1 Tuesday, 9 October 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
7 the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
9 everyone in the court. This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor
10 versus Prlic et al. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. This
12 is Tuesday, 9th of October. I would like to welcome all those present,
13 Mr. Scott, the counsels, the accused, as well as all those present in the
15 Mr. Scott wanted to take the floor, I understand.
16 MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Your Honours, and everyone in the
17 courtroom. Very briefly, just again, because I know we tend to get very
18 busy in the course of the day, I didn't want to forget it again until
19 later today. It's simply to request the opportunity to respond to a
20 couple of Defence filings, Your Honour, in connection with the testimony
21 of Dr. Miller, and I had indicated that this doesn't need to be -- none of
22 this really needs to be in closed session or outside of the hearing of the
24 In connection with the evidence given by Dr. Miller, the -- I
25 believe it's the Praljak Defence and the Petkovic Defence have filed
1 oppositions to certain documents, and the Prosecution would like to
2 have -- ask the Chamber's leave to have until Friday to file a response
3 concerning that.
4 Thank you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall entertain this request.
6 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, Mr. Scott, you've used up
8 three hours almost, two hours and 54 minutes, so you have almost three
9 hours, which means you have another hour.
10 Yes, Mr. Khan.
11 MR. KHAN: Mr. President, Your Honours, good morning. I was going
12 to raise this matter in the absence of the witness, but perhaps I can
13 raise it now. It's an application for Your Honours to vary, if you're
14 minded, the order yesterday that a response be filed by the Defence in
15 writing in relation to an application of the Prosecution by Thursday.
16 Your Honour will recollect the order made yesterday morning.
17 Your Honour, I wonder, given that we have another deadline to file
18 on Thursday, if Your Honours would be minded to give the Defence ten or 15
19 minutes today or tomorrow just to respond orally. It is a very discrete
20 issue, and it would alleviate some of the of the burden of actually
21 putting something down in writing.
22 Of course, the transcript and the oral submissions would, I think,
23 be enough to guide Your Honours on the issue as far as the Defence
24 submissions are concerned, and I think it's a matter that the Prosecution
25 could respond to summarily in any event. Your Honour, it would ease the
1 burden on the Defence, and it is my application that Your Honours grant
2 ten minutes tomorrow or today to respond orally.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. What we'll do is
4 we'll start with this one and a half hour session, then when we resume
5 later on. Before the witness is called in, you will have ten minutes to
6 make your point.
7 Yes, Mr. Karnavas.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Just very briefly in response to Mr. Scott's
9 request. We didn't -- we did not file anything because we have
10 extensively put our position on the record, and we would just invite the
11 Prosecution to take those comments in mind as well, when they do respond,
12 that they probably should respond to -- to our comments and our objections
13 on the record. We certainly don't want to give the impression that we
14 waived any interest in -- in our objections to Mr. Miller's testimony.
15 They are on the record.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, the floor is yours.
17 WITNESS: MIROSLAV RUPCIC [Resumed]
18 [Witness answered through interpreter]
19 Examination by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
20 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Once again, good morning to
21 everyone in the courtroom.
22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Rupcic.
23 A. Good morning.
24 Q. Sir, we're going to continue on with a few additional examples of
25 these banking transactions. We finished yesterday one concerning a
1 transfer from something called the "DSK" involving Mr. Stojic.
2 I'd like to ask you to turn now to a bundle, sort of a collection
3 of various transactions, that have collectively been marked as P 10297.
4 These transactions are organised in a chronological way. So what I'll be
5 doing, because we won't have time to go through every single transaction,
6 of course, what I'd like to do is point you to several of them. I will do
7 it chronologically, so we'll all just need to be able to turn through the
8 document to the date order approximately.
9 The First document is dated 29th of January, 1993, and I believe
10 the last document in the bundle is dated the 12th of November, 1993.
11 MR. SCOTT: Your Honours, I'm sure you understand, given the time
12 limitations, we have not tried to present or go through every single
13 document of this nature. That would take some days, if not weeks, to go
14 through every single transaction record that we have in these matters. So
15 we can give the Chamber an overview of the types of records that were
16 being kept at this time and a sampling of some of the transactions that
17 are reflected.
18 Q. In this bundle, Mr. Rupcic, I'd like to turn your attention, if
19 you could go, to the -- there is a card, one of these public auditing
20 service cards that we looked at yesterday, reflecting a transaction on the
21 17th of February 1993.
22 So if you can please turn into the document until you get to the
23 transaction for the 17th of February involving a transaction of 454 --
24 excuse me, 454.658.000 dinars.
25 Do you have that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I just simply wanted to, again, review a couple of things we
3 talked about yesterday. Is it correct, then, again on this particular
4 card, you can say that it was a telephone or telegraph transaction or
5 approval, which meant that this transaction could essentially be taken --
6 take place immediately? Is that correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Can you -- if you can recall the accounts that we looked at
9 yesterday, I direct your attention to the account number which is
10 immediately above on the right side of the form, immediately above the
11 date and the place Metkovic. In the box above that, again we have the
12 number 80822 and following. Can you just simply confirm that is the
13 account number for what we would call the "HVO Grude" or "HVO military
15 A. Correct. That's correct.
16 Q. And on the left side, the purpose of the transfer is indicated as
17 "Payment of special disbursement from the Ministry of Defence." Is that
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. If I could next ask you to turn through the bundle until you get
21 to a transaction, please, there maybe two on this date, so we'll have to
22 be sure we're referring to the same one. On the 16th, the first
23 transaction indicated for the 16th of April, 1993.
24 This is a transaction for 500.000.000 Croatian dinars on the 16th
25 of April. Again, I'll just ask you to, if you can confirm for us once
1 again, the signatures on the requests for cash withdrawal, who authorised
2 that withdrawal?
3 A. Mr. Tomic and Mr. Bandic.
4 Q. I think that -- I think we're looking at a different transaction.
5 A. Beg your pardon.
6 Q. The transaction on the 16th of April for 500.000.000. Can you
7 tell us, if you've found that, can you please tell us who signed the
9 A. Mr. Jelavic and Mr. Majic.
10 Q. Excuse me. Go ahead. I thought I interrupted you. Did you have
11 something else to say?
12 A. Mr. Jelavic and Mr. Majic signed this. Is this the 16th of April?
13 Is that the date?
14 Q. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
15 Can you confirm on the document, the other document that's related
16 to this, that that does bear your signature as the person who received the
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Can we also just confirm, when we look at this transaction, this
20 money was withdrawn from again what we call the "HVO Mostar" or "finance
21 department" account?
22 A. Correct. If you remember, when we talked, I told you that the two
23 of them could not have been signatories on this account, so that is an
24 admission on the part of the bank; the fact that it was allowed, that is
25 to say, this cash withdrawal, given these signatures.
1 Q. And just to be clear on what you're indicating, Mr. Jelavic and
2 Mr. Majic were signatories on the HVO Grude or military account but not on
3 this particular account; nonetheless, you confirm the transaction did take
4 place and you were the one that actually collected the 500.000.000 dinars;
5 is that correct?
6 A. Correct.
7 Q. And if I could next ask you to go to, toward the end of the
8 document, the first of the documents that are dated - because, again,
9 there are two on this date - but the first document dated the 12th of
10 November, 1993. By way of reference, I'll refer to the dinar amount,
11 12.447.600 dinar on the 12th of November, 1993. This, again, refers to
12 being taken from the DSK, and this is indicated as coming from the -- from
13 a Grude account.
14 Can you look at the documents and tell us -- excuse me.
15 A. Not from the account in Grude but from the savings account.
16 Q. Yes, from one of the savings currency account, the foreign
17 currency savings accounts that you mentioned yesterday; correct?
18 In this particular instance, do you agree that, although it's
19 fairly faint --
20 A. [No interpretation]
21 Q. Sorry, sir. We were talk over each other. Do you agree that you
22 signed for this cash as well?
23 A. Well, if you look at the rubric that says "Purpose," you will see
24 my name and surname and the number of my ID. I collected the money. It
25 is 3.280 deutschmark.
1 Q. And can you recall on this occasion or is there anything on this
2 particular document that indicates whether you actually withdrew that cash
3 in either the dinar or deutschmark?
4 A. I don't remember, but it's obvious, since there is no
5 specification, that it's dinars. Since it involved an enormous number of
6 banknotes, they could not provide a specification. If it had been in
7 deutschmark, they would have given a specification as to if it was 100,
8 500, or 1.000 deutschmark bills.
9 Q. All right. We just have a couple more of these to go.
10 Now, back in the main binder or continuing in the main binder, if
11 you could go to P 01934.
12 If you have that, sir, can you confirm that this is a transaction
13 on the 17th of April, 1993?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. This appears to be drawn on an account for the finance department
16 in Mostar; is that correct?
17 A. No -- actually, I apologise. It is correct. This is an order
18 regarding a transfer from the Mostar account to the account of the HVO,
19 the military section of the HVO.
20 Q. And in terms of those persons who authorised the transaction, once
21 again, if you can turn to that particular page, can you identify, please,
22 for us the signatures of the persons who authorised this transfer from the
23 finance department to the HVO military account?
24 A. I haven't got that document. Here you cannot see who approved
25 this, which persons.
1 Q. I think you may have gone to the --
2 A. The document afterwards is the request for cash withdrawal, and
3 it's from the military account. If you look at the number, it is the
4 military section; that is to say, once the money was transferred to the
5 military part, then the request for cash withdrawal was related to the
6 military part.
7 Q. And who signed the request for cash withdrawal then?
8 A. Mr. Bruno Stojic and Mr. Jelavic.
9 Q. Mr. Stojic's signature being the one on the line on the left side
10 of the line and Mr. Jelavic's signature being the one on the right side;
11 is that correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 MR. KOVACIC: I do apologise, Your Honours, but on the first page
14 of the document under the same number on this document, "Sale," it says,
15 in handwritten, "Wrong order. Stopped." So, according to this document,
16 this document was not carried through. Perhaps the witness could explain.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that's correct. If you can
18 see here, it says here, "Payment of cash from non-resident account," that
19 is to say, the payment did not happen. This document was stopped.
20 A bank transfer was used to transfer the money from one account to
21 another. That is why I drew your attention to that a few moments ago,
22 that this was transferred from one account to another and that the
23 previous order had nothing to do with this last one. Because according to
24 what the Prosecutor said, it would turn out that Mr. Stojic and
25 Mr. Jelavic gave an order and that I, on the basis of that, collected
1 money from the bank account of the civilian part, but that is not correct.
