhaps different views or visions of what the Vance-Owen Plan was about.
17 And do you agree, sir, that in fact those visions also proved to be quite
19 A. Yes. They were probably very different.
20 Q. Let me ask you to look, please -- and I'm going to direct your
21 attention. And of course I know but you perhaps speak and operate in
22 English quite well, so it's of course up to you which is easier for you,
23 but I'll also give you the pages that I'm referring to in the Croatian
24 language transcript. Initial Appearance going to direct first of all to
25 the English version, which is on page 9 of the English transcript. And
1 sir, you can either look there or I can tell you that in the Croatian
2 language transcript, it is at page -- if you see the numbers that have
3 been marked on these documents up in the upper-right corner, if you can
4 find -- if you can find, please, 0132-2444. Maybe there's no -- no,
5 there's no dash. But 01322444. I'll try to do this by only a couple of
7 Sir, this is a place where -- this is a meeting, just so -- this
8 is a meeting in the offices of President Tudjman involving Mr. Tudjman,
9 President Tudjman, Lord Owen, Mr. Izetbegovic, Mr. Boban, Mr. Petkovic
10 and a number of people talk about the Vance-Owen Plan as it existed on the
11 24th of April, 1993. And the page that I've just referred you to, sir,
12 Mr. Izetbegovic says at the top of that page, if you -- "Judging by the
13 HVO actions, they understood this plan in a completely different manner,
14 despite the fact that under the mediation of Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen we
15 have signed a document, an agreement, whose first item explicitly say that
16 is the provinces are not national territories of any one of these peoples
17 who cannot claim it --" excuse me "who cannot lay claim to it only for
19 The second item of our agreement say that "the symbols of Bosnia
20 and Herzegovina will be respected and will also be displayed in the
21 Travnik and Mostar provinces. In other words, Herceg-Bosna as a state
22 entity, as a type of state entity could not exist after the signing of the
23 Vance-Owen Plan."
24 And I'll just use one other example and then I'll put a question
25 to you. If you can look, please, at either page 11 of the English
1 version, or if you've prefer to look at page 01322447. And again, it's
2 Mr. Izetbegovic speaking. At about the middle of page 11 he says: "We
3 have accepted the Mostar province but we have not accepted the Croatian
4 Community of Herceg-Bosna. We have accepted the Vance-Owen Plan because
5 it envisages a province and does not envisage a Croatian Herceg-Bosna
6 because Mostar is not and will never be only Croatian. You can terrorise
7 Mostar for years, but you will never rule over it. So we can govern there
8 jointly. Mostar cannot be governed only by the Croatian people."
9 Now, sir, would that -- these passages, just as example that is
10 I've given you, do you agree, then -- further agree that in fact despite
11 the fact that there have been some signed documents at the end of March of
12 1993, there was in fact no agreement on the implementation of Vance-Owen,
13 was there?
14 A. I would obviously like you to give me some time to read the entire
15 transcript to be able to arrive at my own idea of this -- of what all this
16 is all about. You have this habit of taking things out of the context. I
17 don't have the habit and I would not wish to draw any conclusions based on
18 what you choose as excerpts and what you choose to show me. So despite
19 the fact what I already said about the alleged transcripts, because what
20 you -- as you can see, there is no -- no sign of authentification to show
21 that this is what you claim it is. In Republic of Croatia there is --
22 there are stamps which confirm the authenticity of any single document,
23 unlike the Anglo-Saxon system in which it is the signature that gives the
24 legal force to the document. In Croatia, it is the stamp that gives the
25 legal force and authenticity to a document. For a document to be
1 authentic, it should contain a stamp. Not even to mention the strange
2 situation in which we don't know who was it who recorded it, who was it
3 who wrote it down, whether the text was edited, whether somebody added
4 something to it or omitted something from it. But despite all of these
5 objections that I have, I would like to be able to read the entire
6 transcript such as it is and then I could possibly tell you about the --
7 my impression of the atmosphere of that meeting, and I could then say how
8 the authors of that meeting presented their views and what their views
9 were. But now, for you to ask me to give you my views based on the five
10 sentences taken out from a body of text, I cannot do that. I'm sorry.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can the witness be
12 given the time to read the entire text. That would solve the problem.
13 That is all I'm asking.
14 JUDGE LIU: Well, I'm afraid not. The witness will spend another
15 day here reading all the transcripts. There's volumes of documents.
16 We'll see, you know, where Mr. Scott is leading us to, then we'll
17 decide this matter.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is not a big
19 document. It is 10 or so pages long document. It can be read quite
20 quickly. We are coming to the break. And if all the time the -- we
21 insist on the gentleman's comments, then maybe the gentleman should be
22 allowed to read the entire document in order to be able to provide us with
23 his comments.
24 JUDGE LIU: It depends, you know, on the Prosecution, whether, you
25 know, he would like to ask further questions and pursue that direction or
2 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, that was -- the question I've last put
3 to the witness was the only particular question that I was seeking to
4 confirm with him further, and that is that even from the comments that I
5 directed him to by President Izetbegovic, respectfully, I would submit,
6 indicates a disagreement on the implementation of Vance-Owen. And that
7 was the only thing I was trying to confirm with the witness.
8 I have no objection if we're taking a break now if the witness
9 wants to read the transcript that's provided to him, provided it's
10 returned to the usher. I have no objection to that.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Witness, you are allowed to have that document
12 during the lunchtime, and you can read it. And we'll continue with the
13 cross-examination on the same subject after we resume.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]
16 JUDGE LIU: And I have to remind you that we have received the
17 documents and evidence on all these documents are received. So I don't
18 think you are going to comment on authenticity of this document, and you
19 may offer your interpretations on those -- on the contents of this
21 We'll resume at 2.30 this afternoon.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I please address the Chamber.
