1 Wednesday, 28 February 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness enters court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, call the case,
8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President. Case
9 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. On
11 this Wednesday, I'd like to say good morning to the witness, the
12 Prosecution, Defence counsel, and the accused. Ladies and gentlemen,
13 before I give the floor to Mr. Scott to continue the proceedings the
14 registrar is going to give us some IC numbers.
15 THE REGISTRAR: There is a new English translation of Article 34
16 of P 00588. That shall be given Exhibit number IC 451. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Scott, you have
18 the floor.
19 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. Good morning
20 to everyone in the courtroom.
21 WITNESS: JOSIP PRALJAK [Resumed]
22 [Witness answered through interpreter]
23 Examination by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Praljak. Sir, we'll try to finish up the
25 Prosecution's direct examination hopefully in a few minutes. What I'd
1 like to do now is, as we mentioned in court in the last couple of days, is
2 to show you some of the binders of the -- really all of the binders that
3 we have been using with you or referring to in the course of your
4 testimony. A number of the documents that we have looked at in the course
5 of your testimony in the last two days are the type of document indicated
6 or -- excuse me -- included in the binders. However, I'm now going to go
7 through these binders with you in some -- slightly more detail.
8 If I could please first of all have the witness shown binder
9 number 1 or bundle 1.
10 MR. SCOTT: Sometimes -- sometimes the bundle numbers and the
11 binder numbers, Your Honour, are not exactly the same, and that might lead
12 to some confusion. I'll try to do the best to keep it straight. Binder 1
13 is in fact the same as bundle 1?
14 Q. Sir, based upon your having looked at that document and as you
15 looked at that bundle of documents over the weekend, I'm going to ask you,
16 could you please confirm to the Judges that this bundle 1 is a set of
17 release orders signed by Stanko Bozic, the schedule beginning with Exhibit
18 2289, P 02289, and continuing on until P 08216. Just so the record is
19 clear, not consecutive. The numbers are not consecutive because they are
20 pulled from other lists, but just by way of reference the schedule begins
21 with P 02289 and ends with P 08216.
22 Mr. Praljak, can you just confirm that that -- the binder that is
23 now in front of you, which is bundle 1, contains release orders signed by
24 Mr. Bozic, to the best of your knowledge?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. All right. Thank you very much. If we could shall --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one precision. Signed by
3 Mr. Bozic or by the witness himself? Because there's some like that too.
4 MR. SCOTT: Signed -- either signed -- prepared for Mr. Bozic's
5 signature, that is the type signature, typed name, if you will, but either
6 signed by Mr. Bozic himself or signed by the witness, Mr. Praljak. Excuse
7 me, Your Honour.
8 Q. Is that correct, sir?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, in that same -- in that same binder there's a divider and
11 then you should get to bundle number 2. So again it's in -- it's in
12 binder 1, but we're now going to bundle 2, separate schedule. And can you
13 please confirm -- and this is the schedule that begins with -- excuse me a
14 moment. This binder contains -- or bundle contains starting with P 02217
15 and the schedule ends with P 07152. These are release orders signed by
16 either Mr. Zvonko Vidovic or Josip Marcinko. Mr. Praljak, can you confirm
17 that is the case, please?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All right. We can put up -- that binder away, please, just to
20 avoid confusion. Next -- the next binder would be -- I'm going to do them
21 in a group of -- I was going to do binder number 5, actually. Hold on one
22 moment, please.
23 I'm jumping to binder -- bundle 5. I'll come back to bundles 3
24 and 4 in a moment because I think some of the bundles are more directly
25 related to each other than others.
1 Sir, this is -- I've now put in front you -- or had put in front
2 of you bundle number 5. These -- this is a binder containing 20 items.
3 The schedule begins with number P 03200 continuing to P 07152 -- or again
4 not continuing but ending with that exhibit number. These are releases
5 signed by Mr. Berislav Pusic, and can you confirm that that's the contents
6 of bundle number 5?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I'd like the witness to next be shown, please, binder number 6,
9 which is also -- binder number 6, which is also in binder 4. This is set
10 of 12 documents. The first exhibit number in this bundle be Exhibit P
11 02267, the last exhibit included in this bundle being P 02476, and these
12 are various release orders and requests signed by miscellaneous persons
13 as listed on the description of the document, and can be just confirm --
14 Excuse me. Can you confirm for us, Mr. Praljak, that that is the case?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. If we can please do exhibit -- next exhibit bundle number 11 which
17 is there binder 12 and following separately. Binder 12, bundle 11. This
18 is schedule of 27 items. The first exhibit listed in the schedule is
19 Exhibit P 02258 continuing to -- or the last exhibit listed being P 08773.
20 The category or description of this particular set of 27 documents are
21 various lists of detainees at the Heliodrom. And looking at the dates,
22 all primarily during 1993, a few subsequent to that.
23 Can you confirm, Mr. Praljak, please, that bundle 11 contains the
24 material that I've just described?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And I should say in general on these bundles, and when I'm asking
2 you these questions, these are all documents of a type or form of document
3 that you saw being used in the administration of the Heliodrom prison
4 during the 1993, 1994 time period; is that correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can I please ask you next to look at bundle number 12, which is in
7 binder 12. This is a list of 45 items. The schedule starts with Exhibit
8 number P 07340. The last item listed in this schedule is Exhibit P 08216.
9 And these are documents -- these are reports on numbers of detainees kept
10 and released from the Heliodrom during the later period December 1993 to
11 April 1994. And again, Mr. Praljak, in looking at those and having looked
12 at those previous to today, can you confirm that the contents of bundle 12
13 is as I've described it?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Thank you very much.
16 MR. SCOTT: Just for the record, Your Honours, the reasons that I
17 have ground bundles 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12 is that these are all binders
18 dealing with lists of detainees and releases in particular in that
20 If I could next ask the witness to be shown bundle number 3, which
21 I understand extends over binders 2 and 3 but we're looking at binder --
22 excuse me, bundle 3.
23 Q. Bundle 3 is a list of 262 documents. The first exhibit on the
24 schedule being P 02667, and the last exhibit listed in this schedule being
25 P 07091, and the category of these documents are orders for the use of
1 detainees for labour, primarily from Mijo Jelic.
2 And once again, Mr. Praljak, can you confirm that the documents
3 that are contained in bundle 3 are -- are of the category that I've just
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. If I can next please ask the witness to look at binder number 4 --
7 or -- my apology, bundle 4, which is in binder 4. Bundle 4 is a set of 87
8 items. The schedule begins with Exhibit number 02727, and the schedule
9 ends with Exhibit number P 07459.
10 This is a set of materials described as requests for prisoners for
11 labour, primarily coming from Mile Puljic. Not entirely but primarily, as
12 you look through the list, anyone will see that he is the primary person
13 in these lists asking for prisoners for labour.
14 And, sir, if you can look just to see again, confirm once again
15 what you've seen in that binder 4 and that bundle 4, are those documents
16 as I've described them?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Could I ask you to next look at bundle number 7 which is included
19 in binders 5 and 6. Bundle 7 is a large bundle of 337 items. The
20 schedule begins with Exhibit number P 04898 and continues to -- or again
21 the schedule ends with Exhibit P 07127. Excuse me, P 07127. And this
22 document consists of approvals for taking detainees for labour. Again,
23 337 items, approvals to take prisoners to work.
24 And, Mr. Praljak, can I again ask you to confirm, having reviewed
25 these documents, that those -- the documents in bundle 7 are as I've just
1 described them?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you. Going to bundle number 8, which is in binder 7.
4 Bundle 8. Bundle 8 is a set of 118 items, 118 items the schedule
5 beginning with P 03293, and the scheduling ending with Exhibit P 08147.
6 The category of items included in this bundle are reports concerning
7 detainees being beaten, wounded or killed while performing labour.
8 And again, Mr. Praljak, can you confirm that this bundle of
9 materials, bundle number 8, is as I've described it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And going to bundle number 10, which is in binders -- these
12 logbooks that are quite thick and therefore that's the reason they are
13 spread over bundle -- excuse me, binders 8, 9, 10, and 11. Again, bundle
14 10, but binders 8, 9, 10, and 11. This is a set of 13 items starting on
15 the schedule with Exhibit P 00285 and ending with P 08202 described as
16 logbooks and various logbooks used in the administration of the prison.
17 Most of them -- all or most of them, one can see looking at the face of
18 the schedule, dealing with the taking of prisoners for labour. Again,
19 some of these we've seen in court as examples. The logbook from the
20 prison building, the logbook from the school, and the sports hall.
21 Sir, can you again confirm that the documents or items in bundle
22 10 or -- are the documents as I've described them just now?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. Going back to bundle number 9, which is binder 7.
25 Bundle 9, binder 7 is a compilation of nine items, a short set of items.
1 The list starting with Exhibit number P 01514 and continuing to P 09121,
2 and these are various documents written and/or signed by the witness
3 himself which we have not specifically -- some -- at least some of which
4 we have not specifically addressed in the course of his testimony.
5 Sir, is it correct that bundle number 9 consists of approximately
6 nine documents signed -- either written or signed by you?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Thank you. And finally binder -- excuse me, bundle 14, bundle 14,
9 which is in binder 16. Did not have any particular occasion to refer to
10 it in your testimony, but is it correct, sir, that in the course of the
11 events in -- including 1993 that you kept a -- you kept a diary and that
12 the original language version or a copy of the original language version
13 of that -- of your diary and an English translation is included in bundle
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I understand this was for whatever reason previously listed at one
17 time as part of bundle 9, but in any event, it is -- the diary is more
18 specifically Exhibit P 00352. So in this instance the exhibit number and
19 the bundle and the content is one and the same. It's one exhibit, P
21 MR. SCOTT: And I just for the record so there is no confusion, I
22 have not mentioned binder 13 or bundle 13, and that is the working bundle
23 that we've used in the courtroom. So, Your Honour, with that -- Your
24 Honours, with that the Prosecution has covered bundles 1 through 14
1 Q. Thank you for that, Mr. Praljak. I just have a couple of final
2 questions for you before concluding the direct examination.
3 Prior to coming to The Hague were you -- did you have a
4 conversation with anyone in the past several weeks that someone said
5 something to you about the value of your testimony or whether you should
6 come to The Hague or not?
7 A. I only had a meeting with Mr. Marinko Skobic, an attorney in
8 Mostar. The conversation did not evolve nor was anything suggested by him
9 which would influence me as to what kind of testimony I would give.
10 Q. Let me see --
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Mr. --
12 MR. SCOTT: Sure.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, good morning Your Honours. I don't
14 believe we've received anything as far as proofing notes and I imagine
15 this would have come out during the proofing session. I don't know where
16 the gentleman is going. I do think this is something that should have
17 been provided to the Defence in advance. I hope in the future this will
18 not occur again. Thank you.
19 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I agree with Mr. Karnavas, and since the
20 witness has already said that it did not influence him as to what kind of
21 testimony he would give, it would appear that what he's about to say is
22 irrelevant, as well as being a form of ambush of the Defence.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
24 MR. SCOTT: As to the notice issue, Your Honour, it appears I
25 may be in a position to owe the Defence an apology for that. And as to
1 the item, this is the item that the witness just referred to.
2 Unfortunately --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Mr. Scott.
4 Counsel on his feet.
5 MR. SCOTT: My apology.
6 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
7 feel prompted to give a brief explanation. On the 6th of March last year,
8 I sent a letter to the Prosecution using previous practice saying that we
9 wished to talk to some of the witnesses. We never received a response,
10 feedback information, and Mr. Skobic is a member of the Pusic Defence
11 team, and I think Mr. Scott can confirm that the letter was sent out and
12 he was informed about the conversation. The witness said that there was
13 no pressure exerted on him or any influence wielded, so I wanted to give
14 that brief explanation.
15 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, the problem with -- one of the problems
16 with not -- attempting not to lead a witness is that there could be any
17 number of items that the witness then might volunteer. In response to my
18 question, the witness has just volunteered a statement about Mr. Skobic
19 which was not the person or topic that I was inquiring about. So
20 unfortunately I have no quarrel with what Mr. Ibrisimovic has said, but
21 it's not concerning contact with Mr. Skobic.
22 Q. Sir, have you -- you're a pensioner; is that correct? You receive
23 a pension now?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Did someone that you worked with or have contact with in
1 connection with the administration of your pension say something to you
2 about the value of your evidence or whether you should come to The Hague?
3 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, Mr. Scott is proceeding without --
4 without obtaining a ruling of the Trial Chamber. We have made an
5 objection to this as being, first of all, apparently irrelevant; and
6 secondly, a form of ambush of which we have been given no notice, and I
7 would ask the Trial Chamber, please, to rule upon this before allowing it
8 to proceed.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
10 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have understood it is the
12 witness himself that broke the -- brought the subject up and told you that
13 he had met with Mr. Skobic.
14 MR. SCOTT: Yes.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's it, isn't it? And you
16 wanted to inform the Chamber thereof, of that element.
17 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry. I was not clear. The question -- the
18 topic of the question that I initiated a couple of moments ago does not
19 involve Mr. Skobic at all, but the witness -- about Mr. Skobic. I'm
20 talking about another situation. The contact with Mr. Skobic for our
21 purposes is completely irrelevant. It was not the reason I was asking my
23 During the course of -- if you want to -- perhaps, Your Honour, I
24 don't want to have too much discussion of this prior to the witness -- in
25 front of the witness, but I can tell the Chamber, if you wish, the topic
1 of the content.
2 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, Mr. Scott --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's put Mr. Skobic to the
4 side. Mr. Ibrisimovic made the comments he wanted so we've dealt with the
5 Skobic matter.
6 Now, what was the other problem you wish to raise.
7 MR. SCOTT: I wish to ask the witness, Your, Honour to confirm
8 that the man who administers his pension told him that he really probably
9 shouldn't come to The Hague, that he really had nothing to offer; it would
10 not be in his interest to do so.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, Your Honour, with all due respect. It
12 seem -- I understand the Prosecution wanting to get this information out.
13 They learned of it. Perhaps they feel an obligation to do so. However,
14 now it's casting some negative light on the accused as if somebody is
15 trying to get to this witness.
16 Now -- well, you're shaking your head, Judge Trechsel, but being
17 on the Defence side I have to wonder, you know, because it gives the
18 impression that somehow we're trying to get to the witness.
19 Now, I've never met the man. I don't know why this person said
20 whatever it is. The gentleman decided to testify nonetheless --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Nobody said it was you. Why do
22 you think so? Nobody said it was you.