2 MR. SCOTT:
3 Q. Exactly, sir. That is exactly the reason I selected this
4 particular -- one of these -- this particular transaction as one of the
5 ones to ask you about. What you indicate on the card is that you did in
6 fact sign for having received the cash. Your signature is there, and we
7 can see it on the lower left part of the card; correct?
8 A. Yes, but you see what it says down here?
9 Q. Well, did you receive the cash -- so are you saying you signed a
10 receipt for cash that you didn't actually get?
11 A. Yes, and the transaction was stopped straight away because it was
12 realised that -- well, you see that all of this is happening on the 17th
13 of April. So what was realised was that it wasn't from that account,
14 because -- I mean, the person who was working on this banking transaction
15 made a mistake, and that is why it was stopped. A new form was issued on
16 the basis of which cash was withdrawn. It is not displayed here though.
17 Q. Well, the new request, the new request, is it not, is the one that
18 is followed that is signed by Mr. Stojic and Mr. Jelavic; is that correct?
19 A. No, not a new request; a new order for payment. I don't know
20 whether you understood the principle involved. First, there is this
21 request for cash withdrawal; then after that an order is issued -- or,
22 rather, this sale document, as it is called in banking, this form; and
23 then this follows afterwards.
24 When they got this form, when they got this request, when they did
25 this, they see that the two did not match. They stopped this, cancelled
1 this, issued a new form that had to correspond to the new request for cash
3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, perhaps it would be a
4 good idea if the witness would put these documents on the ELMO so that we
5 could all see them. Every time it's a series of documents pertaining to a
6 single transaction that are under a single number, so it's hard to see
7 what we're talking about.
8 As for this, what he referred to just now, perhaps the witness
9 could put all three on the ELMO.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, I don't have the
11 third form, where you can see that I collected money from that giro
12 account. So we have the one that was stopped and then we have the request
13 for cash withdrawal. We haven't got the third form from which you can see
14 that I collected the money.
15 MR. SCOTT:
16 Q. Sir, my question to you about this - counsel can pursue it if he
17 likes on cross-examination - but at the end of the day, literally perhaps,
18 on the 17th of April, 1993, you nonetheless collected 400.000.000 Croatian
19 dinars; is that right?
20 A. Probably, yes.
21 Q. And if you could turn next to Exhibit P 10302, sir, can you
22 confirm that this reflects a transaction on the 30th of April, 1993,
23 concerning the Croatian dinars, approximately 118.486.000?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. We can see, again, from this account, that this is again taken
1 from a foreign currency savings account; is that correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Does that, again, reflect your sit on the one form, the receipt,
4 what I'll call the receipt, indicating that you received that cash on the
5 7th -- excuse me, the 30th of April?
6 A. It looks like my signature. That means that I did. Well, yeah,
7 actually, it says here that it was me, so I guess it was me.
8 Q. Well, the document appears -- the signature on the form appears to
9 be consistent with all your other signatures that we've seen, doesn't it?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. And, again, can you confirm by looking -- is there anything on
12 this document that you can tell us again whether you received the money on
13 that day in either Croatian dinar or deutschmarks?
14 A. Yes. 97.600 deutschmark. If you look at the upper right-hand
15 corner, you will see my signature. We should have a better copy. There
16 should be a specification of the banknotes that were collected on that
17 occasion. That should be there.
18 Q. But, again, we can just confirm, as we saw one or two of these
19 yesterday, that the typical practice then I take, as what you've informed
20 us yesterday and today, is if the money was converted and taken out in a
21 different form of currency, the typical indication would be that you or
22 whoever would sign it above that box, where we can faintly see your
23 signature; and then, usually, you would indicate the denominations in
24 which the money was withdrawn.
25 A. Correct -- or rather, the exact banknotes in which the payment was
1 carried out.
2 Q. The one we saw at the end of the day yesterday was of the 150 1000
3 deutschmark notes, the ones that you said looked very nice. Right?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. All right. Mr. Rupcic, changing topics --
6 A. I apologise. But on the last page of this same document, well,
7 you have a review of all the monies incoming and outgoing through that
8 account and the date when the withdrawals, cash withdrawals, were made.
9 So you can see exactly how much money there was, and the total amount of
10 money deposited in that account was a million marks.
11 Q. So we can see on the 31st of December, 1992, approximately
12 1.000.000 -- or 1.000.000 deutschmarks were in the account, and then that
13 money was then drawn on in the various transactions that we have that we
14 see here; is that correct?
15 A. That is correct. It is a banking document, and you can see the
16 transactions on the basis of that account or savings book.
17 Q. Including on the 30th of April, 1993, the transaction we were just
18 talking about is 97.600 deutschmarks. Is that correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Thank you. Sir, in your experience in serving for quite some time
21 in the finance section of the HVO military, can you tell us, to your
22 knowledge, how were the basic financial decisions of the Ministry of
23 Defence or the HVO military, how were these determinations made and by
25 A. What I know is this: It's what I could learn from Mr. Majic. He
1 would receive orders from Mr. Jelavic, and he would convey part of that
2 order to me.
3 Q. All right. Sir, I take it from your extensive involvement in
4 these matters and later, in fact, you became an assistant minister
5 yourself, you told us yesterday, so I'm going to press you about -- on
6 this a bit. How did -- who did you understand made the decisions about
7 how the money of the HVO military or the HVO Ministry of Defence or
8 Department of Defence, how those monies would ultimately be spent? Who
9 determined the budget? Who approved the expenditures?
10 A. I said this when we talked. I didn't talk -- take part in the
11 conversations and wasn't present as to who decided, who made the
12 decisions; but I did say, from what I knew from my information, because I
13 was sitting in the same office as Mr. Majic, that Mr. Boban decided about
14 the priorities. And as money was always lacking, Mr. Boban would set the
15 priorities, and then would convey them to Mr. Jelavic; probably
16 Mr. Jelavic to Mr. Majic; and then Mr. Majic down the line to me.
17 Q. Sir, you said in your -- you said in your interview in 2005, and
18 you said again over the weekend, that those decisions were made by the
19 head of the Defence Department and his senior advisors; that is,
20 Mr. Stojic and the senior members of the Ministry of Defence. Is that
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your permission.
23 This is a leading question, and I don't think it should be allowed. The
24 witness has told us what he knew. He says that he said this several times
25 during the interview and statement. So if the Prosecutor wishes to elicit
1 an answer like that, he should not do it in such a leading way.
2 MR. SCOTT: Well, I disagree, Your Honour, because I have the
3 right to challenge the testimony of this witness. I've not endorsed this
4 witness in everything that he says, and I have right to, absolutely the
5 right to, challenge his testimony, as is done in all the courtrooms in
6 this Tribunal every day, and I do not accept his testimony on this as
7 being completely inconsistent with what his testimony is before.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Karnavas. We
9 shall try to understand how this worked in financial terms.
10 We understood that you were working in an office together with
11 Mr. Mazic. You were sharing the same office, and you told us that Mr.
12 Boban was not far removed from there. So you were working very close to
13 the decision-making bodies.
14 When it came to paying the salaries of the soldiers, who said, "We
15 need to go and go the money"? Who told you to go and fetch the money?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Majic would be the person who
17 told me to go down there.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As your senior, who
19 told Mr. Majic that the soldiers needed to be paid?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, from what he
21 said -- or rather, he was called to the office of Mr. Jelavic by
22 Mr. Jelavic, and that's where they made the arrangements.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Now, as far as
24 Mr. Jelavic was concerned, was it him who took the decision or was there
25 someone else telling him that he had to pay the soldiers.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Judge, I can only say
2 what I heard, not what I saw personally.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Since you were some
4 kind of a department, were there meetings with everyone, Majic, Jelavic,
5 yourself, Boban, possibly others? Were there staff meetings or were you
6 the courier? Were you the errand boy? Were you told to go and collect
7 the money and withdraw the money? Were there meetings which you yourself
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I was not present. So
10 Mr. Jelavic would hold meetings with his immediate associates, and at
11 those meetings were Mr. Majic, Mr. Medic, Mr. Slobodan Pezer, Mr. Ignac
12 Rakic. I did not attend those meetings, which means that I was a clerk of
13 a lower level, a courier, as you say, and my main job was to go and bring
14 them the money back.
15 As to the other affairs, to decide upon salaries and everything,
16 they would do that.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If I understand rightly, in the
18 decision-making process, you had no role whatsoever.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, if you're asked questions
21 upon Mr. Stojic, Mr. Boban, Mr. Jelavic, are you able to answer or are you
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will answer and tell you
24 everything I know. There's no reason for me to keep anything secret, but
25 I can't tell you about things I don't know about. I've already said, I've
1 already told you what I know. I've already told you what Mr. Majic said,
2 because we sat opposite each other in the office. So when he came back,
3 he said, "Mr. Boban ordered such-and-such."
4 Now, whether he ordered it to him directly or via Mr. Jelavic, I
5 don't know. I don't think Mr. Boban ever addressed Mr. Majic directly.
6 The link there was Mr. Boban, Mr. Jelavic. And, as I said yesterday,
7 Mr. Stojic was in Mostar, and I see no way in which he could have
8 communicated with Mr. Jelavic.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In order to conclude this, as
10 regards Mr. Boban, did he summon you in his office and did you talk to
11 him, or did you actually never talk to him?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, he never talked to me.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
14 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Sir, a few minutes ago, a few minutes ago, you were quite prepared
16 to say, even though now you've said you never saw Mr. Boban make these
17 decisions --
18 MR. KHAN: Your Honour. Your Honour, I do apologise --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.
20 MR. KHAN: You Honour, I do apologise for interrupting my learned
21 friend's questions and I will try not jump up too many times, but it might
22 be the same to raise an objection as matter of law.
23 My learned friend has said at paragraph -- line 25 of page 14 and
24 the start of page 15, and I quote: "That I have the right to challenge
25 the testimony of this witness."
1 Your Honour, these proceedings start, in my respectful submission,
2 with a premise that the Prosecution call witnesses of truth. They call
3 witnesses in good faith that they're going to testify truthfully to Your
4 Honour. What my learned friend seeks is to it cross-examine his own
5 witness. This is entirely inappropriate, in my submission.
6 Just because he's called a witness and doesn't like what the
7 witness says does not give him the right, absent hostile animus, to
8 cross-examine a witness, and I do object, Your Honours. He should confine
9 himself to evidence in chief. He has chosen to call this witness. He
10 must live with the consequences.