23 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.44 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 2.43 p.m.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
1 MR. SCOTT:
2 Q. Sir, before the break we were on the Exhibit PT8.1, one of the
3 transcripts, and you had indicated a desire to read the transcript in
4 full. And so having done that, or at least I assume you've had the
5 opportunity to do that. I'm happy to give you the opportunity to make any
6 additional comments you wish to make about it, in terms of the question I
7 put to you, that is, "Didn't it show, in fact a wide divergency of views
8 on the Vance-Owen Plan?"
9 A. Yes. This is what it shows. But you read the part of the text
10 about which I still have some reservations, and you did the same like you
11 did with my report and I believe you are authorised to do that. You've
12 just taken out one part of that text. But I've read the entire text.
13 That's what I asked you to do, and you only read one part, the words of
14 Alija Izetbegovic accusing Croats for what they did. If this Honourable
15 Chamber will allow me to do that, I would like to read three more short
17 Q. I have no objection, sir. And in fairness, let me say, sir, that
18 I think that you've done me a number of times a disservice. The entire
19 transcript will be in front of the Judges. They will have the entire
20 transcript, not just the passages I directed your particular attention
21 to. And I've given you this opportunity with the Judges' permission. And
22 please do. Make the additional comments you wish to make.
23 A. I would like to read three sentences said by Mr. Mate Boban during
24 that same meeting, and I would like to read three sentences said by Lord
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, as the Prosecution said, that we have
2 this document at our hands. We could read it by ourselves. If you have no
3 further comments to make, let's pass this subject.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you have this text and if you are
5 going to read it, then I will limit myself to my comment only. It is
6 clear from the text that I have in front of me that both sides have
7 objections to the behaviour of the other side, and it is also clear that
8 Lord Owen, who is the mediator, accepts that both sides make mistakes, and
9 it is also clear that this is first and foremost a political disagreement,
10 and that disagreement mostly is relative to the political future of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, i.e. it is relative to its constitutional and
12 political order in the future. So that is what a transcript like that
13 shows if it has been accepted as being reliable.
14 What I find unacceptable is to take one part out of the entire
15 context and represent that one part as an integral whole of its own as if
16 there were no other parts of the same text. So that would be my comment.
17 MR. SCOTT:
18 Q. All right, sir. Sir, in connection with the historical work that
19 you do, do you prefer generally speaking as a historian to base your
20 findings on information from more than one source or more than one type of
22 A. The most productive way to do things is to have different sources
23 to rely on. Official documents, both those pertaining to the medieval
24 times as well as those pertaining to contemporary times, very often
25 provide a distorted picture of the reality in my experience. That is why
1 it is very useful to have other types of documents available, because
2 these documents will show how the official norms are applied in reality.
3 Q. In terms of historical research, then, sir, you would find more
4 confidence or have greater confidence in information or a point that you
5 may be wishing to make if you had information from more than one source or
6 information of more than one type of document; correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. In the bundle that you have there still, I hope, with
9 you, down toward the end of that bundle now, can you please find Exhibit
10 664.2. If you look at that, sir, this appears to be an appointment or
11 proposed appointment or a document listing appointments dated the 6th of
12 November, 1993. And if you look at the last page of the Croatian language
13 version, you will agree with me, won't you, sir, that at least on this
14 particular version of this document there is no signature; correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Do you see that the document nonetheless, sir, on the face of it,
17 on the items 1 through 14, in terms of the appointments, is the --
18 concerns the appointments of essentially the senior officers of the HVO,
19 starting with Ante Roso, going to Mr. Crnjac, and following; correct?
20 A. That's what it looks like.
21 Q. All right. Now, last of these transcripts that I'm going to
22 direct your attention to, sir, is -- if you can find in your bundle
23 PT 15 --
24 A. [In English] Excuse me.
25 Q. Yes, of course.
1 A. [In English] Excuse me.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. [In English] It seems to be -- [Interpretation] This looks very
4 mysterious, because on the first page this document starts with the
5 appointment -- with appointments to the Croatian Defence Council, and
6 later on I don't know what it refers to. Is that a document which was
7 signed? Is that an official document? Does it have a stamp? Where does
8 it originate from?
9 Q. Well, hold that thought, sir.
10 A. And while we are still at it, some of the names here are familiar
11 from newspapers. I know that brigadier Ivan Tolj discharged his duties
12 and was in charge of political activities in the Croatian Army. That is
13 why I find this confusing.
14 Q. Very well. Now, if I start -- as I started doing a moment ago --
15 and if you'll keep that Exhibit 664.2 at hand, I'd like to direct your
16 attention now to Exhibit PT15, another transcript which has been
17 accepted -- admitted into evidence by the Chamber, dated the 23rd of
18 November, 1993.
19 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, in this instance, unlike what -- the
20 way we've normally done it, I'm going to read a rather long passage for, I
21 think, reasons that will become obvious.
22 JUDGE CLARK: Before you do that, Mr. Scott.
23 MR. SCOTT: Yes.
24 JUDGE CLARK: Judge Liu and I can't find 664.2.
25 MR. SCOTT: My apology.
1 [Prosecution counsel confer]
2 [Trial Chamber confers]
3 MR. SCOTT: It should be -- Judge Clark, it should be there. But
4 if it's not, we can put the English -- we can put an extra copy on the
5 ELMO, certainly.
6 Could I ask you to just put that on the ELMO, perhaps, if he wants
7 to use the ...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE LIU: I've found it.
10 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Judge.