23 Now, Witness, can you explain the situation around your pension?
24 What happened in that regard? Explain that to us, please, Witness,
25 because we can invoke contempt of court if anybody has exerted pressure on
1 a witness. So tell us, please, sir, what actually happened.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Two days before I set out to testify
3 here I was called up by the prosecutor of the Herzegovina-Neretva county
4 Zdravko Skaric [as interpreted]. I thought he was going to say that I
5 needed some additional papers because I am a war invalid and receive the
6 remuneration which comes to 315 convertible marks, and I asked -- I said
7 to him, "Why have you called me up?" He said, "I haven't got your
8 documents here. They're in Sarajevo." And I said, "Well, what do you
9 need the documents for, chief?" And I'm going to quote him. He said,
10 "You're not going to help your cousin much in The Hague." And this
11 surprised me coming from him, and I said, "I don't know the sense of that
12 conversation. I don't know what you mean," and I left. I went out of the
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Why -- why do we -- I can't, Your Honour. Why
15 don't we get this information in advance? And what is the relevance of
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So in what does this concern
18 Mr. Prlic? You are getting agitated.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: It concerns the entire Defence, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Oui.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, no. First of all, Witness,
23 in line 2 of page 13, lines 1 and 2, there may be an error because you
24 said you were called up by the prosecutor of this county. Mr. Skaric is
25 in fact who? I thought it was an administrative official, not the
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It's not the prosecutor. It's
3 not the prosecutor. It's a person --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So what is his position?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We call him director or, rather,
6 deputy director for defenders of the HVO of the Herzegovina-Neretva
8 MR. SCOTT: Can I just correct, Your Honour, for the record his
9 name. I think it's in the record as "Skaric," which I don't believe is
11 Q. Sir, can you repeat the name of this person who made this comment
12 to you?
13 A. Zdravko Talic.
14 Q. Talic?
15 A. T-a-l-i-c.
16 Q. Thank you, sir.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The impression that
18 is being created is he came to see you about your pension, and he must
19 know obviously that you are a relative of Mr. Praljak, his cousin, that
20 you are going to The Hague and you are probably not going to do him
21 service, a favour. So do you think he was expressing his personal
22 sentiments or he was doing that to exert pressure on you?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I couldn't decide, and I couldn't
24 think about it because I was so taken aback by what he said. And I
25 replied, "I am an invalid, and in view of my disability, I am acquitting
1 myself pretty well, and I know very well what I'm going to say and talk
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Scott, the
5 Chamber has conferred, and we believe that this is incidental and has no
6 bearing on the subject at large.
7 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, we won't go into it any further --
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
9 MR. SCOTT: My apologies. The information has been provided and
10 we will not belabour it at this point. In terms of the significance of
11 it, Your Honour, and again I don't want to take the time now or the
12 witness's time to go into it, the Prosecution -- the very, very short
13 version is the Prosecution believes it's relevant to the Chamber to know
14 the environment in which these witnesses live and come to The Hague in,
15 and we feel it our obligation, as we have on a number of occasions, that
16 when we receive information from a witness that a witness believes he or
17 she has been harassed or interfered with or something untoward has been
18 said to the witness in any way that we bring that to the attention of the
19 Chamber. In the past number months, a number of statements have been made
20 and claims have been made about there's no problems down there, everything
21 is fine, and, Your Honour, that's not the Prosecution's position. And
22 when a witness comes to us and says someone that administers his pension,
23 his livelihood, the means that he supports himself, and makes a comment to
24 the effect of discouraging him from coming to The Hague to give his
25 evidence, we think that's relevant, and we will continue to bring that
1 information before the Chamber.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Scott, I think it would be -- it is called
3 for that you explain to the Chamber why you did not warn the Defence in
4 advance of this point.
5 MR. SCOTT: My error, Your Honour. My error. I was here all
6 weekend and I didn't do it. I've been working and Ms. Egels, non-stop. I
7 apologise. I apologise to the Defence. It probably won't be the first it
8 probably won't be the last, Your Honour, but it was my oversight.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Shouldn't the consequence then be that you forget
10 about this point and not bring it up? I think that would be the full
11 respect of fairness --
12 MR. SCOTT: I don't think so, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: -- to the Defence.
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Scott.
15 MR. SCOTT: I respectfully submit that is not to do with these
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
18 MR. SCOTT: It's going on and off, Your Honour.
19 With all respect, Judge Trechsel, I don't believe so. Granted it
20 has nothing to do with the counts of the indictment per se but it is
21 conduct related to a witness that they think the Chamber should be aware
22 of. Again I extend my apology. I'm not here to provide any other excuse
23 except it was oversight, unfortunately. The Prosecution team is working
24 very hard. I personally worked 14 hours on Sunday from 8.30 in the
25 morning until 10.30 Sunday night, and I forgot. I forgot and I apologise
1 for that.
2 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, just a few seconds.
4 You know that there is a rule concerning contempt of court, and persons
5 shall be responsible for contempt of court if they tamper with the
6 administration of justice and if they are guilty of any failure to present
7 relevant evidence. So you are, together with your colleagues, entitled to
8 make an inquiry in this case. That is your role.
9 There is a rule in the Rules of Procedure that allows you to take
10 such a step and to act upon that rather than on theories and hypotheses.
11 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I don't want to belabour it any further
12 and take the Court's time or my time to do it this morning, but I think
13 that -- I think it is relevant for the Chamber to know whether contempt
14 charges are ever brought or not the Chamber is entitled to be informed of
15 the environment in which the case proceeds. Whether we can prove a
16 contempt case against any particular individual or not or whether it
17 warrants an actual prosecution or not are separate decisions but the
18 Chamber, in our respectful decision, should have the information and when
19 we talk about protective measures and that sort of thing that the
20 witnesses who come here, the Chamber needs to be fully advised as to the
21 situation in that regard.
22 Now, let me just say to conclude this that there is one other
23 matter about a contact with this witness but in light of what's been said
24 this morning we'll make a separate filing of that, but in this particular
25 case I must advise the Chamber, I have to advise the Chamber in case the
1 Chamber wants to inquire of the witness, but in this case it was a contact
2 directly by one of the accused in this case, and I'll leave it at that.
3 If the Chamber wants to inquire, you may do so.
4 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, the microphones aren't -- Your Honour,
5 this is absolutely disgraceful. And I've known Mr. Scott there the
6 beginning of this case and I have implicit faith in him personally but
7 this is absolutely disgraceful. The Prosecution here is -- is trying to
8 poison the mind of the Trial Chamber with innuendo and rumour without
9 actually bringing it to the attention of the Defence so that it can be
10 dealt with.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a minute, Mr. Murphy. The
12 word "to poison" was already used in written submissions, and we have
13 already replied that the minds of the Judges cannot be poisoned. A Judge
14 cannot be poisoned in his mind.
15 MR. MURPHY: I'm grateful to hear that, Your Honour, and I -- I --
16 as you know I have the utmost confidence in the Trial Chamber, but the
17 point that the Prosecution should not be making the attempt to do it.
18 Now, we've -- it's happened time after time, as Your Honour knows
19 in this trial, that a witness comes to The Hague and says something to the
20 Prosecution about some contact that's been made and the immediate reaction
21 is the Prosecution applies for protective measures. And then we have a
22 discussion about that and they're either granted or refused.
23 Are now, this information was available to the Prosecution. If --
24 if there was a good faith concern about it they had ample time to make a
25 filing and to advise the Defence that they were seeking protective
1 measures for the witness which would have taken care of the situation.
2 This has not been done. And what's happening now is that by innuendo,
3 again, we're hearing that contacts are being made, things are going on
4 back there. The intent -- the intent being to suggest something nefarious
5 without committing themselves to any specific allegations and now we're
6 ambushed. We don't have the time to deal with it. We were not given
8 Your Honour, the -- this is an unacceptable situation. If this --
9 if the Defence did things like this we would be in serious trouble, and
10 there should not be a double standard for the Prosecution. This is an
11 outrage. I protest against it, and I ask that the Prosecution be
12 admonished and instructed not to take this any further.
13 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I briefly -- briefly, Your Honour.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
15 MR. SCOTT: You have to allow me to respond. Those are strong
16 statements. With all respect, Your Honour, please, allow a very brief
18 First of all, the witness did not seek protective measures. It's
19 his prerogative to ask but he thought and we thought that the information
20 should be provided to the Chamber whether he seeks protective measures in
21 this case or not. A witness may be very robust in his case and decide, I
22 don't want protective measures. I want to give my testimony publicly.
23 But at the same time at the same time I want the Chamber to be informed of
24 this information and it still remains the Prosecution's position that the
25 Chamber is entitled to the information.
1 I have offered my apology. I did not duck the issue. I offer no
2 excuse other than oversight on my part for which I apologise to the
3 Chamber and to counsel but sometimes mistakes do happen unfortunately.
4 That is a reality, and I think it's -- I have a great respect for
5 Mr. Murphy, who I consider my friend, but some of the statements he has
6 just made I believe are over -- over the top.
7 As to the second item, Your Honour, I will not proceed further
8 again except to respond to counsel's comments. This is not innuendo.
9 This witness, the man sitting here had face-to-face contact with one of
10 the accused in this case. There is no innuendo whatsoever. He can tell
11 you about it under oath right here. He can tell you who he talked to but
12 I leave it in the Chamber's hands. There is no innuendo at all. Thank
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
15 Witness, it seems that you had a conversation with one of the
16 accused. Is that right or not? What can you tell us? Did you speak to
17 your cousin if it's your cousin? What can you tell us?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it was last year. I was
19 shopping when I got a call from the brother of Mr. Berko Pusic. Together
20 with my wife I went into his office and there I met with Mr. Berko Pusic.
21 I was surprised. Both my wife and I exchanged courtesies with him. There
22 was not much talk between us. He did not tell me anything in the sense
23 that I should change anything to my testimony or statements, and at that
24 time I didn't even know that I would be called here as a witness. So we
25 stayed there very briefly, said our good-byes, and my wife and I went
1 home. That was my entire contact with Mr. Berislav Pusic.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. So you did not speak
3 about the substance of this case. It was a purely friendly meeting, an
4 encounter among friends.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The only thing is that in that
6 conversation I just said, "Berko, in case I am invited to The Hague, I
7 will tell only the truth." He only answered, "All right."
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This incident is
9 closed. We move to the Defence now. It's 10 -- or, rather, it's a
10 quarter to 10.00. It's time to start the cross-examination. Who will
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I will
13 start. May I ask the usher, and I didn't have occasion to do that before,
14 to take this bundle of documents.
15 Your Honour, I don't want to deal any more with these issues
16 because you have closed the discussion, although it does upset me a little
17 in the beginning of my cross-examination in view of this information which
18 just heard. I would have much preferred if we had received it earlier,
19 speaking on behalf of the Stojic Defence. If we had occasion to know this
20 before, we would have inquired into the identity of that person who spoke
21 to the witness, because it seems to be some sort of deputy director, which
22 in our system is not supposed to hand out pensions, and we would have been
23 able to show that this pressure, if any, is certainly not one that was
24 exerted by our clients. But I hope that in the future we will receive
25 this kind of information in good time and thus be able to assist the Court
1 in clearing up anything that needs to be cleared up and is vague.
2 Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, sir.
4 A. Good morning.
5 Q. You just received a bundle of documents from me, but you don't
6 have to look at them now. And the usher didn't need to stay there either.
7 I was informed that a new system was being introduced with regard to the
8 presentation of documents, so I prepared hard copies for the ELMO should
9 we have any problems.
10 Now, with regard to the last point that the Prosecutor raised with
11 you, I think that through these bundles of documents the Prosecutor
12 questioned you as to whether you had reviewed all of the documents
13 contained therein, and I'd like to ask you how much time did you spend in
14 proofing with the Prosecutor, and how much time in total did you have to
15 review the documents in all these binders?
16 A. We spent the whole day of Saturday, from morning to the evening,
17 and the whole day on Sunday, as well as Monday until 12.30. For three
18 days I didn't go out anywhere. I just reviewed the documents. I even had
19 lunch here.
20 Q. I believe my colleagues will deal with it as well, but let me ask
21 you, do you know how many documents in total are contained in the binders
22 that you say you reviewed?
23 A. Well, I leafed through all of them but I didn't count them. I
24 didn't bother.
25 Q. For the record I'll say that there are 1.344 documents there. You
1 say, and I take your word for it, I have no reason not to, that you
2 reviewed all of them, and that on top of that you had enough time to speak
3 to the Prosecutor about specific documents.
4 A. Just one clarification. Since the documents are divided by
5 categories, and if they relate to Mr. Mijo Jelic, all the documents were
6 in the possession of Mijo Jelic in the same format, with the same
7 signature, and if they were not signed by him they were signed by his
8 deputy, Vladimir Primorac Dedo, or alternatively Ivica Cavar. Another
9 category from the 3rd Brigade is also of the same format, along the same
10 lines, filled in in the same way, signed by Pavlovic or Mile Pusic or Pajo
11 Sopta. So it was much easier to go through those documents than if they
12 had been all heaped together. Then I wouldn't have managed to deal with
14 Q. I'm just waiting for the transcript. But you will agree with me
15 that although one person signed them, all different context. You just
16 explained how you managed to review them quickly without going into the
17 substance because they were all from one person. Is that what you said?
18 A. I wouldn't put it exactly the same way, but being familiar with a
19 document from 1993, I knew where my eyes need to go and what I need to
20 look at.
21 Q. Thank you, sir. I don't want to dwell on it any further. We'll
22 see later through the documents that I will present to you to what extent
23 you really are familiar with some of those documents.
24 Please, on the 1st of July, 1992, did you start working at the
25 district prison in Mostar? And did the warden of that prison tell you on
1 your very first day that you would be overseeing works to convert the
2 building at Heliodrom, that should become a military investigations prison
3 or a military prison?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Before the works began did you make a sketch of the premises in
6 that building that needed to be converted?
7 A. On that day or the next day, it's in my diary, we went down there
8 accompanied by a gentleman who knew the location, Mr. Nikola Puce, and who
9 took me there to show me which building was selected so that I made that
10 sketch. In fact, I made the layout of the building to facilitate making a
11 specification of the material that needed to go into that building.
12 Because that was a school. It was full of some material in the basement,
13 infantry equipment. People were getting trained there. All that needed
14 to be removed and cleaned and cleared up, and then only start works.
15 Q. I'm waiting for the transcript so we don't overlap.
16 Can you tell me, was that the building that on the layout shown
17 you by the Prosecutor under IC number 449 you designated as the prison?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Can we look at the entry in diary for the 2nd of July, 1992. It's
20 P 00352. So that you don't have to look for it, I'll ask the usher to
21 give it to you. I prepared it because it would have taken you a long time
22 to find it, together with the layout.
23 We'll use the layout later, but now look in your diary, page for
24 the 1st of July. It's the next page, the next one after this. In English
25 it's page 3. And in the Croatian version it's marked 03540172. This is
1 the ERN number.
2 It's your entry for the 1st of July. You have probably found it
3 by now; right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You say somewhere in the middle that it was your first day at
6 work, that you were given the responsibility to carry out these works;
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Let's just look at page 3 in English, the entry for the next day.
10 Is that the layout we are discussing now? So in English page 3. In
11 Croatian it's 0354. One page further, please.
12 Could the usher please -- no, in fact, the usher didn't need to
13 stand by the witness at this moment. If we could just place the proper
14 page in e-court. That's much more important now. I believe the Judges
15 have found the page showing a layout of the first floor and the stairwell.