11 MR. SCOTT: Unfortunately, Your Honour, Mr. Khan --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: Unfortunately, Mr. Khan is entirely wrong on this
14 point. When a party calls a witness, they do not endorse that witness. I
15 don't vouch for Mr. Rupcic or any other witness. The Prosecution calls
16 witnesses to present certain evidence to the Chamber. I don't have the
17 luxury of choosing which witnesses may have knowledge of a particular
18 topic. If Mr. Rupcic was in the position he was in to have this
19 information and to sign these forms and collect this money, he is that
20 person. He is not the person of my choosing.
21 When a Prosecution or any party calls a witness, they are not
22 endorsing that witness or vouching for the witness. They're simply taking
23 the opportunity to put that information before the Chamber.
24 Now, it happens every day, because I know as I closely follow the
25 other trials and my colleagues and senior trial attorneys in other
1 trials --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you're right. Mr. Khan is
3 right, and you are also right. The only problem is, Mr. Scott, that in
4 this budget and financial system, we try to understand who was taking the
5 decision. We're trying to understand what part he was playing in this.
6 He was 27 at the time. There were other people whom you could have called
7 to testify. I don't know if they are alive or if they are still around,
8 like Mr. Jelavic, Mr. Majic.
9 When your investigators realised what the problem was about and
10 the role played by this person in the entire system, maybe you should have
11 called somebody else.
12 MR. SCOTT: To respond briefly to your question, of course
13 Mr. Boban is dead, Mr. Jelavic is a fugitive from justice, Mr. Stojic is
14 one of the accused in this case. So the people -- many of the people that
15 are in this chain of command are certainly not available to the
16 Prosecution. Further, further, Your Honour, it's not correct,
17 unfortunately, to say that this witness didn't have knowledge of that,
18 and that -- which is precisely my point.
19 The witness has displayed on previous occasions much more
20 extensive knowledge of these matters after his extensive involvement in
21 these matters than he is now prepared to tell the Court, unfortunately,
22 because he was quite clear in explaining the budget process to me, both in
23 2005 and two days ago. And for whatever reason, now he doesn't want to
24 tell the Chamber what he has said before.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd just like to point
1 one thing out and to make things clearer linked to what the witness said
2 previously and to my intervention when Mr. Scott asked his question,
3 because he said you said this earlier on during your examination. I'd
4 like to refer to the 21st of June, 2005, at 1405 hours of this witness's
6 Unfortunately, I haven't found it in the transcript but I will do
7 so before I begin my cross-examination, where the witness says, "When I
8 went to Grude, which means Mr. Boban would either tell Mr. Jelavic or me
9 or Mr. Majic what to do with the money, and then we would prepare the
10 money. We would -- people would come. They would sign in order to take
11 over the money, which means that that unit or any unit received the money,
12 took over the money."
13 So that's what the witness said when he was interviewed by the
14 Prosecutor, and that is why I consider, Your Honours, that you comment is
15 completely justified, and he said what he knew about this. Now, if the
16 Prosecutor was not satisfied with the witnesses knowledge, he cannot now
17 insist upon something else. But, quite simply, if this witness doesn't
18 have the knowledge or doesn't know about it, the Prosecution had the
20 I don't know what he meant when he referred to Mr. Stojic, but
21 people who worked on this job. People, they were accessible to the
22 Prosecution. The Prosecution chose this witness, and he said he knew
23 nothing further than what he's already said.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, we're not going to
25 waste any more time. Please proceed and put your questions to the
1 witness. If you feel that the witness does not fully answer your
2 questions, as you've said -- Witness, you have the floor.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just to avoid any
4 misunderstandings, I don't want you to misunderstand me. I did happen to
5 meet Mr. Boban in the building, run into him, because we were in the same
6 building. So I did bump into him, but I never communicated with him
7 except to say, "Good morning," "Good afternoon, Mr. President," and things
8 like that. That was all.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, please proceed.
10 MR. SCOTT:
11 Q. If we could go back, Witness. If you could turn again please to
12 P 10275. 10275.
13 A. [In English] Okay.
14 Q. Forgive me. Maybe it's been written down wrongly. I can see
15 you're not looking at the correct document. It's the chart.
16 MR. SCOTT: Perhaps the witness needs some assistance. He doesn't
17 need to be able to find the document. 10275.
18 Q. All right. Now, sir, this, again, is the chart that you drew in
19 your own hand in 2005 and which you testified about yesterday. Now, a few
20 moments ago, you were -- even though you've just told the Chamber that you
21 did not have personal discussions with Mr. Boban about budget matters or
22 the allocations or approvals of expenditures, you were quite prepared, a
23 few most ago, to say that it was Mr. Boban who made those decisions, even
24 though you've now said you don't have personal knowledge. You didn't see
25 him do it.
1 But, sir, is it your position, looking at this chart, that it was
2 Mr. Jelavic who took on himself to make all the financial decisions for
3 the Ministry of Defence and the HVO military? That he approved all the
4 expenditures, how the money, how the budget of that department would be
5 spent, that was Mr. Jelavic who did that?
6 A. [Interpretation] Mr. Prosecutor, the day before yesterday, I tried
7 to explain this to you. As far as I know, in Herceg-Bosna, the system was
8 taken over from the Republic of Croatia as it was there. The president of
9 the state, if I can put this in the vernacular, was the be all, end all.
10 He was the top guy. The prime minister, president of the government,
11 Mr. Valentic, and all the others were figures, if I can put it that way.
12 So the gentleman mentioned will forgive me for putting it this way
13 and giving my interpretation: Mr. Boban was the number one percentage
14 down there, and the rest were just actors in lesser roles.
15 What I want to say is that Mr. Boban had the main say, and I
16 mentioned this several times to you in what I said.
17 Q. Yes, you did, sir, and you also mentioned a number of other
18 things. Yes, of course, we know that Mr. Boban was the president of
19 Herceg-Bosna. That is well known in this case and not disputed, but you
20 just said the other persons had lesser roles. Yes, again, we can agree as
21 a matter of hierarchy that they were lesser roles; nonetheless, the
22 Minister of Defence in any government is a senior government official.
23 Now, is it your position that Mr. Stojic had no role in the
24 operation of the department of which he was the head?
25 A. I can't claim that he didn't have -- or had no role, but is it
1 logical to you that Mr. Boban was sitting up there with us and that
2 Mr. Stojic was sitting over there in Mostar?
3 Q. My question is: How did you communicate with Mr. Bandic, for
4 example, Mr. Zeljko Bandic, when you had dealings with Mr. Bandic in
6 A. My first dealings with him was when Mr. Majic said that I had to
7 go to Opuzen.
8 Q. Sir, answer my question. My time is limited. When you had
9 dealings with your counterpart at the finance department, Mr. Zeljko
10 Bandic, how did you communicate with Mr. Bandic?
11 A. Well, that's what I'm trying to explain to you, my first contact.
12 Well, we got to know each other in Opuzen.
13 Q. I did not ask you about your first contact. I did not ask you
14 about your first contact. Listen to my question, please: How did you
15 have contact with him? Did you drive to Mostar every time you spoke with
16 him? Did you have a telephone? Did you have a fax machine? Did you have
17 a radio? How did you communicate with Mr. Bandic, for example?
18 A. We had telephone communication.
19 Q. I see. So you rule out the possibility that Mr. Jelavic could
20 have telephone communication with Mr. Stojic in Mostar, just like you had
21 telephone communication with Mr. Bandic in Mostar?
22 A. No. I don't exclude that, but I don't -- can't talk about
23 something that I don't know about.
24 Q. So it's your testimony today that you have not previously
25 indicated that it was the head of the Department of Defence and his senior
1 assistants who made the -- the financial decisions for the Department of
3 A. I said to you loud and clear that at the top-most level is where
4 the decisions were made. Now, you can interpret that as you see fit, but
5 that's what I'm telling you. At the top-most level is where the decisions
6 were made, because we did not have enough money, sufficient funds, and so
7 we were always in debt for food, for weapons, for fuel, for the soldiers'
9 Q. Which top level --
10 A. Our soldiers always wanted to --
11 Q. I apologise, sir, but again our time is limited. These decisions
12 were made, and I want to be very clear, at the top-most level. So which
13 top-most level are you talking about?
14 A. So we're talking about Mr. Boban. Now, whether he conveyed them
15 to Mr. Stojic or Jelavic directly, well, it's logical to me that he would
16 say it to Mr. Jelavic directly; otherwise, he would have to call
17 Mr. Stojic up in Mostar. Mr. Stojic would have to call Mr. Jelavic back
18 in Grude, and there's no logic there.
19 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Prosecutor.
20 MR. SCOTT: Yes.
21 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I apologise.
22 Witness, I will put the question the other way round. Admittedly,
23 Mr. Boban, President Boban, took all the decisions. In French, it was
24 translated like this: "He was God Almighty." As he had the highest
25 authority, he responded to the request or applications made by his
1 subordinates, yes or no, or did he take his decisions randomly, without
2 anything to rely upon? If he decided after having had these requests or
3 applications, either you, Mr. Bandic, Mr. Jelavic, or were you able to
4 make any applications or make any requests?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] What kind of requests? Could you
6 explain what you mean there?
7 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] When it comes to financial matters,
8 of course, because we are talking about financial issues, when people put
9 in a request, a financial request, in light of your various needs.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's like this, you see: I
11 can speak about my own level. I and Mr. Majic keep the books regularly,
12 with all the obligations towards the procurers and what we had to send out
13 to the soldiers, and that report was sent on a daily basis to Mr. Jelavic.
14 Now, who Mr. Jelavic sent it on to I don't know. All I know is
15 that every day, at Mr. Boban's, delegations would arrive from different
16 municipalities. Now, what they talked about, what they discussed, I
17 really don't know. I do know that after meetings of that kind he would
18 call Mr. Jelavic, and then after that payments arrived from Konjic, for
19 example, the civilian authorities. After that, the HVO in Konjic would be
20 paid out a certain amount of money, as much money as there was available;
21 or from Zepce, for example. Mr. Jelavic would come to us and say,
22 "Prepare such-and-such a sum for the HVO of Zepce."
23 So there wasn't a system in place because we didn't have enough
24 money. So you couldn't meet all the requirements which you had, all your
25 obligations. You would have to decide on a case-by-case basis.
1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Right. My last question on this
2 topic: As far as you know, out of Mostar where Mr. Stojic was, let's say
3 he had already put in a request, a money request. Would this have been
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Who did he put in his request to?
6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Well, if he turned to "God
7 Almighty," I mean; the highest authority, as you told us.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojic could put in a request to
9 Mr. Boban, and he could issue an order to Mr. Jelavic. So that's why I'm
10 asking a request to whom. You can't table a request or you don't table a
11 request to your subordinates. You issue orders to your subordinates.