11 JUDGE LIU: It's very difficult to find this document.
12 MR. SCOTT: My apologies for that. Again, the documents are not
13 necessarily in numerical order in this instance but in the order in which
14 we've used them in the examination. So the numbering may mislead you, and
15 for that I apologise. If you have it --
16 Q. Sir, if I can direct your attention to Exhibit PT15. And again,
17 you can either look at the Croatian language transcript or the English
18 language, whichever you prefer. If you look -- if you'd prefer to look at
19 the -- if you'd prefer to look at the B/C/S -- or excuse me, Croatian
20 version, I will say, you may look at page R0157079. And I am looking at
21 page 7 of the English translation. Do you have that, sir?
22 A. [No interpretation]
23 Q. Thank you. By this record, this is President Tudjman speaking at
24 this instance, and he's -- the part that says "president."
25 "Mr. Minister and Mr. General, here with Gornji Vakuf we have
1 experienced a political and military failure. Minister, you yourself know
2 that today one of the joint chairmen asked in this context if we could and
3 if we would, take control of Gornji Vakuf. And I gave you the task and it
4 was not done, and in this way we have been militarily and politically
5 compromised and we have given -- we have confirmed in this way the
6 judgements that militarily we are not even up to the Muslims in this
7 area. This is a fiasco. Who ordered the bridge in Mostar to be destroyed
8 and why?"
9 Then Gojko Susak -- it just says "rustling of paper. Nothing can
10 be heard."
11 President: "They've been showing it on European televisions for
12 four days, and two days Croatian units shelling it. And accordingly
13 please determine who ordered it and why and there will be dreadful
14 political damage this has inflicted on us, that they be relieved and
15 punished and see whether they can even be court-martialed. A written
16 report about this, please."
17 "Thirdly, how minister of Defence and chief of the main
18 headquarters -- and the record will show that Janko Bobetko is here along
19 with, Gojko Susak. How can you order confirming that Croatia is waging
20 war, that it is directly involved? And I constantly emphasise but you
21 should have built all this up as something voluntary that, these are
22 volunteers who have left the Croatian army, who fight there under HVO
23 command. And here you are appointing the main headquarters, Minister of
24 Defence of Croatia, and the chief of the main headquarters.
25 Susak: "Can I see that?"
1 President: "You don't know that?
2 Bobetko: "That is a proposal that I obtained for those people."
3 MR. SCOTT: Stopping for the transcript, Mr. President,
5 Susak: "Who prepared this?"
6 President: "You don't know?"
7 Bobetko: "We here agreed that after the meeting here we should
8 get together people who should help to work there."
9 President: "But not that we should make appointments. It was
10 said, if you please, that I released with my own order that stayed here
11 General Roso. But General Roso was appointed by the president of the
12 Republic of Herceg-Bosna."
13 Bobetko: "Here are determined some men who will help --
14 selected who will help them? Help Roso in that group and that -- no one
15 has, is --"
16 President: "General Bobetko."
17 Bobetko: "I propose men. I propose men in help them."
18 President: --
19 Now, sir, when I direct your attention to your next portion I
20 would like you to look at exhibit 664.2.
21 "Look the Republic of Croatia, the Ministry of Defence Zagreb
22 pursuant to our command of the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces
23 Croatia, president of the republic, Tudjman, in accordance with Article 52
24 of the Defence law, Official Gazette number 74/93 and the decision on the
25 foundations of the organisation of the Ministry of Defence. The following
1 are appointed to the main headquarters of the Croatian Defence Council, or
2 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. First, Colonel -- Colonel General
3 Ante Roso, the command of the main headquarters; Commander of the main
4 headquarters of the Croatian Defence Council, that is, we, the Minister of
5 Defence, signature of the Minister of Defence."
6 Susak: "There is no signature."
7 President: "And you don't know about that?"
8 Susak: "I don't know about it."
9 Bobetko: "This is our proposal about how we should form this
10 group to help them. Help Roso. There is no headquarters at all, no
12 President: "General, did you sign this?"
13 Bobetko: "I looked at this last night, and I say now that these
14 things have to be seen through to the end. This command has to be set
15 up. It did not go anywhere. I don't know how it got here, but it did not
16 go anywhere. We had to start from somewhere. Whom should we send there?"
17 President: "We should have made an agreement and we should have
18 sent people there."
19 Bobetko: "Lucic got the assignment."
20 President: "To send to Roso as commander of the main headquarters
21 of the HVO who was appointed here -- there," excuse me, "who was appointed
22 there by the main headquarters, not that we should appoint him --"
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down, Mr. Scott, please.
24 MR. SCOTT: My apologies.
25 Q. "Providing proof that we are giving the orders there."
1 Susak: "These people are all there. Has anyone of them got
3 President: "What?"
4 Susak: "How come I don't have that in my office?"
5 Bobetko: "Whom? Who of them?"
6 Susak: "Crnjac is there. Vrbanac is there, Biskic is there,
7 Butorac is there."
8 Bobetko: "Lucic informed them who was going down there. The
9 assignment was to collect volunteers. Lucic got the assignment here of
10 being responsible for the collection of volunteers."
11 Now, I realise we've gone on for some time, but let me just look
12 at one -- to shorten this -- well, I won't. I think it speaks -- the rest
13 of the document certainly speaks for itself.
14 Sir, would you agree with me as a historian that by all
15 indications the document that President Tudjman; Janko Bobetko; and the
16 Minister of Defence, Susak; were discussing on the 23rd of November, 1993,
17 was the document marked as Exhibit 664.2?
18 A. If I am to agree with you, then I have to spend days and days
19 pouring over this. Let me explain what is a trap in a historian's job.