16 Is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you tell us, what is this first floor? Next page. Next
20 Could you tell us in your own words what is depicted here? We see
21 three rooms of 3 by 5.
22 A. We see here the ground floor, the official entrance, service
23 entrance, into the building on the ground floor. This is a hallway that
24 on the right-hand side had a room of 3 by 5. That's 15 square metres.
25 And we had to mark the area in order to know the whole area of the
1 building so that we can make a specification for later works.
2 Q. Can we go to the next page? This was the first floor. In English
3 it's page 4.
4 We see the ground floor and the first floor.
5 A. When we go upstairs, up these stairs, what is depicted here is
6 just one side of the floor, the right side where bars were put up, which
7 means that all these rooms beyond the dotted line were separated from the
8 staircase and that area was under lock with the key in the possession of
9 the shift commander.
10 There was one bedroom, later turned into a bedroom, in fact, 60
11 square metres. Second bedroom or dormitory, 97 square metres, and a third
12 one of an area of 45 square metres. And what we see over here were the
13 bathroom and the lavatory with showers and four or five toilets. And the
14 running water was available throughout.
15 This same layout was on the other side, on the left side. So it
16 was not shown. And the dimensions are the same.
17 Q. Very well, sir. Now, can we then conclude that what you've just
18 described to us is the first floor and that you had running water, enough
19 hot water, but tell us what happened on the ground floor. What was the
20 situation like on the ground floor that you put there? Ground floor.
21 A. The ground floor here as shown was the same thing, the same
22 distribution and layout of the rooms. There was this same thing on the
23 ground floor, which means the same number of rooms as on the floor
25 Q. Very well. Thank you. Over the next few days in your diary you
1 say that the work was progressing satisfactorily, and we can see from your
2 diary that you were receiving the necessary material for the adaptation
3 and that the whole adaptation was completed with people moving in on the
4 22nd of September, 1992; is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. In your diary you also say how you procured the equipment after
7 having taken up accommodation in the premises. Do you remember that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Let's see what your entry was for the 24th of September, for
10 instance. And I'd like to emphasise that in the English version it is on
11 page 15.
12 Have you found that? Tell me when you find it. I'm referring to
13 your entry of the 24th of September. The ERN number is 03540184. And I
14 said that in English it was on page 13.
15 Have you found that, sir?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I'm referring to the 24th of September. You've found it. Right.
18 Now, here we see that you have a meeting with the warden for that
19 day, and the first thing says: "Urgently to see to the telephones," but
20 we're not going to deal with that in the prison. But then you say: "The
21 warden gave permission for five people for tomorrow to buy covers,
22 blankets, and so on." Then it says that some people worked on digging up
23 the potatoes.
24 And may we have a look at the next page. It's page 16 in the
25 English. And the note for the 26th of September, let's look at that --
1 or, rather, the 27th of September where you say that you had a meeting
2 with the warden and that the warden gave permission for six people to move
3 the furniture. And then underneath that we see that on the 28th of
4 September the warden ordered the warehouse clerk, Andjelko Filipovic, to
5 construct some cupboards for the kitchen. Is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, from this logbook or diary of yours we can see that for the
8 most part you managed during that time of adaptation to obtain all the
9 necessary material for this facility to function. Am I right in saying
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. So the facility then, once people had moved into it, can we say
13 that it satisfied requirements, fully satisfied the needs and requirements
14 necessary for, as you said, putting up 500 to 550 detainees?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So this was a premises that had been adapted to be used in this
17 way; is that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, can you tell me whether around the facility
20 that we refer to as the prison, the prison proper, was there a wire
22 A. Not at that time.
23 Q. When was that wire fence put up?
24 A. While I was down there it hadn't been put up.
25 Q. Was there an entrance gate in front of the facility?
1 A. There was no gate. There was just a large metal door on the
2 facility itself, but before that there was no gate. It was only later on
3 towards the end of 1993 when the prisoner of war shelter had been put up
4 that the wire fence had been put up as well.
5 Q. This shelter or accommodation that you said was erected later on
6 and had this wire fence, did it incorporate this building, too, the
7 building that you prepared and adapted for being the central investigating
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. May we now look at the layout of the Heliodrom barracks and it is
11 document P 09219 [as interpreted]. May we have the sketch put up on the
12 ELMO, please. I have provided the sketch. The witness has it. It is
13 document -- while we're waiting for it to come up on the ELMO, or we can
14 all take a look at it on the ELMO.
15 Did you place your signature to this sketch as well as the date in
16 the upper right-hand corner? And when did you do that, if you did?
17 A. I did this during my work with the investigators, and once again
18 confirmed it on Saturday when I came on Saturday or Sunday and went
19 through the documents.
20 Q. Did you happen to notice that on the sketch it says that it is an
21 HVO concentration camp named Heliodrom? Look at what it says at the top
22 as a heading. It says the "plan of the former JNA barracks and HVO
23 concentration camp Heliodrom."
24 A. I'm reading that now but I didn't notice it earlier on. I wasn't
25 paying attention to what it said as a heading. All I did was to look at
1 the sketch and the layout and be able to mark what I had been asked to
2 mark, the places where the prison was and which facilities were used. But
3 let me say straight away that I do not agree as a witness, and I would
4 never have used this term "concentration camp." I would never have used
5 that expression because I wasn't marking concentration camps. All I was
6 doing was marking facilities where the prisoners of war were held captive
7 as well as military prisoners and detainees.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] My colleagues have drawn my attention
10 to the fact that it's the wrong exhibit on e-court. But let's forget the
11 e-court. We have the proper document on the overhead projector that we're
12 discussing with the witness.
13 Q. That's what I wanted to clarify with you, sir, because it would
14 emerge from this that you put your signature and date to a document which
15 I assume because you spent so much time working there and trying to put
16 things the way they should be that you would never accept that this is a
17 concentration camp. Am I right in thinking that?
18 A. Yes. I as a witness do not wish to utter that word ever. I don't
19 want that word to come out of my mouth ever.
20 Q. All right. Now, with the explanation that we have been given
21 along with this sketch I would like to ask you now to use your marker to
22 draw a circle around the building which you adapted and which, in fact,
23 was the prison building once it had been adapted. So would you draw a
24 circle around that building, please.
25 A. [Marks]
1 Q. Draw a circle round the building.
2 A. [Marks]
3 Q. Yes, as being the building that you had adapted. Thank you.
4 My colleague is drawing my attention to the fact that the document
5 number is 09121. I think that's what I said. And we should be able to
6 see the number on the ELMO. The number is P 09121. That is the correct
7 number for the transcript.
8 And I'd like to ask you to sign your name, and I'd like an IC
9 number for this sketch, because the witness has indicated only the
10 facility that was used as the prison.
11 A. [Marks]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please.
13 THE REGISTRAR: That will be IC 452, Your Honours.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Now would we -- I would like us to focus on the area which you in
16 police jargon or used by people working in the prison, the area that is
17 referred to as solitary confinement cells. You can leave the sketch
18 behind and just listen to me.
19 Tell me where these solitary confinement cells were on this
21 A. The solitary confinement cells were in the basement.
22 Q. Had those premises been renovated too?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Tell me, please, those premises have not been drawn into the
25 layout that we look out in your logbook for the 2nd of July, 1992. They
1 weren't drawn in there, were they?
2 A. No, because this was in the basement, which is where the
3 dining-room was as well as the kitchen and the warehouse and the other
4 storage spaces. So I didn't draw in anything there. And it was all
6 Q. I think that the usher can go back to his seat. We won't be
7 needing his services until the break, so not to keep him standing.
8 Now, when you say that -- when you say that this part had been
9 adapted, did it have the furniture and everything necessary?
10 A. I'd like to draw your attention, sir, to something related to the
11 solitary confinement cells and the general conditions that prevailed in
12 Heliodrom, because I want through you -- I want you to assist us and to
13 assist the Court and the Trial Chamber in the first place, to clarify
14 certain matters because some witnesses testified about these things, and
15 that's why I'm asking you about them.
16 Tell me, please, when you say that the solitary confinement cells
17 were furnished, can you remember how large these rooms were and what the
18 furnishings were once the adaptation had been completed? Were there --
19 was there a water installation system and so on?
20 A. The solitary confinement cells within the prison did not have --
21 well, there weren't -- there wasn't much difference from the solitary
22 confinement cells there compared to the solitary cells in the Ricinova
23 Street prison. And that building in Ricinova Street existed previously in
24 the system, and so we were guided by this in order to make these
25 confinement cells similar to the ones that existed in that other building.
1 And each cell in the basement in that part of the building had daylight,
2 light coming in from outside. They had a door, half with bars, which
3 means that you could see through those bars, and the lower part of the
4 door was closed.
5 Inside the cells there was nothing except something for sleeping
6 on, and that was a sponge mattress. There were no beds. So sponge and
8 As far as the water installation, there was no water in the cell,
9 but at all times the guard who was in that area could be called by the
10 prisoner and taken to the toilet.
11 Q. Some witnesses said that their -- that some people had beds but
12 that others slept on the floor with the sponges. So I want to ask you
13 whether there were any beds in the solitary confinement cells when the
14 facility opened.
15 A. As to the very beginning, the cells were made the way they would
16 have been made in peacetime, and those facilities, which means that there
17 were sponges, sponge mattresses, and some cells had beds too. At that
18 time you can rest assured that everything was done by the book, as the
19 provisions stated for solitary confinement cells.
20 Q. I think that you've said something very important for the Trial
21 Chamber to know. You worked in the Ricinova Street in the civilian prison
22 there; is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you know the standards that prevailed for those facilities in
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and you said that once the adaptation of the solitary
1 confinement cells were constructed they were identical to standard of cell
2 and standard of prisoners in solitary confinement cells that existed in
4 A. I think that in Heliodrom in the military investigation cell, the
5 cells were in fact larger, taking the square metres, than the cells were
6 in Ricinova Street.
7 Q. Sir, you said a moment ago that the guard that was on duty there
8 would allow prisoners from time to time when they needed to, to go to the
9 toilet; is that right?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. How -- what about the other hygiene conditions? Could the
12 prisoners go escorted by the guard to the bathrooms that were up on the
13 floor above?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. So this was all regulated and agreed upon in the building, and
16 everything depended on the guard, whether the guard would fulfil his
17 duties or not. Am I understanding you correctly on that point?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. May we now focus on the period of time that is interesting to me.
20 Although I'd like to go into all the details, of course, and see what you
21 have to say, but I would like us to try and focus now on the period after
22 the 30th of June, because that's when most of the witnesses -- that's the
23 period that most of the witnesses testified about.
24 Now, in that period after the 30th of June, who was in those
25 confinement cells? How many people were confined in solitary confinement
1 cells? Were they overcrowded, and can you tell us something about that
3 A. After the 30th of June when the detainees started to arrive in
4 large numbers the building began to fill up and the building became full.
5 And once it was full, somebody allowed the others, the rest of the
6 detainees, to be placed in the school building and sports halls.
7 Q. Excuse me, but we've heard all that, all of it. I just want you
8 to focus on these pages. Who, after the 30th of June, to the best your
9 knowledge, was placed on these premises? We know the rest.
10 A. In the isolation cells there were people, all those that the SIS
11 service or the crime prevention service sent to the isolation cells for
12 the duration of interrogation of inquiry.
13 Q. If I understood you correctly, we could say that those were people
14 who were under investigation in a way. Did I understand you correctly?
15 A. Yes, under investigation, because that was in the jurisdiction of
16 the SIS and the crime prevention service. Officers from those two
17 services could order that somebody be placed in an isolation cell or
18 removed from there.
19 Q. So it was their decision. You and the warden had no say in it, is
20 that what you mean?
21 A. Right. We had no say in it.
22 Q. Can you tell me who kept those rooms clean?
23 A. Do you mean who purchased the material or who --
24 Q. No. I mean who kept them clean? Who did the actual cleaning?
25 I'm asking this because some witnesses earlier spoke of very poor hygienic
1 conditions, and as my colleague says, we might be able to get step-by-step
2 who was in charge of what.
3 A. The cleaning was done by the prisoners, block by block. The
4 isolation cells were cleaned by those who were inside. That's how it
5 worked from day-to-day.
6 Q. If I can just rephrase what you just said. In every section of
7 the building, in every block the prisoners from that block did the
9 A. Yes, because in every section one of the prisoners was a liaison
10 with the guard in charge of that block. He would request all the
11 material, and he would organise the cleaning.
12 Q. Some of the witnesses stated that these rooms were full of water,
13 that prisoners had to go to the toilet in buckets that were not emptied
14 regularly. Do you know anything about that, and do you know who was able
15 to order or organise that this water be removed and that hygienic
16 conditions be improved?
17 A. Prisoners could only have claimed that about the period when the
18 prison was overcrowded and maybe the isolation cells were full at that
19 time. Otherwise, in every other period every prisoner who felt the need
20 to go to the toilet and couldn't wait for a guard to take him out could
21 avail himself of the bucket that was in the isolation cell in order to
22 avoid doing it on the floor. Afterwards, he would call the guard and the
23 guard would help him take the bucket out and escort him back to the
24 isolation cell.
25 Q. As an employee of the prison, sir, have you ever visited the
1 prison in Zenica which is still one of the most important prisons in the
3 A. I really wanted to, but I never did.
4 Q. I would have liked to compare the hygienic conditions in the
5 isolation cells there and in Mostar.
6 A. I believe they also had the same kind of buckets like in the
7 military prison.
8 Q. Well, that surprises me a little, the way you describe hygienic
9 conditions. If there was water on the floor, maybe something was out of
10 order, some sort of installation was broken. Were you able or maybe the
11 warden was able to deal with breakdowns, with things that needed to be
12 repaired, because that, if true, would have really soured the life of all
13 those people who were there.
14 A. This is the first time I'm hearing of anything like it. At the
15 prison we also had the so-called housekeeper who was able to perform any
16 repairs on the plumbing, and that would have been done immediately.
17 Q. I just have two or three more questions before the break on this
18 topic. You had insight. You were able to see the conditions. It wasn't
19 something that you were not able to see for yourself and organise or order
20 to be repaired.
21 A. Let me tell you one thing, until the 30th of June, inside the
22 prison itself everything was -- or could be perfectly under control and
23 everything would function well. However, when we had that large influx of
24 people, of course the hygiene deteriorated due to overcrowding.
25 Q. I asked you this question for a purpose, because I wanted to
1 assist the Court. It's clear that things changed in the later period.
2 You said the general standards declined, there was overcrowding, and the
3 hygiene suffered. But still, do you believe that the living conditions
4 were tolerable in terms of hygiene? We'll talk about food later.
5 A. Yes. I just want to say one thing. To keep things clean, every
6 day, 24 hours a day, there was running water at the prison. Prisoners
7 could take showers and baths, and nobody kept them away from it.
8 Q. Including those in the isolation cells?
9 A. Including those in the isolation cells. They just had to ask the
10 policeman standing outside the cell.