12 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
14 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Sir, a final time on this point before moving -- hoping to move
16 on. Is this correct, sir, is it correct, sir, that on the 20th of June,
17 2005, it was the head of the Defence Department and his assistants who
18 made the decisions regarding the financial operations of the department?
19 "Both small and large priorities were to say were in charge of high-level
20 officials," isn't that in fact what you said in 2005 and again what you
21 said in the previous couple of days?
22 A. It is only natural that everything was decided at highest level.
23 Q. At no time in that -- in these prior discussions did you indicate
24 Mr. Boban making the decision. You said it was Mr. Stojic and the people
25 in the Ministry of Defence who made these decisions; correct?
1 A. That is not correct. That is --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could the speakers please
3 speak one at a time?
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] A few moments ago I read an excerpt
5 of the witnesses statement where he said, I think, words are being put
6 into his mouth and that is not correct.
7 MR. SCOTT: Well, if the Chamber would like me to read the
8 transcript of the interview, the recording, and I want to indicate this
9 was an audio recording. This isn't investigator's notes. This was an
10 audio recording of what the witness said on the 20th of June, 2005. It
11 was being discussed about these matters and the payment of payroll and
12 financial operations and in connection with Mr. Boban the context.
13 I'll just start, and so there's no question about it, I'm reading,
14 I'm referring to page 30 of the transcript of his audio recording given on
15 the 20th of June, 2005.
16 I asked the question: "Using the example again of the earlier
17 time period, when you were getting these approvals or authorisations from
18 Mr. Boban, did that continue or did other persons -- did somebody else
19 take that role?"
20 And then Mr. Rupcic goes on to say: "The Ministry of Defence came
21 to its full existence and operation. It was independent. With a note
22 that it reported at the end to the government of Herceg-Bosna."
23 "Okay. As I want to be clear," my question, "my next question
24 is: Specifically, what became the Ministry of Defence not the broader
25 government or Herceg-Bosna government? So I understand financial affairs
1 that were internal to the Ministry of Defence, what was what was the
2 structure for organisation or approval of expenditures or transactions?"
3 Mr. Rupcic: "The Minister with his assistants was making
4 decisions regarding priorities."
5 Then on the top of page 31, he goes on. When I asked him about
6 setting the priorities, he says: "Both large and small priorities were in
7 charge of high level officials."
8 In the entire context of that discussion on those pages, and
9 before and following, he indicates: "Those decisions are make by the head
10 of the Defence Operation."
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would just like to say something
12 to the Prosecutor. When we talked over the last few days, we came to the
13 conclusion that the Ministry of Defence was established towards the ends
14 of 1993, and then it wasn't Mr. Stojic who headed the Ministry of Defence.
15 So can how can I say then that Mr. Stojic took part in decision-making at
16 the Ministry of Defence?
17 MR. SCOTT:
18 Q. Sir, you're playing on words. You know that it was the Defence
19 Department before it was called the Ministry of Defence; and on your
20 chart, the chart that you drew, which is P 10275, you put Mr. Stojic at
21 the head of the Department of Defence. Everyone in the courtroom, at this
22 point, knows that what was the Department of Defence later became called
23 the Ministry of Defence, but virtually it was exactly the same
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, if I may make a short intervention.
1 It appears from the gentleman's answers over the course of the last couple
2 of days, prior to his testimony, he provided the Prosecution with certain
3 information with respect to his particular statement taken in 2005. That
4 information, which the gentleman is now trying to bring out to our
5 attention, was not recorded. We have no proofing notes. We have no
7 I think we are at a distinct disadvantage and so is the gentleman
8 here, and I think that - I'm not trying do defend him - certainly it would
9 appear that he should at least be given the opportunity to explain in full
10 what exactly he told the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor can then, if you
11 wishes to impeach his own witness with the statement, he may try to do so.
12 But at least, I think, the gentleman should be given a full and
13 fair and complete opportunity to explain exactly to us what he told the
14 Prosecutor in a private session that was not recorded, no supplemental, no
15 proofing notes.
16 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, excuse me for a moment. Of course, the
17 Chamber can give all the time to this witness that it likes, that it
18 desires to do so, and I am certainly not opposed doing that, because I
19 certainly agree that we should get to the truth of this matter. I do
20 however, before whatever the Chamber decides, want to be clear in response
21 to something Mr. Karnavas has said.
22 The Chamber well knows that there -- we meet with every witness in
23 preparation for their testimony. That is not a secret. There is nothing
24 sinister about that. It happens all the time. I expect, when the Defence
25 witnesses come, the Defence will do exactly same thing.
1 Now, in terms of a proofing note, what the Prosecution normally
2 does, not only in this case but I think other cases, is where in the
3 preparation of a witness, in meeting with a witness, some of these
4 witnesses may have been interviewed years ago; and in reviewing the
5 matters, if there is something in fact new or different that it comes out,
6 then we do provide that in a note to the Defence so that they're advised
7 of that.
8 The key point there is if it's something new or different.
9 What -- unfortunately, what Mr. Rupcic said on the weekend, on Saturday
10 and Sunday, was, in fact, entirely consistent with what he said in 2005.
11 There was no reason to prepare a proofing note on something where he was
12 consistent with what he has said before. It is only today that he begins
13 to give different answers.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
15 Witness, in 2005, you were interviewed by the OTP, and you
16 answered a number of questions. This weekend you met Mr. Scott and his
17 associates. At any point in time did you question what you had said in
18 2005? Because I'm sure you were reminded of this.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. Everything I stated then --
20 well, with some small changes that we stated -- well, you see, I thought
21 that the Ministry of Defence came into being in the beginning of 1993, but
22 that was not the case. It actually happened at the end of 1993; that is
23 to say, that I and the Prosecutor when we talked stated that on the basis
24 of the documents that he showed to me.
25 Now I would like the Prosecutor -- well, he read something out a
1 few minutes ago. I would like him to say what it is that I said
2 differently now in comparison with the statement I made then. I didn't
3 really. I really would like the Prosecutor to say what it is that I said
4 differently now than I did in 2005.
5 However, it is only natural to me that Mr. Boban was at the head.
6 It is only natural for me that he cooperated with Mr. Prlic, Mr. Tomic,
7 Mr. Bruno Stojic, that he cooperated with them. But, again, I'm telling
8 you that Mr. Boban was in Grude; not Mr. Stojic, not Jadranko Prlic, not
9 Mr. Neven Tomic. They were in Mostar.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Scott, on what matters
11 would the witness have said something different from what he said in 2005?
12 I don't have anything to rely on; so if you have a piece of information
13 that is very accurate, perhaps you could put the question to him. In
14 2005, you said such-and-such, today you are saying such-and-such; and then
15 we can compare the two. Otherwise, it's quite impossible.
16 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. I did that a few moments ago.
17 I referred to specific statements of the witness in 2005. I read those
18 from the transcript of the interview. Unfortunately, Your Honour, I
19 think, because of the limitations of time, we're going to have to move on.
20 This is obviously substantially slowed down the progress of the
21 Prosecution's examination, and we maybe have to -- we may require
22 additional time to finish the examination.
23 But under the circumstances I don't feel that I can belabour the
24 point longer. I think we have made our point clear, Your Honour. What
25 has been said before is different that what has been said today, although
1 the witness then just said, a moment ago, "Well, of course, all these
2 people were cooperating and working together," which logic would dictate
3 was the case.
4 If the Chamber would give me a moment to organise --
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I do apologise. I would just like to
6 say to my colleague and to the Court that we indeed did get the transcript
7 of this witness, but we also got some changes in relation to the statement
8 that we got the transcript of, on the 14th of May, 2007. I believe that
9 the Judges have this explanation.
10 In this explanation, dated the 14th of May, the Prosecutor is
11 telling us now that the witness changed some of the things he said. In
12 paragraph 5, in the last paragraph, the witness says: "The question was
13 put to me who it was who allocated financial resources, and I answered
14 that it was Mr. Mate Boban and Mr. Bruno Stojic. That is wrong, because I
15 received orders only from my immediate superiors, and they were Mr. Ante
16 Jelavic and Mr. Pero Majic.
17 "By stating the names of the two gentlemen," okay, okay, "I made
18 an assumption that is not based on certainly knowledge. The only persons
19 who can speak about the possibility of Mr. Boban and Mr. Stojic in
20 distributing financial means are Mr. Jelavic and Mr. Majic."
21 This is what the Prosecutor wrote down decidedly in relation to
22 this witness, and we have heard this repeated time and again now, because
23 the witness keeps saying that he didn't know how the line functioned and
24 that he did not receive orders from above. That is why I'm surprised to
25 hear the Prosecutor say that the witness today is changing something in
1 relation to the previous statements he made.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm beginning to understand what
3 this is about.
4 It seems, Witness, that in 2005, according to what the Prosecutor
5 has told us, that you had said, as far as appropriation of funds were
6 concerned, it was Mr. Boban and Mr. Stojic who were in charge. This was
7 in 2005. Now it seems that you have told the Prosecutor that there was a
8 mistake, and that it wasn't that that we needed to understand. You wished
9 to correct this. Is this how things happened, Witness?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Correct. Correct.
11 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, let me respond to that, because I have
12 the statement. In fact, the Prosecution position is that the statement
13 exactly supports what the Prosecution has been trying to clarify these
14 last few minutes. I'll be happy to provide a copy to the Chamber, if the
15 Chamber doesn't have it. It is correct that the witness was briefly seen
16 again in -- on the 14th of May, 2007. At that time, he provided -- he did
17 make a correction, and I will simply -- and if the Chamber has the
18 document, the chart that we've been looking at about it, I would ask the
19 Chamber to have that at hand.
20 This is what the witness said: "I drafted an organisational chart
21 of the HVO Defence Department headed by Bruno Stojic. I stated that this
22 chart reflected the situation from August 1992 to the end of 1992,
23 beginning of 1993. However, this should be changed in 'August of 1992 to
24 the end of 1993.' During the mentioned time frame, Mr. Stojic was not the
25 head of the department for the whole period, because at a certain point of
1 time, he was replaced by someone else whose name I can't remember."
2 He goes on to say, in the next paragraph: "I drafted an diagram
3 of the organisational chart of the HVO MOD headed by Bruno Stojic." That
4 was a separate chart that we didn't look at because changes of the changes
5 that were made, and the witness corrects it by saying: "This is not
6 correct, because Bruno Stojic was never the Minister of Defence."