20 In the '70s of the last century in the former Yugoslavia there was a major
21 debate among the historians about whether prior to World War II the
22 then-political leader of the Croats, whose name was Vlatko Macek,
23 communicated with the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs or not, and
24 whether that constituted an act of high treason. And the -- at the root
25 of all this was a mysterious letter about a conversation with a mysterious
1 Mr. Bombeles. There was even debate about it, doctoral thesis was
2 written about it. And at long last the singular and agreed opinion was
3 not arrived at, whether that particular letter was -- existed or did not
4 exist as proof. And I'm mentioning just one problem. Here you are
5 presenting very serious accusations, a very serious arguments. In order
6 to accept them, one would have to go through the whole procedure of
7 establishing the authenticity of such evidence, and that would necessitate
8 special expertise. As a serious historian, that can be my answer.
9 Q. Sir, just a final point on this. If I can ask you to look at page
10 10 of the English version or, if you want the use the Croatian version, of
11 course you can. Simply by the description of the document given by
12 President Tudjman, starting on the top of page 10, isn't that in fact the
13 same text -- virtually the same text as on the beginning -- as at the
14 beginning of Exhibit 664.2?
15 A. What I can say in reply is that a description that one finds in
16 one text corresponds to what is shown as another paper, that is, an
17 indubitable fact. And I've said all the rest.
18 Q. Sir, a final question or two. In your interview that we were
19 talking -- looking at earlier today. I think it's Exhibit 944. And
20 again, I want to be sure that it's your words and not the interviewer's
21 words, so that's why I'm going to be very specific to show you. Exhibit
22 944, sir. Can I again -- forgive me for referring specifically to the
23 English text. But on the top part of the English page 3, it appears that
24 the questions began wherever there is what I would call a dash or hyphen.
25 For instance, at the top of that page there is a -- again, what I would
1 call a dash or a hyphen. Then it says "To what degree can an appeal
2 change the position of the Prosecution and the Court?" Now, do I
3 understand that correctly, where -- that's the question of the interviewer
4 that's being put to you?
5 A. Mm-hm.
6 Q. And then as part of your answer, is it correct but you say,"The
7 answer to such questions should be sought through the situation that has
8 recently been created at The Hague Tribunal. Only Croats have been tried
9 for Bosnian-Croat conflict so far." And this appears to be an interview
10 given on the 11th of February of this year, sir. Are you aware of the
11 fact that in fact in the Celebici case three Muslim accused were convicted
12 by this Tribunal?
13 A. And they were sentenced for what?
14 Q. I don't have the complete judgements, I admit to you, sir, before
15 me, but I have the names. Mucic, Delic, Landzo, all convicted following a
16 trial in this Tribunal. Are you aware of that or not?
17 A. I am familiar with the names, but I do not know what they were
18 convicted of.
19 Q. Are you aware, sir, that there is an indictment pending in the
20 Tribunal against Sefer Halilovic?
21 A. That was exactly what I said to the journalist. Obviously he made
22 an error when transcribing the text from the tape, because this interview
23 was conducted in the beginning of this year precisely at a time when the
24 hearings in the case against General Halilovic, among other people,
25 started. And that is what I referred to in my answer, in my answer to the
2 Q. And there's also pending, is there not, at this time an indictment
3 in this Tribunal against Enver Hadzihasanovic, Mehmed Alagic, and Amir
4 Kubura; correct?
5 A. Well, that is exactly what I was talk about, because I read in the
6 papers -- newspapers, excuse me, that there were indictments against them,
7 that the trials had started, and that was why I said what I said here.
8 Q. Sir, thank you very much. I have no further questions.
9 A. [In English] Your welcome.
10 JUDGE LIU: Any re-examination? Mr. Krsnik.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes. But I shall try to be very
13 Re-examined by Mr. Krsnik:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Professor, I'd really like you to help this
15 Chamber to finally complete this story about the historical context of a
16 folk song. Can you please explain to the Chamber the following. My first
17 question: Who were amongst the Ustasha ranks? I mean, people or ethnic
19 A. Ustasha included also a certain number of members of the
20 then-Islamic faith, and I presume also those who belonged to the Muslim
21 ethnic community.
22 Q. When did the Ustasha come into being?
23 A. The Ustasha came into being in the 20s of this century.
24 Q. And what was the historical context when the song "Jure and Boban"
25 was created? Because it said that it is insulting to the Muslims.
1 A. It was -- it came into being during the independent state of
2 Croatia, something said -- to the Muslims. What does it? [As
3 interpreted] I have to say one thing to the Chamber, and that is my
4 experience, my experience in life, and that is that I heard this song in
5 Sarajevo for the first time in 1992, in the early days of the war, and
6 that the song was quite popular in Sarajevo in those early months of the
7 war and its popularity derived presumably from the words "we shall ford
8 the Drina and set fire to Serbia." However, when this song became
9 offensive to somebody, that is a completely different problem.
10 Q. Of course. But you as a historian, do you know why in
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, why are Jure and Boban celebrated in
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina. What did they do for the Muslims?
13 A. Among other things, and I cannot say in Bosnia-Herzegovina they
14 are celebrated, they are both celebrated and soon with different eyes.
15 Q. Of course.
16 A. But the fact remains that they largely conducted their operations
17 in eastern parts of Bosnia, where in World War II -- where during World
18 War II there was a conflict by and large between Muslims and Serbs, that
19 it was within that context in a way -- in a form of collective image. At
20 that time they had a completely different aura than the one they acquired
21 after World War II.