11 Q. Just one more question before the break. Some former inmates said
12 that they had been concealed from the ICRC before the ICRC would come for
13 a visit. In fact, they said they were taken to some sort of cinema hall
14 from the isolation cells prior to ICRC visits.
15 A. This is the first time I hear of it.
16 Q. The ICRC actually came for the first time on the 10th of August
17 after this large influx of new inmates; is that correct?
18 A. If it's on the record, yes.
19 Q. And you had no knowledge that anybody concealed people held in
20 isolation cells? It would have been an order that had to come down from
21 the warden, so you would have known about it.
22 A. This is the first I hear of it.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I see the clock, Your Honour. I have
24 completed this subject.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll go on a 20-minute break.
1 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
2 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mrs. Nozica.
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
5 Q. Witness, I have before me a report of the Spanish delegation to
6 the European mission that sometime around 4 to 9 September visited
7 Heliodrom. Were you present during their visit to Heliodrom in 1993?
8 A. I can't remember. If my name was there, then I was there. If
9 not, then I wasn't.
10 Q. I'll just ask you about one small detail. It says in the report
11 that at that time, that means September 1993, prisoners had just installed
12 central heating themselves. Do you remember central heating in one of the
13 buildings in Heliodrom at that time?
14 A. I can't remember that.
15 Q. All right. Thank you. Can you tell me how many meals prisoners
16 got every day? I am referring throughout to the period after the 30th of
17 June, but with regard to meals can you also cover the period from the 9th
18 of May onwards and the prisoners to got there on the 9th of May and stayed
19 till the end? Was there any difference in the meals, and how many meals
20 per day were there?
21 A. It's very difficult to answer that question for one particular
22 reason, namely a large influx of prisoners meant that it was not possible
23 to plan for the central kitchen to make that many meals for the newly
24 arrived prisoners, thus the logistical component envisaged metal
25 lunchboxes with biscuits at times when it was not possible to make meals.
1 Those who had just arrived and could not receive a meal from the central
2 kitchen received a biscuit from those metal boxes.
3 Q. You mean to say that such occurrences could last for a day or two
4 but not longer?
5 A. Yes, because the next day Mr. Bozic would not know exactly how
6 many prisoners there were inside, but he took a number that he could
7 provide for, and then again a new cycle would begin. New arrivals would
8 get biscuits until the next day when meals could be ordered for them.
9 Q. Can you tell me to the best of your recollection about the longest
10 period, apart from those days which were exceptions, how many meals per
11 day did prisoners receive?
12 A. They had to receive three meals a day, but I would say that there
13 was not a single day when they did not get at least two.
14 Q. That is precisely what this report of the Spanish delegation,
15 dated 14th of September, says.
16 Some of prior witnesses said that for the duration of their stay
17 at Heliodrom lost up to a half of their body weight. For instance, from
18 the 30th of June until the end of the year, some of them said they lost 40
19 to 50 kilos. Do you know that?
20 A. This is the first I hear of it. And I'm surprised, because
21 everybody who got there, including the Red Cross, failed to make such an
22 observation. I don't think I can agree with it.
23 Q. Tell me, did all the inmates get the same food? I mean all of
24 them in all the three buildings, and especially the one called "Prison,"
25 in all of its sections, the isolation cells, the section of the first
1 floor, the section for civilians, and the section for women? Did they get
2 all the same meals?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You spoke yesterday about the poor hygienic conditions that
5 prisoners from Dretelj were subjected to.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can you tell us now to what extent hygienic conditions were
8 objectively better and to what extent let's say the category of prisoners
9 of war were better nourished and better off? Do you think the conditions
10 were really much better in Heliodrom?
11 A. Judging from what the prisoners themselves said, the ones who came
12 from Dretelj and the way they appeared, it seemed that Heliodrom was a
13 hotel for them. And there was a book that one Muslim man wrote while at
14 Heliodrom in which I read about this one detail, and I saw it on
15 television too. That man said and wrote, "When I came to Heliodrom, it
16 was like coming home." So in their own words, when they saw running water
17 they said, "We can't believe our eyes."
18 Q. Of course the sight of water must have been pleasing to anyone,
19 but it was not only water, was it?
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, you're overlapping. You're
22 Witness, you must wait some time after the lawyer has terminated
23 before you reply, because otherwise the interpreters simply cannot follow,
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Judge Trechsel, I was actually
2 expecting praise from you at the beginning -- at the end of my
3 cross-examination, because I'm really trying so hard for the record to be
4 clear, but it still does happen sometimes. I will ask the witness to pay
5 attention too.
6 This information about the name of this man is rather important
7 for me. Could we move into private session for a moment so that the
8 witness can tell me his name? It seems rather important to me because the
9 witness is invoking a source?
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session.
11 [Private session]
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,
25 Mr. President.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sure I'll be able to provide you
2 with the name in due course.
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Thank you. Now, sir, did you know or were aware of that anybody
5 during that period of time when you worked at Heliodrom, which is the
6 relevant material time, that anybody abused or mistreated the detainees?
7 A. I wasn't aware of that. I didn't know about that, and if I had, I
8 would have written it down.
9 Q. Yes. And to follow on from what you said and what you noticed as
10 the warden or deputy warden or commander, you wrote letters to people. So
11 I assume that had you had that kind of information you would have either
12 written it down in your own diary and logbook or you would have written a
13 letter to someone about it. Am I right?
14 A. What I wrote were reports, or I could convey what I had heard
15 orally, or I might have heard it from a warden or a police member or a
16 member of the army if I had heard anything like that.
17 Q. Sir, had there been any abuse of detainees or detainees with any
18 visible injuries, would you have been duty-bound to investigate and to
19 establish who was responsible and then called for either criminal
20 proceedings to be initiated or an inquiry or something like that? Am I
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I apologise for insisting, but I really do have to insist on
24 this. So you say that information of that kind that things like that were
25 going on was something you did not have? You were not aware of that?
1 A. I did not know anything about that, no.
2 Q. Did Mr. Bozic ever speak to you of things like that?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Had things like that been
5 going on, would Mr. Bozic have had to know about it? Would those on guard
6 duty have to write reports of that kind, and did the detainees have any
7 contact with Mr. Bozic? I gather that they didn't have direct contact
8 with you, but did they have direct contact and communication with
9 Mr. Bozic?
10 A. I know for sure that Mr. Bozic from time to time would tour the
11 premises and talk to the prisoners. Now, everything about what had
12 happened between 6.00 p.m. until the following morning, reports about that
13 would be brought in by Ante Smiljanic. Now, if Ante Smiljanic as a
14 commander of the shift brought in information like that, then Bozic would
15 have known about it. If no report was submitted to that effect, then
16 Bozic could not have known about it.
17 Q. Ante Smiljanic was duty-bound I assume to record any goings-on
18 like that, because if he had knowledge of things like that happening
19 without recording them and then Mr. Bozic learned about that later on,
20 then it would have been Mr. Smiljanic who be held responsible; am I
22 A. If the shift duty that was on that night conveyed something like
23 that to Ante Smiljanic and without Mr. Ante Smiljanic reporting on to
24 Mr. Bozic, then it would Mr. Ante Smiljanic who would be held responsible
25 for withholding information.
1 Q. Very well. Since you say that you had no information to that
2 effect, would it be right to say that to your knowledge things like that
3 did not happen? Am I right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. I'd like to move on now to another area very briefly and look at
6 documents presented to you by the Prosecution.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] But before I do that I would like to
8 inform Their Honours that before the break, as I was informed by the
9 registrar, that I had used up 45 minutes. Now, since I have one hour and
10 30 minutes and have been given approximately 30 minutes more from Counsel
11 Alaburic, or, rather, the Petkovic Defence, I have a total of one hour and
12 15 minutes left during this session, and I'll do my best to finish a
13 little before that because the other Defence teams need time for the
14 cross-examination too.
15 Q. Sir, the Prosecution showed you P 00677 yesterday. We can have it
16 shown on e-court, because it will take too much time for you to find it in
17 your binder, and I'm sure you'll recall the document.
18 May we have it up on e-court, Prosecution exhibit. Here it is.
19 You can see what this is about. You've already looked at it. It
20 is a report on the release of prisoners on the 30th of October, 1992; is
21 that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You confirms that this is a report, for the record, by Mr.
24 Valentin Coric sent to Mr. Bruno Stojic in which he informs him that in
25 keeping with the agreement reached with the representatives of the
1 International Red Cross, the EC monitors, UNPROFOR, and from an order
2 issued by the chief of the defence department of the 20th of October,
3 1992, all war prisoners were unconditionally released from the military
4 remand centres in Livno, Mostar, and Tomislavgrad on the 30th of October,
5 1992. And you confirm that you know about this and that you were even
6 present when these people were lined up and released. Am I right?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. Fine. Now, take a look at my binder and find the
9 following document to look at Mr. Bruno Stojic's order to clear that up,
10 to see what it was like, and why this release came about. So would you
11 look at Exhibit -- well, it's in the Prosecution binder again. It is P
12 00665. P 00665 is the document number. Let's take a look at what it
14 It's an order from Mr. Bruno Stojic where he says that from the
15 military investigation prison, the HVO, that unconditionally all prisoners
16 of war should be released who were held by the HVO.
17 Now let's look at the reasons. In conformity with the agreement
18 reached with the representatives of the International Red Cross, the EEC
19 monitors, and UNPROFOR -- I don't intend to read this whole order, but we
20 can see clearly that the order was issued by Mr. Bruno Stojic, and we can
21 see the reason for which it was issued and that this made it incumbent
22 upon Mr. Valentin Coric to implement this order; is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. On e-court, please, and you can look at my pink binder or you can
25 use e-court, whichever you like, but the document is 2D 00417 that I'd
1 like to look at next so that we can see the reason for the release or,
2 rather, on what grounds Mr. Stojic was able to issue this order, and I
3 think you'll be able to assist us in the matter, and I'm sure you'll
4 remember the circumstances underlying this next document.
5 2D 00417 is the document number. Are there any problems? Can you
6 find it? Perhaps you can find it in your pink binder too. It says 00417
7 at the top of the page. It's a small piece of paper, and the usher will
8 help you out. And here we have it up on our screens on e-court. Perhaps
9 that's easier for you.
10 Take a look at the document. It is a document of the -- can we
11 see the top of the document? It is a document of the International Red
12 Cross committee, and it says: "Regarding our discussion at Geneva on
13 October 15, 1992, during the meeting with Humanitarian Issues Group at the
14 international conference," it says, "I wish to inform you on the
15 following," and then we have the text, and the entire text says that each
16 party is duty-bound to release prisoners, and the international -- as soon
17 as the International Red Cross asks for it in compliance with the plan on
18 prisoners release and transfer?
19 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry to interrupt you. It is only a
20 technical matter as far as the translation of this letter is concerned
21 that now we are speaking -- I mean, in the English translation there is
22 "Mr. Ogata," but she was Mrs. Ogata, that is the High Commissioner for
23 Refugees, and then it should be taken that we are talking about Madam
24 Ogata, who was Japanese, actually. Thank you.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Your Honour. Yes,
1 you noticed that obvious mistake. But I'm looking at the original. It
2 says Mrs. Sadako Ogata, yes.
3 Q. So we have an agreement here on the release of all prisoners --
4 or, rather, all prisoners. It says "all prisoners." And that's what it
5 says, and then --
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: In our translation it says "civilians." And I
7 think also in -- in the original version it is talk of [B/C/S spoken].
8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, that's okay. But precisely
9 because it reference to civilians as well, it says, yes, "the release of
10 all civilians who had been detained by all the conflicting parties in
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina and their return to their homes in compliance with
12 Article 3, paragraph 2 of the agreement accepted by all three sides at
13 Geneva. All three sides are duty-bound to release the prisoners as soon
14 as the ICRC asks for it in compliance with the plan on prisoners' release
15 and transfer. Each side to release their prisoners."
16 Yes, Your Honour, it says civilians, but later on it says
17 prisoners near too.
18 Q. I would like you to confirm, Witness, if this relates to the Bihac
19 area. We see here Bihac, Celebici, Kamenica, Konjic, and it says Livno,
20 Witness. Am I right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And then Manjaca is mentioned under Livno. Under whose control
23 was Manjaca at the time in October 1992?
24 A. Well, Manjaca was under Serb control.
25 Q. Correct. Then we come to Mostar. Am I right?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And then it says Orasje and Rascani, Rodoc, and Tomislavgrad. So
3 the towns and centres and areas are mentioned which pursuant to the order
4 by Bruno Stojic the prisoners were released from.
5 Can you tell me now, please, whether you remember at that time,
6 and would you take a look at A, we see that it relates to Bihac. That's
7 on the following page. A is Bihac, B is Celebici and Konjic.
8 Now, in Konjic at that time, to the best of your recollections, is
9 that where there were Croat detainees as well, as well as Serbs? So Serbs
10 and Croats in Celebici and Konjic?
11 A. I don't know about that.
12 Q. All right. Fine. Now, I don't want to go through the document.
13 We have dealt with it. If Their Honours wish to ask a question they will
14 do so, but anyway, all these areas and all three sides were duty-bound to
15 comply and release the prisoners by a certain date. Is that what emerges
16 from this document?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Tell me now, please, at roughly at this period of time, and we
19 see that the date is the 20th of October, 1992, have any knowledge that
20 discussions were going on in Geneva about this topic, that is say the
21 release of prisoners, and at the London conference, too, and was it usual
22 and customary that after conferences of this kind these kind of
23 conclusions would be made which were sometimes implemented, sometimes
25 A. This is the first time that I see this document that you're
1 showing to me.
2 Q. I'm quite sure that you might have seen it when the Prosecutor
3 showed you. I'm not asking you about that, but I'm asking you of whether
4 you were are aware of conferences like this taking place and that usually
5 after conferences of this type the detainees were released on the
6 principle of all for all.
7 A. I had no knowledge of that, but when the order came to release the
8 prisoners we released them.
9 Q. Thank you. That will do. Now, let's us take a look at another
10 document -- or, rather, two documents on e-court. You commented on one of
11 them and they are P 00514, or, that's the first one. It will appear on
12 e-court. You won't find it in my binder because they are documents shown
13 you by the Prosecutor. So I think the best thing to do is to wait until
14 it appears on e-court.
15 Here it comes. All I need is the title. It is "Instructions on
16 the work of the central military prison of the Croatian Defence Council in
17 Mostar," and you confirmed this. This set of instructions was brought on
18 the 22nd of September, 1992. You said you received those instructions and
19 acted upon them in Heliodrom. Am I right in saying that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. May we now have on e-court the following document: P 01474.
22 That's also a document from the binder shown you by the Prosecutor, P
23 01474. Here. Look at this instruction. Have you seen it before? We
24 don't need to go through all the pages. It's in part the house rules in
25 centres for military prisoners and POWs issued on the 11th of February,
1 1993, and it says: "Director of the defence department, Bruno Stojic."
2 Have you seen this? That's my only question.
3 A. No, I haven't.
4 Q. When you say, "I haven't," does that mean you didn't even see it
5 in the binder shown you by the Prosecution, or you didn't see it before,
6 or you have never seen it?