7 The difference, Your Honour, being, as I said a few moments ago,
8 we're talking about a difference of terminology, and these matters are
9 not, I don't believe, disputed by anyone in the case.
10 Let me finish. Let me finish before I'm interrupted.
11 It is absolutely clear, the Chamber's heard evidence, that in
12 August of 1993 what had been called the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna
13 declared itself to be the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, and certainly
14 terminology changes were made at that time. What had been called a
15 "Department" became the "Ministry," and that was then reformed. Toward
16 the end of 1993, these changes were put into place. I don't believe it's
17 also dispute that had Mr. Stojic ceased being the head of the Defence
18 Department in November of 1993. The witness is correct.
19 What the witness did confirm is the chart that we've looked at the
20 last two days, the chart which is P 10275, was an accurate chart from not
21 just until the beginning of 1993 but from August 1992 to the end of 1993,
22 provided that both the witness and the Prosecution agree that at the end
23 of that period Mr. Stojic was replaced by someone else. That's what the
24 correction is and the statement of the evidence.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may be -- briefly respond to the closing
1 argument made by the Prosecutor, because all of this is their spin on it.
2 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour, that's not correct.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may have the courtesy, please. I'm rather
4 shocked and appalled that Mr. Scott would try to misrepresent the fact to
5 the Trial Chamber. It is not a mere changing of terminology. Either
6 Mr. Scott doesn't know his case or he's deliberately misleading the Bench,
7 because you have to look at the legal instruments. You have to look at
8 the legal instruments and --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: -- when you have --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Karnavas. I
12 will let you have the floor. But if I were to be misled, you have to be
13 an early bird. So rest assured nobody can mislead me.
14 So I have documents in front of me. I'm trying to understand.
15 This is why Judges put questions, and you cannot imagine that you can
16 mislead a Bench.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. My point is this, Mr. President: When
18 a department becomes a ministry, it is not just a mere change of
19 terminology. You have to look at the legal instruments, and you have to
20 look at those instruments to determine what the actual changes are. I
21 think that's something that the gentleman wished to -- to explain, and
22 perhaps that might be one of the problems. Mr. Scott is looking at it,
23 for whatever reason, maybe he's just, you know, unaware of the difference,
24 but he's looking at it as a mere terminological issue; whereas, the
25 witness is looking at it from a structural point of view.
1 Also, I think what has to be kept in mind is that the one portion
2 that was read out by Ms. Nozica, which is the gentleman indicated that
3 when he gave his statement he made certain assumptions, and I think that's
4 the critical aspect of it. Perhaps if the gentleman was asked about
5 any -- why he made those assumptions or how he could make those
6 assumption, that may assist us in getting to the truth.
7 But it seems to me that the Prosecution is trying to impeach his
8 own witness, and, indeed, has gone so far as to say the witness is
9 confabulating today, being less than honest, being economical with the
10 truth, however you wish to put it, simply because the gentleman during the
11 proofing session gave fuller and fairer explanations than at the time of
12 the statement. And to quote Mr. Scott, when his witnesses impeached on
13 matters, he routinely says, "Well, it's only understanding that witnesses
14 may make some variations or may have some changes to their testimony."
15 Now when he has his own witness, albeit he's a Croat and he's
16 saying things that Mr. Scott doesn't like, all of a sudden the witness is
17 being economical with the truth. I don't think that's very fair.
18 If Mr. Scott wishes to impeach his own witness, I suggest that he
19 show him the statement and give the witness an opportunity to respond,
20 both the question and the answer of the statement, and give the witness to
21 give a fuller and fairer explanation. And if the witness has indeed
22 explained these matters differently during the proofing session, I think
23 that's critical and that should -- that should be noted for the record as
25 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, very briefly, and then perhaps my learned
1 friend can respond in toto to both submissions.
2 Your Honour, I am fortified, of course, that one has to be an
3 early bird to mislead the Trial Chamber, but misleading a witness, of
4 course, is another matter. It's my respectful submission that procedure
5 is there to safeguard the administration of justice; and, in my respectful
6 submission, my learned friend innocuously, of course, has erred in his
7 dealing with this particular witness.
8 I do, for the record, object to my learned friend giving evidence,
9 in effect, as to his theory of the case whilst the witness is under oath
10 present in court. Your Honour, I have -- and Your Honours will be
11 familiar with the jurisprudence of this court. What my learned friend
12 should have done, if he wished to declare this witness hostile, is to
13 establish to Your Honours' satisfaction either a hostile animus or that
14 this witness - and this is the jurisprudence of this Tribunal - and I
15 quote, "is not desirous of telling the truth."
16 Your Honour, the way he should have done that is, in the absence
17 of the witness, make submissions based upon the prior statement which my
18 learned friend has read out and the testimony elicited at court today.
19 But to have a mish-mash of evidence, examination-in-chief, and
20 cross-examination, when he doesn't like it, is singularly inappropriate.
21 My learned friend, with the greatest of respect, has caused this needless
22 spending of time because of the procedure he has chosen to adopt with his
23 own witness, given the statement which is taken by the Prosecution
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think Mr. Scott, you may
1 respond to that but the witness has raised his hand.
2 What do you want to say, because you are the most concerned here?
3 What do you want to say?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I just wanted to say one more
5 thing. When I talked to Mr. Scott, I said to him then these little boxes,
6 the way I drew them, stayed roughly until the ministries were formed, or
7 rather, the government of Herceg-Bosna. However, I said that I was not
8 sure and that I could not claim until when the people whose names are
9 written in this these little boxes remained there.
10 So I would like Prosecutor to say where it is I deviated from my
11 original statement when I talked to him.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. There's now a number of
14 things have been said in the last ten minutes by two counsel and the
15 witness. I'll try to respond to as many of them as I can remember at the
17 I have to start out, Your Honour, by observing that is so often is
18 the case that Mr. Karnavas get to his feet and he makes a multitude of
19 allegations and attacks about everything, you know, including the kitchen
20 sink, so to speak, and attacks the good faith of the Prosecution and
21 everything else. So it becomes very difficult to give a short response to
22 all the attacks Mr. Karnavas has made.
23 Now, I'm very, very aware of the procedures followed in this
24 Tribunal and the practices, and I believe I've acted entirely consistently
25 with those practices. Perhaps counsel didn't hear what I said a few
1 moments ago. There was no reason to challenge or make a point of this
2 witness's testimony, and it wasn't that the proofing session, which
3 Mr. Karnavas would like to make sound so sinister. There was nothing
4 different that time that would raise with the Prosecution that there was a
5 difference of position on this. Unfortunately,, it is only today and,
6 indeed, in some instances yesterday in which the witness has begun to give
7 answers different than those that he gave in 2005 and different than the
8 ones he gave and Saturday and Sunday.
9 Now, in response to specifically to this what the witness just
10 said, there was never a dispute and never an indication that some of the
11 names in the boxes may have changed from time to time, and I don't think
12 anyone in the courtroom thinks there's any dispute about that. It is
13 clear that by November, around November of 1993, Mr. Stojic ceased being
14 the head of the Defence Department or Ministry, whichever term one wants
15 to use, at that time; however, that does not -- and that's what the
16 witness said.
17 Again, we looked at the chart. If it will make everyone feel
18 better, when we have this, the box for Mr. Stojic up there, if everyone
19 wants to pencil in next to it "until November 1993," we can all do that.
20 That's not what's in dispute.
21 To go back into some time now, the reason this dispute first
22 started this morning was when Mr. Rupcic began giving different answers
23 about how financial decisions were made; and, in 2005, he indicated those
24 were made by the senior officials in the department, including the head of
25 the department, Mr. Stojic. That's where we got -- that's where we went
1 off the rails, so to speak, Your Honours. So let's keep exactly the issue
2 in mind.
3 Having said all that, Your Honour, and again because of the time
4 limitations, I'm prepared to move on. I think the Chamber knows the
5 Prosecution's position by this point.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Your position is
8 Witness, we have in front of us an organisation chart. We have
9 small boxes here. Everybody can see these.
10 If you were asked today to draw this organisation chart again,
11 would you draw it in the same way or would you change things?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would draw it the same way, that's
13 for sure. However, it's only a question of whether the people whose names
14 are written in these boxes were there.
15 In the beginning of 1992 -- well, in 1992, these people were
16 there. Now, Mr. Stojic and Mr. Mariofil Djidic, was there someone between
17 the two of them, I don't know. I cannot say. It was a much higher level
18 than the level that I was at. However, on the basis of my recollection,
19 on the basis of people I knew, that's it. Now, how long this went on for,
20 I don't know. How long Mr. Stojic was in that position, I have no idea.
21 How long Mr. Prlic was in that position, I have no idea. But this is it.
22 Now, what did I omit? I didn't draw that Mr. Boban was above all
23 of them.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, yes. We don't see
25 Mr. Boban's name on this organisation chart, but you are in this
1 organisation chart; and below Mr. Jelavic, there seems to be four boxes:
2 A traffic department, quartermaster, finance, and equipment. This
3 organisation chart is a logistics organisation chart or a budgetary
4 organisation chart.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's the technical service, or
6 rather, it is the material and technical resources.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Of a technical nature, you mean,
8 this organisation chart? Or is it an organisation chart which represents
9 a decision-making network, a financial decision-making network?
10 THE WITNESS: [No verbal response]
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you are a man who has
12 gone to university. You had a high rank. You were a general. You were
13 in positions of responsibility, so I'm sure you understand my question.
14 You are a learned person. So if I ask you whether this organisation chart
15 is part of a decision-making process in budgetary terms, either you say
16 "yes" or you say "no." In that case, you may respond that this is an
17 organisation chart intended for logistic purposes solely.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I respond, if I drew the
19 logistics base for you, and if I mentioned to you all the different
20 divisions, the traffic department, the quartermaster department, finances,
21 et cetera, all of these boxes would have to be thrown out, and then you
22 would have, say, Mr. Boban, Mr. Prlic, Mr. Bruno Stojic, Mr. Djidic,
23 Mr. Jelavic, Mr. Majic, and then me. As for the rest, I mean they are
24 absolutely irrelevant, if we're only talking about finance.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let us imagine that the HVO
1 needs to buy a satellite telephone. In that case, the decision to buy
2 this satellite telephone, would that be part of the organisation chart you
3 have drawn up here?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's made within the
5 frameworks of the chart. And within in the central logistics base, the
6 decision is made that something has to be purchased; so then a request is
7 tabled to have the necessary funds okayed. Mr. Jelavic asked for that.