22 Q. I mean, what I'm trying to ask you as a historian, when they who
23 saved the Muslims from Chetnik slaughters during the World War II in
24 Eastern Bosnia?
25 A. I have just said that they performed their operations in East
1 Bosnia, by and large that it was there, where the war and combat
2 operations were conducted against the then-Serb forces, which were called
3 Chetnik forces, and that at that time in East Bosnia in point of fact
4 there was no, just as there isn't any now, Croat population. So if they
5 conducted operations, it remains that they were trying to protect the
6 population of the area, that is, the Muslim population, from the terror of
7 Chetnik units.
8 Q. And to conclude this story, if you would allow me to conclude
9 briefly, did the Ustasha ever conduct any operation against Muslims? ?
10 A. No. Against Muslims alone, never, because after all there was an
11 exclusively Muslim unit in the independent state of Croatia. It was
12 called Handzar Division, Handzar Divisia, Handzar Regiment, and it was
13 part of the German troops. It was called an SS regiment. So as an SS --
14 as a part of SS troops, it took part in the war on Germany's side, of
16 Q. I'll also ask you a short and decisive question. So will you
17 please try to tell us what is your view. Namely, when the Prosecutor
18 examined you about conflicts and you explained it in your answer, what was
19 your attitude, but the Prosecutor didn't tell you, and I will tell you,
20 that the Prosecutor's Office claims that on the 16th of April, 1993,
21 started the HVO attack on Muslim civilians and that that marked the
22 beginning of the war. Not in Herzegovina alone. Across Bosnia.
23 A. I think that the text which I just read, as the transcript shows
24 how erroneous is such a statement. It is a transcript -- the transcript
25 of an audio recording of a meeting held in Zagreb attended also by
1 Messrs. Mate Boban and Alija Izetbegovic, and they are discussing then
2 numerous conflicts that had broken out by that time. So that is what I
3 can answer.
4 Q. And so let us please go to the transcript but you have read as a
5 whole, and I -- my question to you is: The Vance-Owen Plan, who signed
6 it, who accepted it?
7 A. It was accepted by the delegations headed by Mr. Alija Izetbegovic
8 and the delegation headed by Mr. Mate Boban. Does this transcript say
10 Q. This is implicit in the transcript.
11 Q. Mm-hm. Now, I'm asking you that because the Prosecutor has
12 been claiming for past year that Mr. Alija Izetbegovic never accepted it,
13 let alone signed it. Now, either we have a transcript which is incorrect
14 or something else is not correct.
15 MR. SCOTT: Just for the record, we have never taken the position
16 that Izetbegovic didn't sign the Vance-Owen Plan on about the 26th of
17 March, 1993. We have never taken the position. The joint statement dated
18 the 2nd of April is a completely different issue.
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is not correct
20 either and I will prepare for my final brief. I am taking out all the
21 interests parts of the transcript and will represent it, accurately with
22 what the Prosecutor said in this courtroom and what he didn't and what the
23 transcript says. So I won't go into it now.
24 Q. Have you read Lord Owen's book?
25 A. Yes, I have.
1 Q. And Richard Holbrooke's?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And in those books -- and I see it's implied by this text -- does
4 in those books Mr. Lord Owen speaks about conflicts and attacks of the
5 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina against HVO units and the Croat population,
6 equal in Herzegovina and in Sarajevo and across Bosnia?
7 A. Yes. It is mentioned in Lord Owen's book.
8 Q. Are you familiar with the detail where it is described how the
9 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina went into hospitals and then fired grenades in
10 order to provoke Serb reactions? Did they open fire in the corridors in
11 Lord Owen's memories?
12 A. Not only Lord Owen's reminiscences. I watched this whole
13 situation in a television/film. But you know, I'd rather not go into
14 things like that.
15 Q. Are you familiar as the historian who was the first one to use the
16 word "ethnic cleansing" and whether it was ever known before that?
17 A. Ethnic cleansing? I think it was used for the first time by an
18 official of the American administration, as far as I know.
19 Q. And was this term ever existed in history before that?
20 A. That term was not used in this way. And if we applied it in the
21 sense in which it is existed, this term could be, for instance, applied to
22 the expulsion of 3 million Germans from Czechoslovakia. One could also
23 describe a series of actions which took place in the world over during the
24 past century, but that this term acquired its "popularity," in inverted
25 commas, only thanks to the war in the former Yugoslavia.
1 Q. I think this is my last question. In answer to the Prosecutor's
2 question you were quite clear, but I'd like nevertheless to address you to
3 some more detail. Of course it is possible. This term that we just
4 mentioned, the intent to do it or because of conflicts, war, fighting,
5 because where there is combat civilians have no place where there is
6 combat, how would you comment on that, in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
7 A. I think, and that is my profound conviction, gained after all that
8 I consulted prior to preparing my report, that there was the intent to set
9 in motion large groups of people within a plan for the internal
10 secession. On the other hand, I think that what at first glance really
11 looks like ethnic cleansing, in the conflict between Croat and Muslim
12 forces was the result of a military conflict due to divergent views as to
13 the future of that country. I think that this would be a complete and
14 integral answer.