7 A. I have never seen it.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Ms. Nozica. Ms. Nozica, I think it is not in
9 that binder.
10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] It's in binder 13 that we got from
11 the Prosecutor, which also includes the previous document. I don't know
12 in which way the Prosecutor presented evidence to you. Maybe -- it was
13 all in binder 13 the way we got it from the Prosecution.
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Well, with due respect, we do not have if on the
15 list and we do not have it in the binder.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Can my learned friend help us,
17 because I have it both on the list and in the binder.
18 MR. SCOTT: It's not in binder 13, Your Honour. Binder 13 was
19 revised and provided to counsel on Monday, and it's not in that binder.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It is not a catastrophe and I will not make an
21 issue, but I think, in honesty, you must be made aware if it is like this,
22 that's all.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I did not quite understand what I was
24 supposed to do. It was in my binder 13, and it was not taken out, and
25 it's a document that the Honourable Judges have seen before a couple of
1 days ago. If I may go back to my question.
2 Q. Did the witness see this document before? Did you ever receive it
3 in prison?
4 A. I've never seen it before. I'm seeing it now for the first time.
5 I got it from you.
6 Q. Did you review it in proofing with the Prosecutor?
7 A. No.
8 Q. I would now like to move to another subject that includes certain
9 documents you spoke about before, your own documents or documents of
10 Mr. Bozic that were made available to Mr. Bruno Stojic.
11 In your testimony yesterday, you said that after learning that on
12 the 6th of August, 1993, a commission was appointed, a five-member panel,
13 to regulate the situation in prisons, and you were the fifth member.
14 After learning that, on two occasions you informed Mr. Bruno Stojic that
15 this commission never met. Do you remember that?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. Can you first tell me if you remember the date when you learned
18 that the commission was established and that you were its fifth member?
19 A. Two or three days after this date that is mentioned. It's in the
20 decision that I received.
21 Q. Can we agree that it's also in your diary?
22 A. I believe so.
23 Q. Were you also informed by Mr. Bozic of this? He also received
24 that document.
25 A. We received it together on the same day.
1 Q. Can you repeat -- I want to avoid objections. Can you repeat
2 yourself through what letters and in what way did you inform Mr. Stojic
3 that the commission had never met?
4 A. I never informed Mr. Bruno Stojic that the commission was not
5 operating. In fact, as the fifth member of the commission, since I never
6 attended any meetings and without knowing whether the commission was
7 working or not, I took the liberty as its fifth member to address myself
8 to Mr. Bruno Stojic and inform him of the problems and what was going on
9 in Heliodrom.
10 Q. Yes. This is a bit different, but still it's a very precise
11 explanation. You did inform him as a member of the commission because you
12 thought you were entitled to, if I understood you correctly.
13 A. Yes, you did.
14 Q. And in those letters to him, you did not state that the commission
15 wasn't working because you didn't even know it.
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Let us now see one document that you saw yesterday in e-court, P
18 06170. Let me remind you while the document gets into e-court. It's a
19 report dated 27th October, 1993, signed by you. It's a report on the work
20 of the commission for the release of prisoners. That was the name of the
21 commission, isn't it? Here it is in e-court. Do you see it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. You remember this. You signed it at the end, and you confirmed
24 that yesterday. I only want to have a look.
25 In the first part of this report you state that you were appointed
1 to that commission, and then you go on to complain about certain things
2 or, rather, point out certain things that in your opinion were not quite
3 all right; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. This is your document. You point out that there is a shortage of
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And in the second part, which is not really important to me, you
9 point out certain omissions and deficiencies in the release of certain
10 prisoners; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Can we conclude from what you wrote about the work of the
13 commission one absolutely cannot conclude, and you did not have the
14 intention, if I may suggest that, that you were informing Mr. Stojic that
15 the commission wasn't operating.
16 A. If you understood me well, and if I understood you well, I wrote
17 this without ever knowing whether the commission was working or not.
18 Q. What I'm asking is whether a reader of your letter could conclude
19 from the way this letter is phrased that the commission was or was not
21 A. From my letter, the way I wrote it, a reader could conclude that
22 I'm not a part of that commission. I think that's clear enough.
23 Q. It can't be clear enough if you are writing a report on the work
24 of the commission for the release of prisoners. It's the very title, the
25 subject of the letter. However, I want to deal with something else now.
1 You mentioned yesterday -- and can we see page 2 in e-court now.
2 You mentioned yesterday you delivered this document to Mladen Naletilic,
3 Tuta, and to Mr. Bruno Stojic.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. There it is. So you put Mr. Mladen Naletilic, Tuta, in the first
6 place among addressees, and Mr. Bruno Stojic in the second place. Can we
7 see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You told the Court yesterday that you considered Mr. Tuta to be an
10 advisor to Mr. Bruno Stojic.
11 A. It's not that I considered him as such. It was written on the
12 doors of his office.
13 Q. Was it indeed?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Let us look at another document and I'll skip all the other
16 questions because you've just explain your impression, that's a document
17 from binder 13 again, 68 -- that is P 06844.
18 I am just checking. It is in our binder 13, but we'll see it in
20 Sir, this is a document of the 24th November, 1993. It says:
21 "Crime prevention department of the military police centre Mostar." It
22 says, "24th November, 1993. On the premises of the central military
23 investigations prison in Mostar an interview was conducted with you,
24 Mr. Josip Praljak, concerning the circumstances of handing out
25 documentation from the prison for photocopying to meet the requirements of
1 the police of the Convicts Battalion."
2 Let remind you that this interview took place a little less than
3 a month ago after that letter you addressed to Mr. Bruno Stojic and
4 Mr. Mladen Naletilic. Do you remember that?
5 A. No. No, I can't remember it at all. Can you simplify it? With
6 whom did I speak?
7 Q. Perica Grujic wrote this record, and I'll remind you of some
8 passages in this document. Frankly, I'm surprised because you just said
9 you reviewed all the documentation. This one was also in binder 13. It
10 concerns you, and it's surprising that you didn't notice it when you were
11 reviewing all the documents.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Ms. Nozica. For your information, it
13 is not in our version of this binder.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecution
15 obviously submitted one version of the binders to you and another to us.
16 I don't know what has been submitted to you, but we have a chart con
17 testing of three parts. In the 13 -- in part 13 there are various
18 documents including this one.
19 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Perhaps I can assist. The
20 binders that we put in this morning, as you may recall, did not include
21 binder 13. We put in binders 1 through 12, which were the ones -- the
22 additional binders -- bundles that we asked the witness to review plus
23 binder 14 or bundle 14 which was his diary. Bundle 13 is a separate
24 category. That was the working bundle of documents more closely
25 familiar -- or similar to the ones we use with every witness. As often
1 happens, in preparing the witness I -- a further selection was made
2 because we knew we would not be able to get through all the material in
3 the original bundle 13 over the course of the weekend, and a revised
4 bundle 13 was put together and provided and sent to the Defence. So it
5 could be in -- counsel maybe looked at something that was in the original
6 bundle 13, but not in the bundle 13 that was provided to the witness in
7 court, which explains a number of things. Number one, it explains some of
8 the difficulty that counsel may be having, would also explain why the
9 witness says he doesn't remember specifically looking at that -- to those
10 particular documents because they were not particularly put to him. But I
11 want to make it very clear that's an entirely different situation than
12 bundles 1 through 12 or 14. Bundle 13 is a different animal altogether
13 and was revised and provided to counsel. Thank you.
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I must say that is not
16 true. We received yesterday from the Prosecution, on Monday at 11.00, a
17 letter, and I'll see if my colleagues have it, saying that some documents
18 from other bundles will be moved to binder 13. We were told that some
19 documents would not be used, but we were not told which. Therefore, that
20 is the information that we have. I'm very sorry about this indeed, and as
21 soon as I complete my cross-examination -- could you please kindly look at
22 it. If I may ask the usher to show the Chamber what the Defence teams
23 have received. But since I have been put in a very embarrassing
24 situation, after my cross-examination I will copy all my documents and
25 submit them to the Chamber. I would have done it earlier had I known that
1 the Prosecution hasn't done it. I thought it was natural for you to have
2 all the documents that we have.
3 Q. In any case, let us look at the ELMO and see what the Prosecution
4 advised us yesterday. We see in the first part that some the materials
5 would not shall used. And have a look, please, at the second paragraph,
6 which says that some documents would be moved to bundle 13 from bundles 1,
7 5, 7, and 9. So in our minds it -- the material remained the same with
8 certain shifts within the binders. We did not receive a revised list of
9 documents from binder 13. It seems that the Prosecution provided that
10 revised list to you but not to us, and we worked on 200 or 300 documents
11 more because we thought they would be used, I must say.
12 Maybe we can return this letter to Mr. Ibrisimovic.
13 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, while it's on the ELMO. The letter is
14 exactly consistent with what I said a moment ago. It's exactly what we
15 communicated on Monday. There shouldn't be any confusion about that. It
16 says specifically, "Some of the materials that were on the earlier exhibit
17 list, bundle 13, will not -- will not be shown to him during his testimony
18 while two additional documents will be shown. A revised exhibit is
19 attached." And in our view it was attached when they got the emails, the
20 very same e-mail for which it was attached to the Chamber it was the same
21 e-mail that went to the Defence and that is the information I've been
22 provided. If I'm proven to be wrong, I will be, but that was the
24 So I -- I regret the situation that counsel finds herself in.
25 I -- it's not the Prosecution's fault. The documents are supposed to be
1 in e-court. We should be able to use them, and really, although it's
2 unfortunate, I think to put all this and to cast this as some sort of
3 fault on behalf of the Prosecution is really unfair and the document, the
4 letter speaks for itself.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Instead of wasting time on
6 procedural matters, let's gets to the heart of the matter. I prefer
7 spending time looking at the document rather than explaining I made a
8 mistake or not or whatever. Continue, please.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I stand by
10 what I said, and also it will be my duty to provide the Trial Chamber with
11 all the documents that I showed the witness which you were not able to
12 find in your own binders.
13 Q. Sir, let's move to the heart of the matter, as His Honour has just
14 said, and take a look at paragraph two. It says, "Mr. Stanko Bozic was
15 absent from his office on business, so insight into SVIZ's documentation
16 and answers were provided by the deputy warden of the prison in the
17 following order," and it says under item 1: "In regard to photocopying
18 documentation of the SVIZ Mostar, which the warden of the SVIZ provided
19 for captain Reuf Ajanovic, a member of the conflicts battalion, on a
20 written request signed by the commander of the Convicts Battalion,
21 Mr. Mladen Naletilic, aka Tuta, Josip Praljak explained that in the Mostar
22 SVIZ, Mr. Naletilic was respected as an advisor to the chief of defence,
23 Mr. Bruno Stojic, and so believing he was entitled to the authority of the
24 rank of chief they provided the requested documentation," and they were
25 release orders, "(when he made his request in writing)."
1 Do you remember that, Witness, now that I have read out this
3 A. As far as writing this is concerned, what you've just read out, I
4 just cannot remember that the official conversation conducted by Perica
5 Jukic and Grujic was as official as to be followed up by a report of this
6 kind, so that actually I never read this report. What I want to say is
7 this: Nobody ever asked me to make a statement of any kind let alone
8 Perica Grujic.
9 Q. Sir, let's just clarify one point.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I wasn't going to intervene in
11 order to save time, but I have to step in at this point because I'm
12 looking at your diary, your logbook, where you have entries on what was
13 going on, and for the 21st of November you mention the report that we have
14 here, which is 2837/83, and you say that when the commission was
15 established with the president, Mr. Pusic, you never met him.
16 Now, you decided to inform us of certain important -- important
17 events in prison. You inform Mr. Roso, Mr. Lavric, Mr. Jukic, and Mr.
18 Bruno Stojic, and you also indicate: "I have since written a report to
19 Mr. Stojic."
20 Now, do you remember having written those entries in your diary
21 about all this?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If it says so in the diary, then I
23 did so.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: That's not an answer to the question,
25 Mr. President. The president is, does he have an independent memory, as
1 opposed to does the diary reflect that, and/or whether the diary refreshed
2 his memory, not having one, that is.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment. Mr. Usher, show
4 the witness this page of his diary and his entry in it. We'll save time.
5 Place it on the ELMO, please. On the ELMO so that we can all see it.
6 Do you remember having written that?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I do remember this.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Please proceed.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you very much, but
10 I'd like to clarify this point, not to lead to a misunderstanding. I will
11 come to that entry. And it is true that this witness wrote a report on
12 that day, but I am talking about a conversation that took place on that
13 same day according to this report that we have on e-court. It is P 06844,
14 and it's the conversation that relates to Mr. Tuta. It just coincides by
15 chance with the date when this witness actually wrote another report to
16 Mr. Stojic.
17 Q. Sir, you said you made no statement. Sir, you also worked in the
18 military police, did you not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. This isn't a statement, is it? So you and I can conclude that
21 sometimes notes were written about certain events which took place and
22 that those notes were Official Notes that you did not receive, but they
23 were nonetheless compiled; is that right? Would things like that
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Can you answer and tell me whether you remember this
3 A. I can't remember the person, Perica Grujic, who otherwise I know
4 personally. I don't remember him ever coming to me officially and that we
5 discussed matters of this kind. That's what I can't remember.
6 Q. Sir, do you remember that there was any talk of taking out this
7 document on the release that someone took pursuant to an order from
8 Mr. Mladen Naletilic? Do you remember that?
9 A. As I can see here, the warden gave this at the time, that is to
10 say Mr. Bozic, and that Mr. Perica Grujic came by to compile a report
11 about that. So I probably, as it says here, explained this, gave
13 Q. You also say, sir, that you respected -- am I right in saying that
14 you respected the advisor of the defence department, Mr. Bruno Stojic,
15 that is to say his advisor Mr. Naletilic?
16 Now, look at what it says further on, that Mr. Naletilic, Tuta, to
17 the SVIZ, did not use the memorandum of advisor of the defence department
18 but on the memorandum of the Convicts Battalion. And Mr. Praljak had no
19 answer to that, it says, and he explained everything hiding behind the
20 authority of Mr. Naletilic as advisor to the chief.
21 Do you remember that conversation and your answer?
22 A. I say to this day that what he was, was an advisor, and as such I
23 respected him.
24 Q. Sir, quite obviously from these documents we can see that
25 Mr. Naletilic would send certain documents -- well, you said he never came
1 by, but the Prosecutor showed you some documents, so tell me now, please,
2 do you know that proceedings were taken against Mr. Naletilic in this
3 Tribunal, and do you know that during that trial nobody ever established
4 that he was an advisor to Mr. Bruno Stojic? Are you aware of that?
5 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
6 MR. SCOTT: Just for the record, I'm not so sure -- I don't want
7 to indicate any agreement with that statement. I'll have to he review the
8 entire evidence in the Tuta-Stela case and the judgement. I just want to
9 make sure that the Prosecution doesn't agree with that.