8 He is given the okay for the funds, and then the object is procured.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's time to have a break.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have resumed our here, and we
14 shall move into closed session.
15 [Closed session]
11 Pages 23432-23447 redacted. Closed session
25 [Open session]
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you have 30 minutes
2 left; 30 minutes, not 307.
3 MR. SCOTT: I don't think I would use 307, Your Honour, but I
4 appreciate the Court's indulgence. If we're not in open session, Your
5 Honour, we can go back into open session. Are we back into it? It
6 appears that we are.
7 Q. Sir, I'd like to direct your attention next to the -- to Exhibit
8 P 00102.
9 Sir, I'm showing you this document as a basis to ask you a couple
10 of follow-up questions. This is a decree dated the -- well, it's coming.
11 It is dated the 14th of October, 1992. It says, however to be effective,
12 at the end of the last page, Article 10, on 1st of October 1992, over the
13 name and title of Dr. Jadranko Prlic, "President." I note the word
14 "President" of the HZ HB HVO.
15 Did you become aware in your involvement with the financial --
16 financial dealings of the HVO, and as of today you've said Herceg-Bosna
17 more generally, efforts to collect such things as taxes, customs, duties,
18 that sort of things as part of the revenues of that entity?
19 A. That is correct; that is to say, that I was aware of that,
20 although it was not personally my duty or was it supposed to have anything
21 to do with me. But I did know about this because if taxes and revenues
22 are collected, that means that we would get money to be able to give
23 soldiers their salaries.
24 Q. And I simply note in passing, since we have it in front of us, in
25 Article 8, do you see that, in fact, there's reference to a bank account
1 being established for this purpose at the same Privredna Banka Zagreb in
2 Opuzen that we've been talking about for the past two days? Is that
4 A. Correct. We are going back to that yet again. There was no
5 banking system in Bosnia-Herzegovina, so it had to be opened somewhere. I
6 mean, companies from the area of Herceg-Bosna, if they worked with foreign
7 countries, they had to carry out transactions through bank accounts. So
8 how could that be done? They had to open those non-resident accounts at
9 the Privredna Banka, or some other bank in Croatia, so that they could
10 carry out payments vis-a-vis Germany, the Netherlands, or any other
11 country from which they were importing goods.
12 Q. Can you provide any information to the Chamber about how much
13 revenue of this nature, from taxes, from customs, these sorts of revenues,
14 this had; for instance, in this particular one where they make reference
15 to a turnover tax? In any event, do you have any information that you can
16 provide the Chamber about how much revenue in terms of taxes, customs, et
17 cetera, that Herceg-Bosna was able to collect during 1992?
18 A. I do not have any accurate figures. It wasn't my job. I don't
20 Q. Well, you say you don't have any accurate figures. Can you
21 provide some information that may assist the Chamber as to your
22 understanding of the status of those revenues, whether you can give an
23 actual figure or not?
24 A. I cannot. I cannot even give a tentative figure. As I said, it
25 wasn't really in my line of work. It was no business of mine, so I
1 couldn't know.
2 Q. And just to cover it and just so the record is clear, would you be
3 able to assist the Chamber with providing any information about that, that
4 sort of revenue for the year? I asked you about 1992. Now I'm asking you
5 the same question as to 1993.
6 A. No. Likewise for 1993, I did not know. I can talk about 1997 and
7 1998 when I was assistant Minister of Finance in the federal army.
8 Q. I'm going to ask you about that now, sir, in the interests of --
9 because of the time. Just let me ask you one other question about this,
10 before we move on, again because I don't want the answers to my questions
11 to depend on whether I use exactly the right word or not.
12 Whether you know a specific figure, can you provide the Chamber
13 with any information as to what percentage of the Herceg-Bosna budget or
14 the available funds -- let me put it this way: In the funds available to
15 Herceg-Bosna for the operation -- for its operation, do you have any ideas
16 what percentage of those funds were provided by taxes or customs duties in
17 either 1992 or 1993?
18 A. I cannot. I cannot even make an assumption, believe me. Well,
19 the money came either from donations or from taxes and customs. What the
20 proportions involved were, I really cannot say. As for the total amount
21 involved, Mr. Tomic could give you a better answer.
22 Q. Could you ask you to look next please at Exhibit P 01410. This is
23 a communication over the name Bruno Stojic, dated the 3rd of February,
25 In your involvement in financial matters concerning the HVO, did
1 you ever know about any efforts by the military or units of the military
2 to collect taxes or revenue for the government?
3 A. You showed me this document the day before yesterday for the first
4 time, and I told you then, as well, that I had never seen it before and
5 that it is not clear to me in what way the army was involved in this, if I
6 can put it that way. Quite simply, I cannot tell you. I mean, it wasn't
7 a military affair to collect taxes and contributions.
8 Q. Well, sir --
9 A. But you have to -- I am sorry.
10 Q. Go ahead.
11 A. You have to know that Herceg-Bosna was just in the making. There
12 was not state of law. I mean, what does a state of law -- a state based
13 on the rule of law mean? Everything was in the making. Everything was
14 being created yet again. There was no financial police. There were no
15 tax institutions. So it was very hard to force someone to pay taxes and
16 contributions voluntarily.
17 Q. And those were exactly the reasons, sir, that I was asking before,
18 if you could assist the Chamber in providing any information about what
19 percentage of Herceg-Bosna's funding came from such sources as tax revenue
20 or customs duties in 1992 or 1993, just to see if you would be able to
21 assist the Chamber in that?
22 A. I told you Mr. Neven Tomic knows that. He was head of the finance
23 department, and he can tell you about that. I can talk about what had
24 reached the defence department.
25 Q. And I'm not going to belabour it, sir. But just to make the
1 record clear, you don't recall previously saying that there was very
2 little income from taxes or customs in 1992, for example?
3 A. Sir, you have to understand that there was a war going on in that
5 Q. No, I understand --
6 A. -- so --
7 Q. -- I do understand there was a war going on this that area. My
8 question to you now is: Are you saying that you did you not previously
9 state to the Office of the Prosecutor, both in 2005 and confirmed again
10 recently that, in 1992, for example, there was very little revenue from
11 such things as taxes or customs duties?
12 A. Well, that's correct. That's why I'm telling you. There was a
13 war going on. People weren't working. Nothing was working. Companies
14 weren't working. There was a bit of trade. What was essential in terms
15 of supplies? Was it fuel or food supplies? Well, on the basis of that,
16 well, we did not manufacture anything. Everything had to be imported. So
17 what was collected was collected. So that's where the collection problem
19 It also depended on who was prepared to pay. Anyway, there wasn't
20 a financial police. There wasn't an established system that would have
21 made it possible to monitor things. Things were still in the making.
22 Q. Can I ask you then to turn to Exhibit P 08118, if you have that,
23 sir. Do you have it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Thank you. Now, do you recognise this as a report filed by
1 Mr. Jelavic, dated the 25th of March, 1994, but described as the annual
2 report for 1993 of something called "ONP Sector"?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And although there is a translation here, I would like you to say,
5 in your own words, what does "ONP" mean? What was the ONP Sector?
6 A. Towards the end of 1993, when the Ministry of Defence was
7 established, it consisted of sectors. One of these sectors was the sector
8 of supplies, procurement, and production. So the former central logistics
9 base turned into the sector for supplies, procurement, and production.
10 Q. All right. And, again, lest we have some problems with
11 terminology, can you agree with me and can you indicate to the Chamber
12 what was previously described -- what was now described as "ONP" was
13 essentially the logistics operations of the HVO military prior to the
14 formation of ministries?
15 A. Correct. Correct. The former SLOB turned into the ONP.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, if you can just assist us with a few pieces of
17 information about this report, we won't, again, have time to go through
18 the entire report, by any means.
19 If you can look at - and I apologise because the page numbers may
20 not be the same in the English translation and the Croatian version - and
21 as you turn into the -- beyond all the cover pages, there's the very first
22 sheet. There's the cover letter, if you will, by Mr. Jelavic; then
23 there's another cover page saying "Finance administration"; then there's
24 the first page of text, and then getting to -- if you can turn then to the
25 next page.
1 But, in any event, throughout the document there are references to
2 somebody called the "finance service." I don't know if you see any of
3 those. But, in looking over your shoulder, I can see what you're looking
4 at there, and I think several pages prior to that, if you look in the body
5 of the text, I believe you'll see a number of references to somebody
6 called the "finance service."
7 And if you can just confirm to us, is that the section that you
8 worked for? Again, perhaps there was a name change, but is the finances
9 service what was the finance section or the unit that you worked with
11 A. That is correct; that is to say, that as time went by, as work
12 went on, as more and more people were coming in, as a new establishment
13 was being created, in the sector for supplies, procurement, and
14 production, one of the directorates was the one for production --
15 Q. Can I ask you to turn to --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: finance.
17 MR. SCOTT:
18 Q. If you can go through the list of figures, there are several pages
19 that then give various financial figures, and there is one category that
20 is titled -- there's one subsection that's titled "Employee compensation
21 expenses." It's on page 10 of the English translation. Can you find it?
22 Have you found it?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Just so -- since we've spent considerable part of your testimony
25 talking about the HVO payroll, and since that exact terminology doesn't
1 seem to appear, if we go to the fourth item under "Employee Compensation
2 Expenses," which is described here as "Payment of gross calculated
3 revenue," can the Judges and the rest of us understand that that is
4 essentially payroll?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. So, for example, we could see by this document that the HVO
7 payroll during -- military payroll during 1993 was approximately
8 102.000.000.000 dinar?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. And the next point of clarification, in the document, and perhaps
11 we don't need to find it exactly, but there's a reference in part of the
12 document to something called -- it's in page 12 of the English document.
13 There's something called T -- there is an abbreviation called TMS. Can
14 you tell the Judges what "TMS" stands for?
15 A. Technical material resources.
16 Q. What is that? Can you give us a further understanding of what
17 actually means or what's involved in that?
18 A. Weapons, ammunition, spare parts for vehicles. Well, everything
19 that is something like that, technical resources.
20 Q. All right. Sir, I think you may have mentioned yesterday, but I
21 want to come back to the topic of the -- the debt of the HVO at the end of
22 the war in the Balkans. I don't know -- honestly, as I stand here, I
23 don't recall if you mention a figure or not, but can you give us what you
24 understood to be the outstanding debt of the HVO at the end of the war?
25 A. The debt was over 100.000.000 marks.
1 Q. And in that regard, if I could ask you to turn to Exhibit 10267,
2 which I believe is going to be in the separate bundle. Yes. Thank you.