15 Q. I'm looking for a document that would show this -- the
16 Prosecutor's attempt to show how well things were organised in Mostar.
17 You already gave your answer, but my colleague is now looking for it,
18 because something struck my eye, namely that on every page of this
19 document of the Croatian version, because the Croatian is different, you
20 know, one always has to examine both the Croatian original and the English
21 translation. And on every sheet of paper, even though it is one document,
22 but on every sheet of paper there is a reference number, and you as a
23 historian of course -- let us finish because we're all tired -- to make a
24 document a document and to make it acceptable to you, what are the minimum
25 requirement that is it must meet and how does the document become
1 authentic? Tell us was a historian. We as people, men of law know how it
2 is done. But of course in our country, but perhaps in other systems there
3 are different methods. But please tell us how you as a historian, what
4 will you say tomorrow, historically speaking? Yes, this document is
6 A. There are several criteria which allow us to judge the
7 authenticity of a document. If a document has marks certifying it, which
8 means its official authentification in a legal system, then such a
9 document -- and if it has been preserved in its original form, then it is
10 taken as an authentic document. Any type of irregularity in a document,
11 if we are talking about official documents, makes it necessary to then
12 check whether such a document is indeed authentic or not. The
13 verification is always based on the requirement that this document must
14 correspond to an identical document or a similar series of documents
15 issued by the institution concerned. So that would be the basic
16 criterion. However, as a historian, I must add something else, which
17 probably looks different in my line of work than in the legal line of
18 work. For a historian it is also important not only if a document is
19 authentic from the point of view of the legal form. It is also important
20 to know how well it reflects the reality. And that is what is very
21 important in my line of work.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Would the counsel please switch on his
24 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, your microphone.
25 MR. KRSNIK: Oh, sorry.
1 Q. [Interpretation] As regards the documents which were produced in
2 the territory of, say, ex-Yugoslavia, say, military orders. When we are
3 talk about life and death of people. Then political -- under -- by
4 statute, if they are to be a document, mustn't there be a seal, stamp, and
5 a handwritten authentic signature?
6 A. These are two elements of certification which confirm the
7 authenticity of a document.
8 Q. But I asked you because we do not have signatures in a number of
9 document, even though in English it is translated "signed" even though
10 they were not signed by hand of their authors.
11 A. In contrast with the Anglo-Saxon legal system, where a signature
12 suffices to confirm the authenticity of a document. However, in the legal
13 system or in the legal tradition which exists in this part of Europe, the
14 stamp has the same weight if not more than a signature.
15 Q. A signature which is -- which is handwritten or typed on a
16 computer --
17 A. No. The signature must be by hand.
18 Q. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
19 JUDGE LIU: Judge Clark.
20 JUDGE CLARK: Yes, Mr. Anic, I have many questions for you
21 which -- so I'll have to read your report again and again.
22 Questioned by the Court:
23 JUDGE CLARK: In the context of the loyalties of the Croatian
24 members of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the HDZ party and Dr. Tudjman, this
25 is the context in which you have referred us to an incident which occurred
1 when a tank unit was passing through Herzegovina on its way to Croatia.
2 Now, that's the context in which I'm posing the question. We've heard
3 about this incident from quite a lot of witnesses of very high standing in
4 the HVO, and none of them has mentioned any role at all played by
5 President Tudjman, and I'm curious about that, because if I read the
6 document correctly and it's a translation, I accept, you have a reference,
7 reference 70, to an author called Malcolm, and he says that he mentions
8 this incident only in passing. But you go on to say that the author of
9 this text, however, watched the whole event on a live TV broadcast. Are
10 you referring to yourself, Professor Ancic?
11 A. Mr. Noel Malcom is the author of "Rare Histories of Bosnia." He
12 didn't watch this incident, but he knew about that incident and he
13 described it and I watched the footage of what was happening on my TV in
14 Sarajevo. And I want -- what I wanted to say and point out was the moral
15 authority that, at the time, Dr. Franjo Tudjman had.
16 JUDGE CLARK: I accept totally the context and the reason why you
17 referred to the incident, and that's why I prefaced my question by saying
18 that. You -- as far as I can see, didn't intend to lay a huge amount of
19 emphasis on the incident, but it was how the incident was brought to a
20 close by somebody who had moral authority among the citizens of another
21 country. I accept what you're saying there. But what I -- what I'm
22 asking you about is your observation of the incident on Croatian -- sorry,
23 on television in Sarajevo.
24 Now, what I want to ask you is how did the people in the crowd
25 know or become aware that President Tudjman was addressing them? What
1 were the mechanics of that address to the excited group of people? We've
2 actually seen some footage, I think -- well, maybe we saw a photograph.
3 But we've actually heard a lot about this incident where a lot of people
4 from -- I think it was the town of Siroki Brijeg -- surrounded the tanks
5 and were there for several days and wouldn't allow them to pass, and we
6 heard that President Izetbegovic with Mr. Stjepan Kljuic went down and
7 addressed the people. And in fact, you've referred to that. But what we
8 didn't hear about was the television broadcast. Could you elaborate a
9 little on that, please.
10 A. This all aired on TV, so there is the footage but you saw, and
11 President Tudjman addressed the people via the media, via the television
12 and radio. So the official or the state radio and television network. So
13 he was directly on air in the programme of the state radio and television.
14 JUDGE CLARK: Do you know, I think I've led you astray when I said
15 we saw footage. It was a different incident we saw footage of. We only
16 heard evidence of this incident. But when you watched that on television
17 in Sarajevo, it was long before the -- the referendum in relation to
18 secession from Yugoslavia, from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I take it that
19 tensions were not as high between the Croat and Muslim community at that
20 time. I say this because we are aware that obviously when the war
21 started, the various arms of the media tended to promote what they
22 perceived was the truth and perceptions are what you deal with as a
23 historian. Did you see that on a television programme which would be
24 broadcast to Muslims as well as Croats? Would it have been a reputable
25 television programme?
1 A. At this moment I cannot remember which of the channels of the
2 state TV was that on. In Sarajevo there were three channels of the state
3 television, and there was also a special channel which showed the
4 programmes edited by a group of journalists from all over the former
5 Yugoslavia, and that channel or programme was called Yutel. Now, which of
6 these channels broadcast that particular thing, I can't remember. But at
7 the time those were the only TV channels, not only in Sarajevo but in
8 Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole.