10 MR. MURPHY: Well, the Prosecution is not testifying at this
11 point. The witness is and that's an improper intervention by Mr. Scott.
12 MR. SCOTT: I was responding to counsel's assertion. Not anything
13 the witness said whatsoever but counsel's assertion of what was proved or
14 not proved in the Tuta-Stela case.
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't think we'd have
16 a debate over that. I didn't know Mr. Scott was a member of the
17 Prosecution in the matter but I will leave that reservation.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Nozica, I'm trying to
19 understand why you're asking these questions. Are you challenging the
20 fact that Mr. Naletilic had an office next to Mr. Stojic and therefore if
21 he was an advisor to Mr. Stojic it is quite normal that Mr. Praljak in
22 going -- went to see the advisor rather than the big boss. That's
23 normal. So is that what you're challenging? I don't quite understand
24 where you're leading much perhaps you'll elucidate the point through
25 another question.
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. Since you've asked
2 me directly what I'm challenging, I'm challenging that Mr. Tuta was the
3 advisor to Mr. Stojic, because up to now we have heard a series of
4 witnesses, and I'm trying to establish through the witness where this
5 respect for Mr. Naletilic comes from during that period of time, but I am
6 not challenging - you asked me - I'm not challenging that Mr. Naletilic at
7 a given period of time had an office on the same floor as Mr. Stojic, but
8 he wasn't the only person who had an office on that floor and in that
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you have heard all this
11 and it's very clear now. The Stojic Defence and Mr. Stojic himself are
12 challenging the fact that Mr. Naletilic was in fact an advisor to Mr.
13 Stojic. What do you ever to say to that? What do you think? You met
14 him. What do you -- what can you tell us?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concern, at that time
16 when I addressed him he was the advisor to Bruno Stojic for security
17 matters with an office that was quite visible and clear, and he was
18 sitting in the office himself.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, this question when I saw
20 your report, you put that it was addressed to number one, Mr. Naletilic,
21 and Mr. Stojic as number two. As a general rule one would do the reverse.
22 We would -- you would generally put the most important person first and
23 the other person underneath, whereas you reversed this order. The report
24 is an official document. There's a number and so on. So when you sent
25 out this report with Mr. Naletilic in number one place and Mr. Stojic, in
1 your mind you were addressing it to the same entity, were you? That's
2 what I'm trying to understand.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It may be just a slip of the
4 secretary that typed out the document, this report. She might have made a
5 slip, that's all, because everyone knows that Mr. Bruno Stojic was the
6 chief and Naletilic the advisor. So it could have been a slip on the
7 typist's part. That's how I can explain it, the only way.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I try to contribute to clarify this matter.
9 You have said, Mr. Praljak, that on the office which was used by
10 Mr. Naletilic it was written, "advisor to the minister of defence," or to
11 Mr. Stojic. Was Mr. Naletilic's name used in this context, or is it
12 possible that this was an office which was designated for an advisor of
13 Mr. Stojic, but since Mr. Naletilic used this office but that would then
14 not mean that he was an advisor?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time, what I know is that he
16 was an advisor, and that's the only way I knew him and by the same token
17 respected him in that capacity.
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Sir, I'm just going to ask you one more thing. Did you ever see a
20 single memorandum of Mr. Naletilic where it said that he was the advisor
21 to Bruno Stojic? First of all, answer that question. Did you ever see a
22 memorandum to that effect?
23 A. Never, because there was no reason for a memorandum to -- like
24 that to come to the prison, and it didn't ever.
25 Q. But a memorandum from the Convicts Battalion, whose commander
1 Mr. Naletilic was, did come to you at the prison, did they not?
2 A. You mean there the ATG Baja Kraljevic, their unit was put up at
4 Q. I know that. From the previous document we saw that the prison
5 did issue certain documents to one -- to a particular unit, but are you
6 trying to justify that act by claiming before this Court that you
7 considered Mr. Naletilic to be the advisor of Mr. Stojic and therefore
8 justify yourself for having issued certain documents to the commander of
9 some unit which was stationed at Heliodrom?
10 A. Counsel, let's me tell you this, with all due respect: That
11 document -- those documents were not issued by Josip Praljak but they were
12 issued by Stanko Bozic.
13 Q. That's not what I said. I didn't say that. In the document it
14 says it was issued by Stanko Bozic. What I'm saying is that the prison
15 issued it, meaning the warden and deputy warden. You all worked together
16 in the prison. But I won't belabour the point and insist upon an answer.
17 I'm wasting time. Let me just deal with one more area raised by His
18 Honour Judge Antonetti, the report of the 24th of November, 1993, which is
19 recorded in your entry, in your diary, and the judge rightly said that you
20 informed Mr. Stojic that the commission wasn't working, wasn't
21 functioning. And we'd just like to take a look -- take a -- take a brief
22 look at the report. It is P 068484, or, rather, 48, it was looked at
23 yesterday and that's how I assume the Judges come to have it in their
24 binders. And I'll end there. I'll get through this very quickly and
25 bring my cross-examination to an end.
1 Let's have a look at the document. It is a report of the 24th of
2 November, 1993. You said that you addressed it to Mr. Stojic and that in
3 your own handwriting you corrected the name of Bruno Stojic with Perica
4 Jukic, because while writing the document you learnt that Mr. Stojic was
5 no longer the head of the defence department; is that correct?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now, I don't want to deal with the whole document. Mr. Stojic
8 didn't receive it, but it says in the first sentence, "as a member of the
9 commission to establish greater order in prisons and otherwise authorised
10 as set out in the order I would like to stress some highly important
11 matters relating to the Mostar Heliodrom SVZ central military prison."
12 So all I can ask you, sir, is in this sentence does it say where?
13 It says the commission did not meet. And did you say at any time that the
14 commission wasn't meeting and that that's why I was intervening? Do you
15 agree that there is no mention of that in this document?
16 A. No, there isn't.
17 Q. Thank you. Just for clarification, you've said something like
18 this before and it's important for me to get it right. We'll go through
19 two documents from which we'll see until when Mr. Stojic occupied the
20 position of chief of defence, and I think based on the documents that
21 have been shown to you it's rather important. Can we see in e-court, and
22 it's in front of you, sir, but still it will be on our screens, P 06583.
23 6583. Have you found it perhaps? It's a communique, a press release,
24 signed by office of the president of the Croatian Republic of
25 Herceg-Bosna. For the benefit of the court and the Prosecution, it's in
1 this binder. Yes. We see it in front us now.
2 So, 10th November, 1993, and we see the names of the members of
3 the new government. This is what this press release says. We see on this
4 list a new Prime Minister and new deputy Prime Minister and Defence
5 Minister Perica Jukic.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. We see Mr. Bruno Stojic. And another document 2D 00416, 2D 00416.
8 Have you found it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. This is a protocol written on the 15th of November, for the
11 record, 1993, and it says it was drafted on that day in Mostar with regard
12 to the hand-over, takeover of duties between the hitherto minister of
13 defence Mr. Bruno Stojic and the newly appointed minister of defence,
14 Mr. Perica Jukic. We see the subject of this transition of duties, which
15 doesn't matter to us at this moment. It was signed by both Mr. Bruno
16 Stojic and Mr. Perica Jukic.
17 Sir, does this tally with what you know, namely when you September
18 that letter on the 24th November, 1993, that at that time Mr. Bruno Stojic
19 was no longer chief of defence?
20 A. I couldn't know that. That's why I crossed out that name and
21 wrote Perica Jukic.
22 Q. You confuse me now. What didn't you know?
23 A. That's when I learned. That's when I crossed out Stojic's name
24 and wrote in hand Perica Jukic.
25 Q. I'm only asking you was it precisely at that time, seven or nine
1 days after this?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And in conclusion, sir, I will ask you very briefly, we have
4 another confusing thing in our documentation, and we can --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just for the transcript, one
6 clarification. In your diary for the 24th of 11th, 24th November, you
7 didn't cross out Mr. Stojic. You crossed out Mr. Jukic. It must have
8 been a mistake.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Quite possibly.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
12 Q. In conclusion, could we look at -- in the documentation that the
13 Prosecution showed you in the past two days, we saw that you had a
14 number of duties. You were warden in January, February, March, as you
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You signed one of the documents, and I'll say for the record it's
18 P 04233, as deputy -- sorry, "assistant commander of the 5th Battalion of
19 the military police - warden." Did you also use that title?
20 A. Never, never. I see it for the first time now. It must have been
21 a slip paid by the secretary who wrote this. I never used that title.
22 Q. But you were deputy warden, and you used that title on many
23 occasions; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You also used the title, commander of the central military
1 investigations prison, and signed documents that way?
2 A. Only in one period when it was necessary to achieve greater
3 control over the guards service as ordered by Mr. Franjo Cvitkovic, then
4 chief of the general military police at the administration. At that time
5 I wrote that book, and I invoked the instructions that would be obeyed in
6 handing over prisoners of war for labour duties, and in that period five
7 to six men left the prison because they could not stand this tight a
8 discipline. Among them was one man from the criminal service of the
9 military police who was expelled, and another one was disciplined.
10 Q. I'm sorry, sir. My time is running out, and I don't want to be
11 reprimanded by the Court. I want to finish.
12 I conclude, and I believe my colleagues will deal with it at
13 greater length, that Franjo Cvitkovic gave you certain authorisations,
14 certain greater powers than normally in the possession of a deputy warden.
15 Tell me, how long did that last?
16 A. Not long, because I talked to Franjo Cvitkovic in Ljubuski and
17 told him that after all, I was appointed as a fifth member of that
18 commission set up by Bruno Stojic, that it was too much, that I would have
19 everything under control and everything would be all right.
20 Q. Fine. Could that have been 10 days, not more?
21 A. Yes. You could say that. But it was a long time ago you must
22 bear in mind.
23 Q. On document P 04500, on the 25th of August you signed as deputy
24 warden and chief of SIZ?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you receive any letters of appointment or was that verbal
3 A. I knew I was deputy warden. That's how I signed it. But this
4 signature is commander. That was part of these tighter control measures.
5 I signed myself commander to make it sound better and to have greater
6 effect on the security.
7 Q. Can we conclude, sir, that all these titles that you used in
8 signing various documents were used in fact in the period from the
9 beginning of 1993 until the end of 1994? Can we agree on that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can we also agree that in actual fact you did not receive any
12 letters of appointment at that time. Those appointments were given to you
13 verbally or that you assumed according to the powers you had.
14 A. Yes.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, in your diary, 23rd
16 May, 1994, you indicate that there was an order from Mr. Siljeg to
17 Mr. Bozic asking for the transfer of his responsibilities to you, and the
18 number of the order is 0211 something, and that's an order that appoints
19 you officially director as of 18th May, 1994. Do you remember that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So from that time on you were
22 the only director, that is from end May 1994.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I wanted to say that to correct
25 Mrs. Nozica, who said that there was nothing until the end of 1994. There
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] It must have been a misunderstanding.
3 I was talking about titles for the duration of 1993. Now that you ask
4 this question about 1994 --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Generally I don't make any
6 mistakes. In line 1 on page 71, you ask him about the period from the
7 beginning of 1993 until the end of 1994. Can we agree on that?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And now you tell me it's all
10 1993. Maybe you made a mistake.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] No. I said from the beginning of
12 1993 to the end of 1993, but I didn't see it before in the transcript.
13 Q. Please, Witness, when Honourable Judge Antonetti told you ago
14 about your diary, at this point did you sign as deputy commander of the
15 independent company of security? And I'm referring to document P 08241 of
16 the 29th April, 1994, deputy commander of the independent security company
17 KRZ. Do you remember that?
18 A. I got that appointment from Mr. Siljeg on the 1st of January,
19 1994, and I was appointed deputy warden of that prison all the way until
20 the time that the Judge mentioned. Then I became commander, but 20 days
21 later the whole Heliodrom was closed down as a military prison.
22 Q. I'm asking you, sir, whether in 1994, on the 29th of April, you
23 were deputy commander of the independent security company of the KRZ.
24 That is your signature. Were you that too?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Thank you. Tell me finally about all these titles that you used
2 when you signed documents, do they actually testify to the fact that you
3 had rather wide powers within the Heliodrom prison in 1993? And, as we
4 see, in the beginning of 1994. Is that your opinion as well?
5 A. I did not have such powers as you indicate.
6 Q. I didn't say what kind of powers you had. I'm talking about your
7 titles and positions, the titles that you used. Did they give you the
8 powers that go with these titles?
9 A. In that whole 1993 I acted as indicated by the way I signed my
11 Q. That is the answer I expected.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I have
13 concluded my cross-examination.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, there was a document
15 that you did not show, 4455, that could have been interesting -- or 4475,
16 that could have been interesting as a layout of the prison. You still
17 have an opportunity to present it if you wish.
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I had another
19 two important documents, you just reminded me of one, and another one
20 would have been rather important to me, the one from Mr. Bagaric, but
21 unfortunately -- I wanted to conclude before you reprimand me, but since
22 I've been given this opportunity by Honourable Judge, let us look at P
24 Q. It is an interesting schematic that you made on the 24th of
25 August, 1993. I see that the Chamber is displaying some interest, and I'm
1 interested in it too.
2 Tell me, for what purpose was this done? You said it was done for
3 peacetime, but you did it on the 24th of August, 1993.
4 A. Since I had worked for so many years in the prison system before
5 the war, I made this schematic, this organisational chart, in order to
6 assist the administration of military police, and at that time I think
7 Mr. Rade Lavric was there, so that it could serve as a basis for the
8 functioning of the prison in good security conditions. I never received a
9 reply to this proposal, nor was it implemented, and later a different
10 system was introduced and the centre for POWs was established.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There are two things I'm
12 interested in, Witness. In this organigramme, in the B/C/S version
13 because the English version is not quite the same, I'm interested in the
14 relations between security commander and the warden. I see you put an
15 arrow that goes from security commander to the director without going
16 through you. Can you explain that? From the security commander to
17 warden, bypassing you, because we see that the military policemen are
18 divided in four groups led each by a lance corporal. These groups are
19 answerable to the security commander, and that's why you drew an arrow
20 showing up. However, there is no arrow between you and the security
21 commander, only the warden and security commander. Is that a mistake? I
22 don't think it's a mistake but, still, can you tell me in so many words?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From experience, from my pre-war
24 experience in the prison system, the warden of the prison could only --
25 were the only ones who could issue orders to the security commander.
1 That's why I wrote that orders can issue only from the warden of the
2 prison who is responsible for the whole prison.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Accepting the theory that you
4 are an assistant commander or acting commander, acting commander, for
5 instance, when you are standing in for the commander when he's absent.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, the second
8 element for us to proceed speedily. There's a mention in this document
9 that we're seeing for the first time and nobody has asked you that
10 question, and I'm going to ask you that question now. It says "Remarks,"
11 and says the prison belongs to the military judiciary, and then you
12 mention the president of the military court or tribunal. So apparently
13 somebody we've never seen appears here, the president of the military
14 tribunal or court.