3 Mr. Rupcic, this exhibit is actually comprised of four different
4 documents, and if I can ask you to please -- if you go towards the back of
5 the document, it's the last of the four documents which appears to be a
6 report that you prepared around the 4th of June, 1998. Have you found
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And can you confirm again that that is your signature on the
10 document and this is a document that you prepared around June 1998?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. The first part of the document indicates -- says: "The state of
13 existing obligations on 4 June 1998 of the HVO is 342.000.000.000 and some
14 kuna." Is that correct?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. And since we've been talking the last few days primarily in terms
17 of Croatian dinars and deutschmarks --
18 A. I apologise. It is 342.000.000 kuna, actually.
19 Q. You're absolutely right. I apologise for that error.
20 Can you tell the Judges though - we've heard about deutschmarks
21 and Croatian dinar - what currency is the kuna?
22 A. In 1994 and 1995 - I don't know exactly what year this was - in
23 Croatia, there was a change. The dinar was abolished and the kuna was
25 Q. Can you tell us, this 342.000.000 kuna, does that bare
1 relationship or is any part of that figure one part of the 100.000.000
2 deutschmark debt that you indicated a few moments ago?
3 A. Yes. It turns into about 80.000.000 deutschmark, if you do the
5 Q. But can you -- are you confirming that the Chamber that this
6 figure includes, essentially, the war debt of the HVO, which a few moments
7 ago you said was approximately 100.000.000 deutschmarks?
8 A. That's correct. Now, whether it pertains to the war debt or not,
9 well, you paid your old obligations and there were new ones that were
10 coming in. So we had probably paid the debt from the war, but with the
11 money that was coming in 1996, 1997, 1998. However, the army had to be
12 fed in 1997 and in 1998 as well. So you're resolving the old debt but
13 you're getting a new one; that is to say, that we did not have enough
14 money to cover our old debt and our new debt.
15 Q. And can I ask you to look, and if you go back, I think, one
16 additional document in that stack or bundle, there is a document by
17 Mr. Jelavic dated the 26th of June, 1998, if you can find that. It is
18 addressed to the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And can you -- since we have you here and the Chamber saw this
21 document on a previous occasion, did you participate in the preparation of
22 this document?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if we go below, there's a table. It's on page 2 of the
25 English document, but if you can find the table to orient yourself, sir.
1 Below the table, there is a paragraph that starts with the words "In the
2 first half of 1998." It says: "The approved revenues for the HVO were,"
3 and you give information concerning the budget coming from the federation,
4 and then that part of the HVO support coming from the budget of the
5 Republic of Croatia. Do you see that?
6 A. I see that.
7 Q. And you've indicated here that in kunas, for the six-month period,
8 the budget coming from the federation was approximately 302.000.000 kuna,
9 but the support coming from the budget of the Republic of Croatia in kuna,
10 for the six-month period - and, again, I apologise. There's a translation
11 error that can be seen in the original document - the support coming from
12 the Republic of Croatia was 480.000.000 kuna; is that correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. So, even by 1998, the HVO was receiving more than half of its
15 financial support, not from Bosnia-Herzegovina, but from the Republic of
17 A. Correct. But you have to know that there was an agreement between
18 the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina on helping the army of the
19 federation, the HVO component. Also, the BiH army, as the other integral
20 part of the army of the federation, received assistance from Arab
21 countries. Bosnia-Herzegovina as a whole had 800.000.000 for all. With
22 this 800.000.000, they could not cover the army; then it was decided
23 slowly to start rationalising the army. And in that rationalisation, I
24 left the military.
25 Q. Just one final question on both of the last two documents, both
1 your document with your signature on it in June 1998 and then this
2 report -- or this document which is also in June 1998: This was the time
3 when the HVO was part of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, please.
6 Witness, on page 69, line 2, you said that agreement had been
7 entered into between the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
8 with a view to helping the army of the federation. When you say this are
9 you referring to 1998, not in 1993, I assume?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
12 MR. SCOTT:
13 Q. Mr. Rupcic, my question to you was: At the time both those last
14 documents were prepared at that time, the HVO at that point was part of
15 the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina; is that correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And can you tell the Judges why in both -- in both of these
18 documents that the currency that was used by a component of the government
19 of Bosnia and Herzegovina it was -- why did you use kunas, the Croatian
21 A. Because in Bosnia-Herzegovina, there was still no domestic
22 currency, and it was sometime in 1998, I believe, maybe even 1999, that
23 the convertible mark was introduced. Don't hold me to the exact date. I
24 really don't know what that was, but thereabouts. And let me also tell
25 you that the kuna/mark ratio -- or rather, the kuna mark was the official
1 currency until 2000 when the official currency became the mark.
2 Q. In turning to a final several questions, Mr. Rupcic, I'm afraid I
3 have to go back to a question and answer from yesterday and ask you again
4 if you would like to correct something.
5 Yesterday, I asked you how often you saw either Mr. Stojic or
6 Mr. Prlic come to meet with Mr. Boban, and I believe yesterday you said
7 you saw them once. Is that what you said yesterday?
8 A. Yes, I did. I think that's what I said, and I think that that's
9 the truth, that that's how it was. I personally saw him once.
10 Q. Did you say in 2005, and did you say again a couple days ago, that
11 you thought that both Mr. Stojic and Mr. Prlic came there to meet with
12 Mr. Boban at least once a month?
13 A. I did say that, but I said that I saw them once. I also said that
14 I cannot confirm exactly how many times they met and where they met, but I
15 think they would meet at least once a month.
16 Now, whether it was from the 1st of the month to the 1st of the
17 next month or whether it was twice within a calendar month and then not in
18 the following month, I can't say.
19 Q. Sir, if I could just briefly then direct your attention to Exhibit
20 P 10284, which is in the -- I'm sorry. It is in the other bundle, sir.
21 If you can find that, please, and if you can find, at the end, on what's
22 the first page of the English translation, or the English document, excuse
23 me, there is a number 1 at the bottom and then there's the first item that
24 says "On 3 March," and then following.
25 I am and I'm simply going to ask you. If you look at the
1 information that's indicated there, is that information that you were
2 aware of in March of 2001? You were aware of these events; correct?
3 A. I do not have the Croatian text, so I can't say.
4 Q. All right. I apologise for that. Let me read a very short
5 portion of it to you then. It says: "On 3 March, the HDZ, which had been
6 ousted from power by the Alliance For Changes after the November
7 elections, proclaimed the so-called 'Croat self-rule.' Four days later,
8 I," being the representative, "decided to remove Mr. Jelavic, the Croat
9 member of the BiH Presidency and HDZ president from his positions."
10 It goes on and talks about the Hrvatska Banka, and then if I can
11 then ask. I will have to read it to you.
12 MR. SCOTT: But for those in the courtroom, if we can turn to item
13 number 10 in the same document.
14 Q. There's a reference again to these events. And among they are
15 other things, at they end of paragraph number 10, it says: "on The 13th
16 of March," 2001, "HDZ officials ordered disbanding of the Croat component
17 of the Federation Army, followed on 28 March by a walkout of Croat
18 officers and soldiers from their barracks."
19 Were you aware of those events at the time they happened in 2001,
21 A. Mr. Prosecutor, I am grateful to my grave to you for having raised
22 that question because I'm the only Croat that was convicted for
23 self-government, and I held absolutely no position in there. I was a
24 nobody there. Everybody else who was in that self-rule were not convicted
25 of anything, and I who was nobody within that set-up was given a sentence
1 of two years in prison.
2 Q. So is the answer to my question that you were aware of those
3 events at the time of 2001?
4 A. Well, I've given you an answer. I was given two years'
5 imprisonment for that.
6 Q. And if you turn to -- well --
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me. Your Honour, again, I must object with
8 respect to relevance. What does this have to do with the indictment? In
9 2001, we have this event. How is it related to the indictment? At least
10 the Defence should be notified so we know exactly what on earth is the
11 Prosecution trying to do here, you know.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: First of all, Your Honour, it relates to the status of
14 this witness; and as you, Mr. President, yourself noted yesterday, when
15 you read the criminal conviction or judgement against him, you will see
16 the connection to these events.
17 So, number one, it puts into context exactly what Mr. Rupcic was
18 convicted for, which he's just made a brief reference to.
19 Number two, Your Honour, you know this issue keeps being raised
20 every time. It's same issue, the same response, and it goes all the way
21 back to Dr. Miller in his report, going back to the original written
22 submissions about accepting his report. The Chamber determined at that
23 time to receive his evidence and to receive his report. But we keep
24 having the same argument over and over again, no matter how many times the
25 Chamber rules.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, as I understand it, receiving and accepting
2 it are two different things. Now, is the Prosecution suggesting that the
3 report has been accepted as evidence and is part of the case? Again, I
4 need some clarification from the Trial Chamber. I'm not getting it from
5 the Prosecution. They are now prosecuting my client for events in 2001.
6 Nothing of this nature is in the indictment.
7 Is this a truth commission? Is this something to do with the
8 office of the High Representative that has occupied Bosnia-Herzegovina for
9 all these years and trying to implement the peace agreement? What is this
10 trial all about? I think it's high time for the Trial Chamber to get
11 control over the -- over these events. What are we talking about? Are we
12 going to go into 2007?
13 At what point do we say here is the line of relevancy? We're not
14 getting it from the Prosecution. At least the Trial Chamber should alert
15 the Defence what we need to defend ourselves against.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, we have an
17 indictment. Let's remain within the scope of the indictment. We have a
18 document from the OHR. In paragraph 10, it reads as follows: "After the
19 elections held in November 2000, a political party was formed, Alliance
20 For Change. HNS was then established. The OHR felt that this was
21 anti-constitutional or against the constitution, and this led to a number
22 of consequences." So be it.
23 This happened in 2000 and not in 1993. Even if a number of
24 individuals wanted to do something in Mostar in the year 2000, what does
25 that have to do with our indictment which stops in 1992? We are not going
1 to be trying the accused on what happened in the year 2000, Mr. Scott.
2 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, it keeps being
3 said that the Prosecution hasn't stated its position on this, and that's
4 just simply, once again, not true. Of course, when the original Defence
5 opposition, written opposition, to receiving Dr. Miller's reports were
6 filed, the Prosecution made a response. The Prosecution stated its
7 position in writing at that time as to why this material was relevant.
8 The Chamber had both the Defence objection and the Prosecution's
9 response setting out its position before the Chamber, when the Chamber
10 decided to in fact receive Mr. Miller's testimony. So it's not correct
11 that it's not been addressed before.