9 JUDGE CLARK: Did you have any reason not to believe what you saw
10 on television, or did you find any confirmation for the truth of what you
11 saw on television by reports in any other form of media the following day,
12 or from talking to your colleagues, or anything like that?
13 A. The events received comments in the other media, and television
14 itself is not a media that shows only the truth and nothing but the
15 truth. It can easily be manipulated. But I didn't find any reason to
16 doubt what I saw.
17 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you.
18 A. You're welcome.
19 JUDGE LIU: Any questions out of Judges' questions? Mr. Krsnik.
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] One, if I may, and that is the
21 question -- I don't know whether my translation is good. I was look at
22 the question posed by Her Honour Clark who said that Mr. Tudjman had
23 influence on the citizens of other states. I'm talk about the convoy, if
24 I understood the question well.
25 JUDGE CLARK: Yes, the citizens -- the Croat citizens of Bosnia
1 and Herzegovina who were members of the HDZ, in that context.
2 Further examination by Mr. Krsnik:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Could we then talk about the citizens of another
5 A. No. Those were citizens of same state, because this happened even
6 before the formal break-up of Yugoslavia.
7 JUDGE CLARK: You're right about that, Mr. Krsnik.
8 MR. KRSNIK: That's all. Thank you.
9 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, thank you very much for coming to give
11 your evidence. Madam Usher will show you out of the room. We all wish
12 you a pleasant journey back home.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE LIU: Well, at this stage any documents to tender?
15 Mr. Krsnik.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we would have only one,
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Any objections, Mr. Scott? That
19 is the report of that witness.
20 MR. SCOTT: No objection to the admission, obviously subject to
21 all the questions, cross-examination, et cetera. But no.
22 JUDGE LIU: Of course. This document is admitted into the
24 And on your part?
25 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Mr. President. I was just going back through the
1 list. I'll try to do my best now. I will double-check myself, if the
2 Court will allow. And if I mind I make an error, I'll try to correct it.
3 But based upon the documents that were actually used with the witness
4 today that were not already admitted, Exhibit 131.1, 273.1, 830.2, 941,
5 943, 944, 945, 946, PT8.1, and I guess we'll need -- it doesn't matter to
6 me, really, but you can either admit the transcript of the "Jure and
7 Boban" song which was previously tendered by the Defence, D1/277, or it
8 can be given a Prosecution number, whichever the registrar prefers.
9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.
10 Any objections? Mr. Krsnik.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. And I would kindly
12 ask you to give us some time to comment on the new documents, because we
13 have to check which ones the Prosecutor used today, which ones he didn't
14 use, and I would like to comment upon these documents.
15 Secondly, Your Honour, another request that we have: We are
16 asking from the colleagues from the Prosecution that all the documents for
17 which the designated source is the BH government or the BH embassy, can
18 they please tell us who provided them with these documents, because here
19 they mention an organ that doesn't exist. And for every document we've
20 heard the testimony of the professor today, every document has to contain
21 a signature or the minister or the deputy minister in order to be valid,
22 and we have to check -- we have to see whether all these documents do
23 indeed bear such signatures and co-signatures. And this will also apply
24 to all the other documentation for which the indicated source is the BH
1 JUDGE LIU: Well --
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I apologise. I've forgotten
3 something. If I may, my colleague has just given me a document we would
4 like to tender, a Prosecution document, P5960. Can this be admitted into
5 evidence because it has been used in the examination, obviously subject to
6 the Prosecution's approval, P960. I'm sorry. I apologise. The number
7 was wrong. P960.
8 JUDGE LIU: Any objections, Mr. Scott?
9 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. We do object. The only reason it
10 was brought up was it was marked for purposes of the showing -- asking the
11 witness questions about it. It did not go into the substance of the
12 document at all, and it's irrelevant, and it was only marked for the
13 purposes of asking the witness if he had in fact contributed to it, so
14 yes, we object.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, we also believe that document is
16 irrelevant in the content of that document. We decided that -- not to
17 admit that document, that is, document P960.
18 I could give you some time on your comments of all those documents
19 tendered by the Prosecution, but you have to know that this is the last
20 witness in the Defence case. We would like to have a sort of clean slate
21 before the rebuttal and the re-joint procedures. So I hope you would
22 file your objections concerning this document this week so that the Trial
23 Chamber could act sometime next week.
24 As for the third matter, this Trial Chamber has no doubts about BH
25 government and the BH embassy at all. I think it's not possible for the
1 Prosecution to provide you who in that government in the embassy provided
2 those documents.
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in that case I have a
4 feeling there may have been a misunderstanding. Are you telling -- are
5 you saying that I'm not telling the truth? Because we have proven that
6 the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina doesn't exist, and the
7 Prosecution cannot indicate a non-existing organ as the source of their
8 documents. There's something wrong here. That organ does not exist.
9 That's why we are asking for that. And you will be able to see for
10 yourself that there is just one segment in Bosnia and Herzegovina that
11 could have provided them with the documents, and those are Bosniaks,
12 i.e. their representatives, and that is AID.
13 Another thing, Your Honour, that I would like to ask you: In one
14 of your decisions you stated that all the documents that have been
15 provided by the United Nations are indisputable, so far I haven't objected
16 to any of them, the Washington Agreement, The Dayton Accord, and all the
17 other documents. I can tender them for admission before the rebuttal,
18 because they cannot be objected to by any of the sides. That's your
19 previous decision when it comes to the documents issued and provided for
20 by the United Nations.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I think you know, you somehow
22 misunderstand what I mean concerning with the UN documents, you know. I
23 think the rule is like this: All the documents tendered, unless otherwise
24 stipulated in other articles or Rules of the Rules of Procedure and
25 Evidence have to go through a witness. This is the practice from the very
1 beginning to the end. We introduced those documents through a witness.