15 Now, this individual, did they come to the prison to see how it
16 was functioning? Because it's probably a military court judge. So in any
17 democracy in your country was a democracy at the time, military -- the
18 military justice was interested in the prison system, and if this was
19 written there then it corresponded to the actual situation. So do you
20 remember the military prosecutor or the president of the military court
21 ever coming to visit the prison?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I give an explanation?
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since this is an organigramme
25 compiled when most of the prisoners of war were being released, they focus
1 on the prison building. That's what it refers to, where the only people
2 that remain were military prisoners of war who at that time belonged to
3 the military courts, military judiciary. I think it was Mr. Mladen
4 Jurisic at the time who otherwise had the power and authority over the
5 prisoners of war.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what I wanted to learn.
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I have an additional question with regard to this
8 same document. It is said there on the second page in the English
9 version: "The most responsible worker is the warden and assistant warden,
10 who is appointed by the judiciary."
11 Can you --
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Can you explain why you wrote this here and why
14 at least so far you have not with any indication said that you or Mr.
15 Bozic were appointed by the judiciary? On the contrary.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may be of some assistance, Your Honour, prior
17 to --
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No. I think I would like to hear this from the
19 witness and not from you.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: He indicated --
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Can you wait a bit?
22 MR. KARNAVAS: -- it was a proposal, Your Honour. This was a
23 proposal. He indicated -- I'm trying to assist you here. This was a
24 proposal. He indicated this when he began being questioned about this
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: And that's -- so perhaps you may wish to rephrase
3 your question, but I'm not trying to interfere. He indicated that it was
4 his proposal. So in light of that, there might be a line of questioning
5 what existed prior to and what this proposal is about. So I apologise if
6 I'm trying to interrupt, but I'm not --
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. Thank you. I recognise your good
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, can you tell us?
10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, counsel.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Karnavas. I wanted to
13 intervene in two matters.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Allow the
15 witness to answer first, because Mr. Karnavas tried to explain the matter
16 to the Chamber saying that the document was a proposal rather than a
17 reality or, rather, I'm putting the word "reality" in there. But
18 Mr. Praljak, who understands all this, will throw light on the matter.
19 Now, Mr. Praljak, this document, it was an observation or a
20 proposal to Mr. Rado Lavric, which?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was a proposal for Mr. Lavric
22 so that the -- saying that the prison would function best in this way. So
23 that was the proposal.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Nozica.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. We took a bit of time up on that, but my only question was linked
2 to this document, and it was why this document was compiled. At your own
3 initiative because you thought this was the best way it would function, or
4 did somebody ask you to compile something like this?
5 A. Let me state again I felt it my moral duty as the fifth member
6 to help things change, to make the prison a proper prison by virtue of
7 its function, and for those reasons I made this proposal and sent it to
8 Mr. Rado Lavric as food for thought, for him to think about it.
9 Q. Very well. You keep mentioning the fifth member, whereas you send
10 it to Rado Lavric who wasn't a member of the commission at all and didn't
11 work within the commission. So I think that in this context that rather
12 sidesteps your -- or goes beyond your authority. But let me ask you one
13 more thing.
14 After moving to the organisation of the Konevcic [phoen], the
15 shelter, was this proposal taken into account when the central military
16 prison became the shelter of prisoners of war?
17 A. I never received a response, but the book that -- for the book --
18 the system book for the prison incorporated this part here, as set out
20 Q. Sir, do you mean to say that the prison came to belong to the
21 military judiciary and was responsible to the president of the military
22 court during 1994 after the reorganisation?
23 A. It always belonged to the military police administration as an
24 independent company, the shelter for prisoner of war.
25 Q. Now, we have this next document in e-court, and Judge Antonetti
1 noticed that the organigramme in the original does not correspond to the
2 translation version. This is rather significant, and I think that if
3 we're looking at this diagram then it is best to look at the original, of
4 course, is it not, rather than the translation?
5 A. [No interpretation]
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Well, thank you for that additional
7 time, Your Honours. That completes my cross-examination, and I think it's
8 time for the break as well.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. We're going to take the
10 break because it's 12.30. We have 20 minutes for our break and we will
11 reconvene which will leave us with another hour to go.
12 --- Recess taken at 12.29 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed. The
15 questions have two -- the Judges have two questions.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: First -- first question, Mr. Praljak. It relates
17 to document P 09121. I don't think it is necessary to show it to you.
18 You will recall. It is this plan of the layout of Heliodrom, which is
19 entitled inter alia "Concentration camp." Now, you have yourself
20 personally taken a great distance and say you would not even want to
21 pronounce that, but where does this document come from? Isn't it an
22 official document which comes from -- I don't know from who. It speaks
23 of JNA on the first line, but I don't know whether in B/C/S this also
24 means -- has some meaning. Yugoslav National Army. I don't know. Can
25 you give an explanation on the origin of this document?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The document on which it says
2 "concentration camp" which we were shown earlier on by counsel, all I said
3 was that I cannot accept the words "concentration camp" and I would never
4 use those words myself.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I recall that very well, Mr. Praljak. My
6 question was: Where does this document come from? It says "HVO
7 concentration camp."
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You had never seen it before today?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The document I was shown by counsel,
11 I marked on it the prison on the Heliodrom premises where the prisoners
12 were kept, but I didn't deal with what it says at the top, where it says
13 they were concentration camps.
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. I think you wanted to explain, Ms.
15 Nozica. Sorry for interrupting you.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I think that
17 we can explain it quite simply if we just ask the witness whether it was
18 the Prosecutor who showed him the document, and then when he talked to the
19 Prosecutor on the 16th of March, 2004, the document had already been
20 prepared by the Prosecutor and then he made these markings in his own hand
21 on the document. I think that the witness can tell us that and then the
22 origins of the document will be quite clear.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It was either the Prosecutor who
24 gave you this map or you brought it with you when you met with the
25 Prosecutor. Which was it? Do you remember?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The investigators. When the
2 investigators talked to me, they showed me that document. I did not pay
3 any attention to what it says in the capital letters above at the top of
4 the document. I just looked at the Heliodrom compound and marked the
5 premises where the prisoners of war and prisoners were detained.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, would you inform the
7 Chamber where the document originates from? Was it your services who
8 wrote this up, or did you get the document from somewhere else, because it
9 has to have come from somewhere.
10 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. Mr. President and
11 Your Honours, I was looking for the document because I had it out, the
12 one that was actually used with the witness in court earlier this -- on
13 Monday, and I had it a few minutes ago before the break but ...
14 Here it is. I have it. First of all, just to explain, I believe
15 the document was shown to the witness when he was interviewed in 2004 as
16 he himself has just confirmed, there was no reference to the title on the
17 document, and the Prosecution made no effort to make any use of that, if
18 you will. It was a document that was found -- it was an existing -- a
19 pre-existing diagram of the Heliodrom complex that was used for the
20 diagram itself having nothing to do with the title of the document, for --
21 something for the witness to mark. When it was used with the witness in
22 court, IC number 449, if anyone would like to look at it just so that they
23 can confirm what I'm telling is the truth. The part didn't have anything
24 on that. It simply was that particular section of it that showed the --
25 the part of the prison complex. It had nothing to do -- we didn't use
1 anything -- any other markings on the document, but it indeed was shown to
2 the witness as a -- something for him to mark on in 2004. That's all.
3 That's the only information I can provide to the Chamber at the moment.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Do you have in your possession the document
5 marked P 09121?
6 MR. SCOTT: I don't know. I don't know what the document --
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Because that is the one I was referring to. Ms.
8 Nozica is offering you a copy. Perhaps the usher can bring it over to
10 MR. SCOTT: That's the one we're talking about, I think.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: But this one has the title, and the other one you
12 held up does not.
13 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. Perhaps you weren't listening and
14 didn't hear what I said. This was shown to the witness in 2004 by the
15 investigators when the witness was interviewed in 2004, not in court on
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Right.
18 MR. SCOTT: And that's what I just said a moment ago.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes.
20 MR. SCOTT: Yes.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And where does it come from?
22 MR. SCOTT: I don't know offhand. I'd have to do some further
23 inquiries to know that.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do your best to find out,
1 because it's important for us to know where the document comes from, and
2 then you'll tell us.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The second question, Mr. Praljak, is did you
4 personally visit the solitary confinement cells that we have spoken
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Once or twice at the most throughout
7 that entire period.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Would that have been before or after the 30th of
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This refers to the time after the
11 30th of June. From the 30th of June onwards.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next counsel, next team.
14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Kovacic:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Praljak. I am Defence
17 counsel for General Praljak, and I have a few questions for you, not too
19 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I think, Your Honours, I will
20 complete my cross-examination within 10 minutes, and we give the rest of
21 our time to the Pusic Defence.
22 Q. Mr. Praljak, tell me, please, did you ever see General Praljak in
23 the Heliodrom complex?
24 A. Never.
25 Q. Did you ever hear that General Praljak had come to the complex?
1 A. No, never.
2 Q. Tell me, please, you knew more or less the entire complex, and
3 Their Honours have had occasion to see photographs. It's a large complex,
4 is it not?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Within that Heliodrom complex, was there a cinema hall as well?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Can you describe to us without having to resort to photographs,
9 although we can if need be, where was the cinema hall located? Was it
10 a long way off from the detention centre, the detention building, or
12 A. Well, I can't quite remember now.
13 Q. Well, shall we take a look on e-court the layout. It was P 09219.
14 Perhaps we could place that on the overhead projector or on e-court -- on
15 e-court. It is a layout. It was IC 452, because the witness marked the
16 detention building. So may we have that on e-court. It had an IC number
17 being 452.
18 Until that comes up on our screens let me ask you this: Do you
19 know where the canteen was, once again, in the complex, the officers' mess
20 or officers' canteen?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Can you tell us whether that building where the canteen was,
23 whether it was near the detention building or a long way away or where?
24 A. It is separated by the command building to the south where the
25 command was, and next to that was the canteen or officers' mess.
1 Q. Would you take a look at your screen, because the layout, the
2 diagram of the entire complex has come up on our screens, and could you
3 point out to us --.
4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] And could we have the usher's
5 assistance so that the witness can mark with a marker pen where this
7 Q. You told us where the prison building was. You already marked
8 that. Or the main building, main prison building, the one that you
9 reconstructed. And you can draw a circle around that.
10 A. [Marks].
11 Q. And put a number 1 there, please.
12 A. [Marks].
13 Q. Excellent. Now, on this diagram can you recognise the cinema
15 A. No, I can't. I know there was a cinema building there but I never
16 went there.
17 Q. Do you know what building it was in?
18 A. No, I don't. I would make a mistake if I were to hazard a
20 Q. Well, could you give us the general area where the cinema might
21 have been?
22 A. I can't remember.
23 Q. Can you say that it was to the left or right of the stadium or the
24 prison or do you have any idea whatsoever where the cinema hall might have
1 A. I know that there was a kitchen. I know where the kitchen was,
2 the central kitchen where we had our meals, and above us was the Bruno
3 Pusic regiment. That's the area that I moved around in and knew.
4 Q. So you can't actually say, can you.
5 A. No.
6 Q. What about the canteen? Can you locate that for us, please -- or,
7 rather, the building where the canteen was.
8 A. [Marks]
9 Q. And would you put a number 2 there, please.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. And is it true and correct, in looking at this diagram, if I say
12 between the prison building and the canteen building there was a building
13 in between the two? Is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, would the witness put his initials in
16 the margin at the bottom and today's date?
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, do that.
18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. The date is the 28th of February.
20 A. [Marks]
21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] And may I have an IC number,
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] IC number, please, Mr.
25 THE REGISTRAR: That will be IC 453, Your Honours.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. We don't need the
2 document any more. Thank you, usher.
3 Q. Their Honours asked you when you came in as a witness whether you
4 were related to General Praljak, and you said yes you were, that you were
5 cousins; start?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So undoubtedly you know each other. That's right, isn't it?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Did you ever during the war, during the war we're discussing,
10 personally meet General Praljak during that time?
11 A. Only once at the annual celebrations of the military police in
12 Ljubuski -- Ljubusko.
13 Q. Can you tell us when that was?
14 A. In 1994, 1995.
15 Q. So that was in actual fact after the war; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Thank you. Now, during the war and especially in 1992 and 1993
18 when you worked at Heliodrom, did you ever happen to meet him then?
19 A. No, never.
20 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] May I have the usher's assistance
21 and place on the e-court document P 06937.
22 Q. Witness, this morning at the beginning of the day when you were
23 asked by the Prosecutor, you confirmed that you had seen all the documents
24 in the binder and therefore testified to the authenticity of the
25 documents. You know what I'm referring to?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Would you now take a look at this next document up on our screens
3 and tell me whether in that binder where reference is made to the group of
4 orders signed by Jelic, whether this document is among that group in that
6 A. Since I went through the documents rather quickly, and I said
7 that it was in the order it was, I didn't happen to notice this particular
8 one. And I see that at the bottom there's an addition -- an additional
10 Q. So you cannot confirm that you have seen this document; is that
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In that case, I only have one more question, because it's of no
14 importance then.
15 This document seems to me a little unusual judging by its form
16 since there are two stamps and two signatories. Now, any of the other
17 documents from this category of orders from Mijo Jelic, do you remember
18 whether there was any other document with two signatures and two stamps?
19 A. I think I happened to notice one from General Petkovic, and I
20 think that I also saw one from General Matic like that.
21 Q. Can we agree on the following: As a rule, all the documents have
22 a signatory -- or, rather, one person who signs and one stamp; is that
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So exceptionally, and you now told us two examples that you
1 remember, for some reason you remember documents with two signatories and
2 two stamps; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Do you happen to remember this particular one?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Can we agree then that you've never seen this document before?
7 A. That's right, I haven't.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, with respect to the
10 stamps, I see that there were prison stamps and that there was a number 47
11 on them when we saw the prison stamps. Now, one could ask ourselves
12 whether your signature is followed by a stamp as well because we can't see
13 the number 7. Is it your signature underneath Mr. Jelic's signature?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness repeat his answer?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The answer was no.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's not your signature?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So what name is it there?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Zlatan Mijo Jelic. And underneath
21 that in handwritten form is says "Slobodan Praljak."
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. So in your opinion,
23 what was Mr. Praljak's part in this document or in this order?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At this time there was an order
25 prohibiting prisoner of war from being released to perform labour. They
1 could only do so with permission from the Main Staff.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I just to -- add to your last questions,
3 Mr. Kovacic.
4 Mr. Praljak, can you affirm that you have not seen this document
5 in the many, many documents that you have been shown? Can you say it's
6 excluded, "I would certainly have noticed and remembered this one"?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, skimming through that document
8 I don't think I saw this document, but I saw similar documents from the
9 Main Staff.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a minute. It says 8th
12 November at 2120. Is this something you wrote yourself?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But it's somebody at the prison
15 who must have marked it. Somebody left or came back at 2120.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The person who wrote this was an
17 officer of the guards or maybe shift commander who was on duty then.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So it's an entry
19 made at the prison. So at that time, as you said, you were never there.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Right.