2 There should be no doubt about the authenticity, about the source of those
3 documents. The only criteria is the relevance of these documents to this
4 very case. You could not introduce, you know, hundreds of the UN document
5 to us.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Absolutely not, Your Honour, but I
7 believe that the Vance-Owen Plan, the Washington Agreement, and the Dayton
8 Accords must be integral parts of this file, because the Dayton is the
9 beginning of today's Bosnia, the Bosnia that came by -- into being in 1995
10 and still lives. And if that is the case, then I will formally use my
11 witnesses in the rejoinder, and through the witnesses I will tender these
12 documents for admission because I believe -- the Defence team here
13 believes that these three documents have to make an integral part of this
14 file, of this case, and we are going to provide you with a motion so as to
15 not waste your precious time.
16 MR. MEEK: Your Honour, I think my lead counsel wishes to ask that
17 before we end our case, which we haven't quite, because of the rejoinder
18 and rebuttal, that the Court -- the Trial Chamber take judicial notice of
19 these three documents.
20 JUDGE LIU: No. That's another matter.
21 MR. MEEK: Yes.
22 JUDGE LIU: You could file your motion concerning with the Rule
23 94, that is the judicial notice, and explain your reason for submitting of
24 those documents. I think this Trial Chamber will consider your motion in
25 accordance with the Rule 94 in this aspect.
1 MR. MEEK: Well, that's -- Your Honour, judicial notice is --
2 these documents are easily accessible, they're widely known, and we'd ask
3 you orally now to take notice of the judicial notice of the documents. I
4 don't believe the Prosecutor will have any objection to that procedure,
5 those three agreements.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, any objections?
7 MR. SCOTT: Well, forgive me, Mr. President. Mr. Stringer and I
8 were just discussing. I think it's our -- please allow me to correct
9 ourselves on further review, but it's our position, I believe, that the
10 Vance-Owen Plan is already in evidence. It was signed, as I said earlier
11 today, I think the 26th -- well, signed by the Croat and Muslim sides. It
12 was never signed by the Serbs, of course. But it was signed the 26th of
13 March, 1993, and again no matter how many times Mr. Krsnik says to the
14 contrary, it's never been our position that Mr. Izetbegovic didn't sign it
15 on the 26th of March.
16 I think the Washington Agreement is also in evidence, I believe.
17 I think of the three the only one that might not be in evidence would be
18 Dayton. We would look at that, Mr. President. I suppose it -- surely a
19 true copy of the Dayton Agreement can be found. Off the top of my head
20 I'd say I'm not sure of the relevance of it frankly, because it was not in
21 the late 1995, well after all at the events in this case. But we can
22 certainly look at the -- look at that.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think this Trial Chamber has to do some
24 research on this aspect too. We see whether these three documents have
25 been admitted into the evidence or not. If not, if not, we will make the
1 proper decisions concerning of whether we are going to admit them or not.
2 The last matter: Yesterday was the 23rd of September. That is
3 the last day for the Defence counsel to submit their motions for the
4 rejoinder witnesses. Up to now we haven't received those motions yet. I
5 just want to check it.
6 Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we gave it yesterday to
8 the Registry to our good and worthy Laurent, as we call him. So maybe it
9 hasn't reached you yet, because we started early this morning. And in
10 that motion we have expressed all of our concerns, and what we have
11 written, we -- I'm going to briefly inform you about. We have mentioned
12 some of the witnesses, but for the -- due to the brevity of time between
13 Friday and Monday, I couldn't do everything. We have just indicated the
14 names of the people that we expect, and I am going to confirm that from
15 Mostar to -- and inform my team, because I'm travelling to Mostar
16 tomorrow. So we have indicated four possible names, so to say, out of
17 whom one is -- has been confirmed. And for the others, I don't know, Your
18 Honours. It may happen that some of them will not be able to come. I
19 just have to verify. And I can't be in two places at the same time. I
20 have to go there. And by Friday the latest you're going to get the second
21 and the third name, possibly if you allow us to proceed in that way.
22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. But -- but I hope that motion
23 will not only mention the names but also the substantive matter that you
24 are going to use in your rejoinder so that the Prosecution can make a
25 timely response to your motion.
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, exactly. My
2 questions are going to be the answer to rebuttal, the purpose of the
3 rejoinder is to answer to the rebuttal, and we have indicated the
4 questions that we will be dealing with.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Par.
6 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Mr. President, our Defence has already
7 filed a submission and we have received the confirmation from the Registry
8 that it has been received, so I believe but you will have it in the course
9 of the day today. So in brief what we have asked in our submission, with
10 regard to the fact that one witness has been called to -- has identified
11 here the so-called wooden rifle. We have asked from the Chamber to issue
12 an order to the Prosecution to provide us, to give us that wooden rifle if
13 it exists, to tell us where the wooden rifle comes from, what is -- what
14 are its origins, and in case we receive all that, we ask for the approval
15 to have the wooden rifle assessed by the experts of the institute for
16 criminal expertise in Zagreb. So this is what our submission contains in
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, I would -- I was just informed about -- by
20 Madam Registrar from D1/277 is marked as P961, document P961.
21 Well, I think we are adjourned until the 7th of October for the
22 rebuttal and the rejoinder procedures. We will rise.
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
24 at 3.58 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,
25 the 7th day of October, 2002, at 9.30 a.m.