21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Just now -- in fact, no. I want to ask you something else.
23 After telling us you don't remember seeing this document over the
24 weekend in the Prosecutor's office, do you remember seeing it at the time
25 of the events, on the 9th of November, for instance?
1 A. I can't recall.
2 Q. And let me go back to the following: As you were questioned by
3 the Bench a moment ago, an order was mentioned, the order of
4 General Petkovic dated 14th November, 1993, banning the prisoners from
5 being borrowed, so to speak.
6 A. Right.
7 Q. And after that we saw many orders contrary to Mr. Petkovic's
8 order, and we see documents to the effect that prisoners continued to be
9 taken out, and such orders continued. Is that correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This one is dated 8th of November. That is between the order of
12 Mr. Petkovic and this order there is a whole series, at least a dozen,
13 which tells us that orders continued to come in from Mijo Jelic, among
14 others, and they continued to be implemented. It didn't take anybody
15 superior to Jelic. Is that correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So this order was obviously executed, at least according to this
18 entry. This one was executed as well regardless of whether it had two
19 signatures and two stamps or just one; correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we heard what the
22 witness said, and regardless of all the technology we have at our disposal
23 here when the Prosecutor enters this document I will object, and
24 immediately for the record I want to say this document is a forgery. The
25 witness does not remember seeing it at the time. He doesn't recall seeing
1 it even recently at the Prosecutor's office. And I want to remind the
2 Chamber that as was established in previous cases this document was indeed
3 obtained from the Croatian archives, but what both we and the Prosecution
4 received at the archives are only copies. And I remind the Court of a
5 well-known fact that the chain of custody of HVO documents from Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina to Croatia took five years, and in those five years the
7 documents were in the possession of at least three different intelligence
8 services. Therefore, I believe, and that is a rare occurrence --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, to be quite clear,
10 you seem to maintain that the signature is not that of Mr. Praljak,
11 because -- because it's a forgery. Is that what you're saying? Is that a
12 false signature? I'm trying to understand what you're saying, because
13 apparently this document has a reference number, dates, numbers. All that
14 is established. There is a stamp or stamps. We see a handwritten
15 addition, 8th November, 2120. Then we see a stamp of receipt with a
16 reference number 412. Then we see the signature of Mr. Praljak. So are
17 you saying that this is all a forgery?
18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I was just about to explain in
19 greater detail. I had to mention the issue of the chain of custody just
20 to remind you of that story and that fact stands. It has been established
21 in other cases. I'm not claiming the whole of the document is a forgery
22 but still it is false. Because according to our information, and that can
23 be proven only by expertise for which purpose I will ask the Prosecution
24 for an original, I think that this little square at the bottom was simply
25 pasted during photocopying, and I think we can see the outlines of that
1 pasted square even with the naked eye. It was simply added to another
3 Since we are working with copies here and copies are mostly fine,
4 they are mostly verifiable, we usually have three copies from various
5 archives, the archives of the issuing institution, archives of the
6 receiving institution, and some third source, it's usually easily
7 verifiable. However, despite all our efforts we were able to find this
8 document only in the Croatian archives, but we do not know the chain of
9 custody of this document before it reached the Croatian archives. In
10 those five years of its journey, anybody could have pasted this addition
11 at the bottom.
12 In any case, I just wanted to lay briefly a foundation, and our in
13 our written submissions tomorrow I will explain further and object because
14 this document is not authentic.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But so that I
16 understand what you're saying, of course you can paste a stamp, but you
17 have a signature as well here. You know we can have a graphological
18 examination, and it can well be established that it is indeed your
19 client's signature.
20 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] It's not a problem to take from
21 another document an original signature of Mr. Praljak or any other person
22 and -- and the stamp that accompanies it. Only this bit can be pasted
23 onto another document and then the whole can be copied, Xeroxed. We are
24 not being paranoid here. Although we have to handle thousands of copies,
25 in 99.9 per cent of cases those copies are verified and verifiable. This
1 is not the case here. Of course, this document can be submitted to
2 expertise only when we have an original. Our inquiries did not yield an
3 original. The Prosecution has a copy from the Croatian archives and so do
4 the Defence teams. That's all we have. But I will inquire further and
5 see what the chances are that Mr. Praljak really signed this document on
6 the 8th of November.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Continue.
8 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation].
9 Q. Tell me, Witness, the Prosecution questioned you about this as
10 well, and I have to follow up on that.
11 Do you know that General Praljak -- in fact, do you know from any
12 source at all, firsthand or secondhand, that General Praljak was relieved
13 of his duties as commander at his own request on the 8th of November,
15 A. I knew nothing about it then.
16 Q. In any case, you know that General Roso was commander after
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know maybe from other people or any other source or
20 information that General Praljak on that day, the 8th of November, 1993,
21 in the morning spent several hours in Citluk with Mr. Bruno Stojic whose
22 underling you were after all? Do you have any information about that?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Do you know that the rest of the same day, the 8th of November,
25 1993, was spent by General Praljak in the process of handing over duties
1 until late evening hours in Livno? Do you know anything about that?
2 A. Nothing whatsoever.
3 Q. Did you hear anything at all about the movements of
4 General Praljak on that day of hand-over of duties or earlier?
5 A. I knew nothing.
6 Q. Now that we have discussed this document at length, was your
7 memory jogged, perhaps? Did you see that document contemporaneously in
8 1993? I suppose you would have remarked the signature of your cousin.
9 A. It was a long time ago, 1993, and I didn't even need to look at
10 these documents.
11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I have completed my
12 cross-examination. I stand by what I said regarding the dubious
13 authenticity of this document. Later in the process of proving an alibi I
14 will show that Mr. Praljak was not even Mostar at the time, but I do also
15 insist that we get the original document from the OTP, if they have it, so
16 that we can submit it for expertise. But I believe that authenticity's
17 very questionable. The witness says that he didn't see it at the time,
18 which sounds reasonable, but he also says he didn't even see it during
19 proofing in the past three days. The witness will, though, confirm that
20 he had seen 100 documents in this binder.
21 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness, I --
23 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour, my apology to counsel for
24 interrupting but I was going to get up before counsel started the next
1 Just so the record is clear, there is no evidence in the record at
2 the moment that this document is not authentic and counsel's assertions to
3 the contrary are not evidence. So there's simply no evidence that it
4 isn't authentic at all.
5 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe this comment
6 is really not appropriate. If there were any doubts on the Prosecution's
7 side about the authenticity of this document I suppose they wouldn't be
8 presenting it at all.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you submit your arguments
10 in writing, the Trial Chamber will confer and deliberate on the
11 admissibility of this document, and you can trust us to review it as we
12 normally do, very carefully, and with even greater care.
13 Ms. Alaburic.
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation].
15 Q. Mr. Praljak, I will be very brief and cover three subjects. Just
16 a little clarification concerning the order of my client, Mr. Petkovic,
17 dated 14th October, 1993, document P 05881 that we discussed a moment ago.
18 Can we please see it in e-court?
19 And you, Mr. Praljak, would you be see kind as to look at your
20 screen. I just want to ascertain the precise meaning of this document and
21 avoid any confusion. Tell me, this is a document that General Petkovic
22 issued to all the brigades of the operation zone of East Herzegovina?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. So it is a document that was not submitted either to Heliodrom
25 prison or any other detention centre; correct?
1 A. It was submitted to the prison, and I found about it at the
3 Q. It's not so important whether the document reached Heliodrom in
4 any way, but the author of the document did not actually intend it for
5 any -- anyone but the brigades of the South-east Herzegovina operation
6 zone. That much is true.
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. It says: "I hereby prohibit prisoners to be taken out for the
9 purpose," et cetera. Now, tell me, is it correct to interpret this order
10 as an order of the Main Staff to brigades in the operation zone
11 prohibiting them from even requesting prisoners for any purpose without
12 the approval of the Main Staff?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I didn't follow the interpretation, but I hope that everything's
15 properly on the record.
16 The next topic are the women you said were at Heliodrom.
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Can we move into private is
18 session, please, to mention some names?
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 14906-14907 redacted. Private session
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,
4 Mr. President.
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Mr. Praljak, this question about the women was very important to
7 me because of an order issued by my client, General Petkovic, dated the
8 30th of June, 1993, whereby he issues the order for the isolation and
9 disarmament of Muslims in the HVO and also the isolation of the
10 military-able men with the express order not to touch the women and
12 Tell me, please, do you know what happened on the 30th of June,
13 1993 in Mostar and the surrounding areas?
14 A. I did not know what was going on because I wasn't living in Mostar
15 at all, nor did I know what was happening in Mostar.
16 Q. Very well. I'll tell you briefly. The HVO in Mostar lost
17 control over certain facilities and territory because the Muslims from
18 the HVO crossed over to the side of the BH army and in that way betrayed
19 their army, and that is why the order was issued, to isolate Muslims in
20 the HVO.
21 Tell me, Mr. Praljak, do you know that at the beginning of -- of
22 July at Heliodrom Muslims were brought in --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Counsel. They
24 betrayed their own army, their army. Which army?
25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] The army they were in, and they
1 were in the HVO right up until the point in time -- while somebody is in
2 an army, then that is that person's army to which he belongs.
3 Q. Mr. Praljak, did you know that at Heliodrom at the beginning of
4 July Muslims were brought in who were HVO soldiers?
5 A. I couldn't know that.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Praljak, let's discuss categories, the categories of
7 people who were deprived of liberty and taken in remand. You very often
8 use the term "prisoners of war." Tell us, please, do you know who enjoys
9 protection under that category according to the provisions that apply to
10 prisoners of war?
11 A. Prisoners of war, as I understand it, were those persons who were
12 captured on that day, the 30th of June, and who began to be brought in to
13 the Heliodrom on that day.
14 Q. Mr. Praljak, let me tell you briefly. There are several
15 categories of prisoners of war, but basically a prisoner of war is a
16 member of a hostile army, an enemy army, and various arms grouped to that
17 or to them. That is a simplified version of the definition of a prisoner
18 of war.
19 Now, tell me, please, the persons of Muslim ethnicity who had been
20 soldiers of the HVO, did they belong to that enemy army, and did these --
21 can these persons be considered prisoners of war in conformity with the
22 Geneva Conventions?
23 A. Can you explain that to me, your question, please?
24 Q. Now, if -- or, let's put it this way, give a specific time and
25 place: Can soldiers of the BH army and the army of Republika Srpska with
1 which the HVO at that time was engaged in a conflict be considered
2 prisoners of war? And HVO prisoners of war armies -- soldiers of that
3 same HVO?
4 A. Prisoners of war from those two components are, as far as we were
5 concerned, prisoners of war.
6 Q. All right. Fine. Now, what about HVO soldiers who were brought
7 to Heliodrom regardless of their ethnicity? What status did they have?
8 A. During that period of time when they were brought in to prison we
9 did not know, although they were Muslims, whether they were in the HVO
10 units or not.
11 Q. Are you telling us then, Mr. Praljak, and can you confirm,
12 Mr. Praljak, that in the facilities that you mentioned, that is to say the
13 prison, the school, and the sports hall that there were both HVO soldiers
14 there who were Muslims and soldiers of the BH army and perhaps some third
15 category of persons?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. If from today's advantage point you were to try to establish who
18 was taken out to perform labour according to the regulations, could you
19 establish whether it was HVO soldiers who had been detained on the 30th of
20 June and after that period?
21 A. Since I did not know at the time anything about this, I just
22 learnt who the prisoners of war were when a criminal report was filed
23 against these persons and when they were transferred to the prison
25 Q. Mr. Praljak, when you received requests and demands to release
1 prisoners to perform labour or detainees to perform labour, did you need
2 to contact the administration of the detention centre? Did the
3 administration of the detention centre have to see about this?
4 A. When the order to release these people came, the shift commander
5 did not differentiate between persons. He did not differentiate the
6 different categories, but they would take these persons from prison out in
7 a set order.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I have no further questions. Thank
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Counsel Tomic, what do you
11 want to tell us, because we have four minutes left?
12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would use
13 these -- or, rather, two of those four minutes for some technical matters,
14 not to waste time tomorrow.
15 The Pusic Defence has told me that they won't be needing the time
16 they were allotted by the Praljak Defence, so I would like to know how
17 much the Praljak Defence has used up and how much time I have at my
18 disposal. If you could tell me that today, I would be grateful.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We said that Mr. Pusic has one
20 hour and a half. That's what we started off with. Now, I understood it
21 this way, that Mr. Pusic's Defence was given 30 minutes from that time,
22 that Mr. Praljak's Defence gave Mr. Pusic 30 minutes, which means that Mr.
23 Pusic has two hours. What I don't know is how much time Mr. Karnavas is
24 going to need for the Prlic defence.
25 Tomorrow, Mr. Karnavas, how much time are you going to need? You
1 have 45 minutes in the natural order of things, but how much time are you
2 going to need?
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I would like to reserve my entire 45
4 minutes. I don't know if I will use it all, but at this point in time I'm
5 not willing to give my time to anyone.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Ibrisimovic.
7 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Just to make things clear for
8 the transcript. We feel that one and a half hours accorded to us is
9 sufficient. That will suffice us. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You will need one
11 and a half hours, and if we add to that the 45 minutes for the Prlic
12 Defence, that is two hours and 15 minutes, plus -- well, you have
13 Mr. Coric's time, which is one hour and 30 minutes, as you said, plus
14 the time remaining, unless the Prosecution has additional questions,
16 Do you, Mr. Scott?
17 MR. SCOTT: I think there will be some, Your Honour. Based on
18 what I've heard today, I have to at least allow for the possibility to
19 reserve some time for some questions. Thank you.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A priori, Mr. Scott, if you take
22 too much we won't be able to get through everything in view of the fact
23 that Counsel Ibrisimovic needs one hour and 30 minutes. Mr. Prlic needs
24 45 minutes, and we have a minimum of two hours for the Coric Defence,
25 which means that that is a little over four hours.
1 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I didn't use for -- first of all to
2 start, I did not use all the time allocated to me to begin with, so we
3 finished shorter than we thought. I will -- I'm certainly sensitive to
4 the time issues just as everyone, I think, in the courtroom is, but having
5 said that I cannot simply say as a matter of principle that I have no
6 redirect. There may be some very important questions to put to the
7 witness and I think it's the Prosecution's right, just as the right of
8 every party, to pose its questions to the witness.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, as we're going to have a
10 meeting later on, the Judges, we will see about that and tell you how
11 we're going to divide the time up tomorrow, but we have taken note of the
12 request made by the Coric Defence to have more time. Well, you'll have
13 your time, because you already have allocated to you one hour and 30
14 minutes, but we'll let you know tomorrow. The object, as far as we are
15 concerned, is to ensure that Mr. Praljak can go home after the end of
16 business tomorrow, not have to stay on, and I think we'll reach a
17 consensus on that point.
18 It's quarter to 2.00. We have to end that point. We reconvene
19 tomorrow at 9.00.
20 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.,
21 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 1st day
22 of March, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.