12 Then it was raised again when Dr. Miller was here. And at the
13 Chamber's request, and, again, like today at the urging of the Defence,
14 the Prosecution once again stated its position on the matter. I would
15 incorporate the same comments that I made on that day, whatever day that
16 was, and I'd be happy to go and find the transcript this afternoon and
17 give it to the Chamber.
18 We are not amending the indictment, but it is the Prosecution's
19 position that this indeed is relevant to a number of issues. It's
20 relevant to a number of issues in the indictment as to Herceg-Bosna, the
21 joint criminal enterprise, the nature of what was tried to be
22 accomplished, and the roles of various people in then and subsequently,
23 including for example, including, for example, this witness, which then we
24 have his conviction here in front us.
25 There will be a number of ways at the end of the case, and I don't
1 think we have to argue them now, as the Prosecution will argue, why this
2 information is relevant to the charges in the indictment.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, first of all, let's just look at
4 this document here in paragraph 10. It says: "In late March, HDZ
5 radicals in Mostar moved to -- to oust that the city mayor, Mr. Tomic,"
6 and it goes on. Now, has the indictment been amended, and are the
7 gentlemen here, in particular Dr. Prlic, is he included as one of these
8 HDZ radicals which the Office of the High Representative is talking about?
9 Is there a connection between this event or the events that are
10 described in this OHR document and Dr. Prlic? I need some clarification.
11 I don't want to wait until I'm reading the Prosecution's final brief to
12 figure out what exactly they're trying to do with this. I'm entitled to
13 an answer now.
14 Second of all, second of all, if we're going to --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the Prosecution switch their microphone
16 off. Thank you.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: If we're going to go going through these documents
18 at this point in time, let me just make it very clear to the Trial Chamber
19 that you will be opening up another Pandora's box wherein we'll have to
20 be -- we will have to attack now and defend against the Office of the High
21 Representative. I don't think that's the intended purpose because you can
22 read report after report by the International Crisis Group attacking the
23 incompetence of the Office of the High Representative. I was part of that
24 incompetence when I worked for the Office of the High Representative.
25 That's why I know.
1 I know that we were violating the Dayton Peace Accords. In fact,
2 Ambassador Hayes, the principle deputy high representative, admitted it in
3 Brcko, during one of the staff meetings. The OHR violates the
4 Dayton Peace Accords every day because they have to do whatever it is they
5 have to do in order to put that poor country on its feet.
6 That's not an issue, and that's why I don't want to get into why
7 the office of the High Representative has been doing in Bosnia, which is
8 why it's a mess today. We should stick to the indictment and the
9 Prosecutor should be cut off. Anything beyond the indictment should not
10 be coming. It should not be discussed. We're wasting time.
11 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, again --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, just a minute.
13 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour -- sorry.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please. The Bench are finding
15 it difficult to work things out here.
16 Witness, perhaps you might enlighten us. We have before us a
17 judgement which has to do about you. When I read this judgement, you have
18 been charged with an offence which was related to embezzlement. You might
19 be innocent or guilty, I don't know. Whatever the case may be you have
20 been deemed to be guilty. I don't know the details of this case. One
21 reads here that you were the only member of this self-rule or
22 self-promulgated government, and you were convicted.
23 Now, this judgement which has been handed down against you, were
24 you convicted for your political activities, or were you convicted on an
25 individual basis?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's like this, Judge: I was
2 nothing in that self-rule, self-government. All the leading figures in
3 that self-government, as Mr. Miller says, violated the constitution; but
4 in court, they were all released, from Mr. Jelavic, Mr. Prce, Dragan
5 Curcic, and all the rest of them. So the Court's verdict was that they
6 had done nothing against the state, no crime against the state.
7 I, as a businessman, was convicted because I gave a donation to
8 the Ministry of the Defenders, an official institution of the state. From
9 a private company, I gave them a donation so that they could hand out the
10 soldiers their salaries; and for having done that, I was convicted to a
11 prison sentence of two years. The reason was that I was toppling or
12 engaged in destruction of the state or the toppling the state.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thanks to my
14 question, I'm discovering something totally new.
15 A number of people were prosecuted, Jelavic and other people.
16 Nothing came of it because all the other people were released, as you have
17 told us, and the court concluded that there had been no violation of the
18 constitution. Seemingly, when I listen to you, there is something else
19 which comes to light. In other words, you were accused of embezzling
20 funds, and you state that you had used that be money to pay the soldiers.
21 That, at any rate, is what emerges.
22 Now, we don't have the detailed information here. We don't have
23 the information -- all the information on the case. I can only go by the
24 indictment I have. I'm not interested in what happens afterwards.
25 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. Again, I don't want to repeat
1 all the same arguments that we've made before. Just to respond to one of
2 the last Defence statements that again has been made before and answered
4 No, the indictment is not being amended. No, the accused are not
5 charged with anything that happened in 2001. That does not change, in the
6 Prosecution's respectful submission, that does not change the relevance of
7 this information assisting the Chamber in ultimately determining what in
8 fact was happening in the period 1992 on 1993, just as it is relevant for
9 the Chamber to know what happened in 1939 with the banovina of Croatia.
10 That precedes the date of the indictment, but it's highly relevant to
11 indicate why this was being done and that, in the Prosecution's ultimate
12 submissions, will be that it's all part and parcel of the continuing
13 thread, exactly. We will argue that.
14 Whether the Chamber ultimately accepts that or not, and whether
15 anyone wants to take a contrary position, they can do so. But there are
16 various reasons, and I'm just citing one of them, there are various
17 reasons why this evidence is, in fact, relevant to the case, without it
18 being amended and without the fact -- without any indication that the
19 accused are charged with anything after 1994. But it is indeed highly
21 I must -- I must say that, in terms of the conviction of this
22 accused, I think the best record -- this is not, with all due respect to
23 Mr. Rupcic, not his characterisation of it, and undoubtedly he has strong
24 feelings about it. Undoubtedly, he does. But we have the judgement from
25 the state court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I think that's the best
1 statement of what the judgement, what the conviction is of. We have that
2 document, which is Exhibit P 10303.
3 Now final comment, Your Honour, in general is: I find it somewhat
4 surprising that I am convinced that if the Prosecution called a witness
5 that had some criminal conviction and the Defence wanted to attack the
6 credibility of the witness, the Defence would be the first, as they have
7 in the past, I believe, to put that -- to raise that conviction. But
8 somehow, again, we have a situation where it's okay for the Defence to
9 raise prior convictions of the witness, but it's not okay for the
10 Prosecution to do so.
11 Your Honour, as I said yesterday, I thought it was fully
12 appropriate for the Chamber to have this information when evaluating the
13 testimony and evidence of the witness. And if I didn't -- frankly, if I
14 hadn't have provided it to you, then the Defence would have.
15 Thank you.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I think Mr. Praljak
17 has stood up.
18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like
19 as one of the accused and a Croat to know whether the Prosecutor supports
20 the genocidal thesis of the Croatian nation, that every act from 1939 to
21 2001 is every right of the nation here considered to go genocide, and do
22 you allow that to be put forward here?
23 Thank you.
24 MR. KHAN: Your Honour --
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Mr. Khan.
1 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, no doubt you've been helped by my learned
2 friend's submissions on the issue. Of course, there is a distinction
3 regarding the Defence cross-examining on the previous convictions of a
4 Prosecution witness because, of course, that is cross-examination, point
5 one; and, secondly, it goes to credit. It goes back to presumption that
6 one does not attack the credit of one's own witness.
7 Your Honour, the second issue, of course, is the service and
8 utility of this judgement, I stand to be corrected, but it's my
9 understanding that my learned friend for the Prosecution only started
10 using this decision and included it in the bundle after the evidence of
11 Mr. Miller and not prior to that. Your Honour, perhaps that's also a
12 factor that Your Honours may wish to take in mind.
13 But, Your Honour, I think perhaps all of this is moot. Of course,
14 it's a matter for Your Honours, given what a decision has been taken by
15 Your Honour, that you are not interested in what post dates the
16 indictment. I would urge Your Honour, if you are so minded with the
17 Bench, to uphold that ruling, and we can perhaps move on to other matters.
18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you may respond to
20 what Mr. Praljak has said.
21 MR. SCOTT: Well, I'm not going to engage in a dialogue with
22 Mr. Praljak, Your Honour. I would respond to Mr. Khan's comment by saying
23 that I don't think that's a fair characterisation of the Chamber's ruling,
24 as I have understood it. The Chamber has not so far, not to date,
25 indicated it's not relevant. It has considered and confirmed, as the
1 Prosecution has said, that the accused are not charged with anything
2 outside the scope of the amended indictment, which I have now said about
3 23 times is the case.
4 That is not the same thing. That is not to say the information is
5 not relevant. Again, Your Honour, we're having the same arguments over
6 and over again.
7 I have concluded -- except for one additional short topic, I've
8 concluded my examination of the witness, Your Honour. If I can finish
9 with those two or three additional questions, I will be finished.
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I might be allowed
11 to say just one thing. I didn't wish to take part in the discussion. But
12 when the judgement was mentioned, I think the information that the Trial
13 Chamber has on its table is not complete, and that it is a form of
14 manipulation, of sorts.
15 The Prosecution published the judgement on the basis of the
16 bargaining that went on with the Prosecution. As far as I know about
17 case, I don't know too much, but I know something that the other persons
18 accused who defended themselves in full legal proceedings, and they were
19 released. The judgement found them not guilty. And the witness said that
20 in a way. It was difficult to understand if we don't look at it all.
21 So the fact as put forward by the Prosecution that there was a
22 judgement, that is true. There was a judgement. But in the part of the
23 indictment in which specifically one of the accused, and that is the
24 witness present here, made a plea agreement with the prosecution for
25 whatever reason, because he thought it was wiser for him not to tackle
1 others, and if he wanted put a full stop, and we know that things like
2 that do take place and plea agreements are made; whereas, others decided
3 to take the bull by the horns and go into a full trial. So now there is
4 no judgement in that.
5 Now, if the Prosecutor bases his argument on that, then he must
6 present the whole story and the full evidence, since we're dealing with
7 the year 2000 and so on and so forth, because otherwise this is complete
8 manipulation of information. We've just got the tip of the iceberg here,
9 and we might arrive at the wrong conclusions, all of us, including the
10 Trial Chamber. That's why you had difficulty to make a timely assessment
11 of how far it is relevant and how far not.
12 Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this
15 Now, Mr. Scott, from what I understood, you have just about
16 concluded your examination-in-chief. You have two or three questions
18 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you.
19 Q. Turning to a completely unrelated topic, but just to finish.
20 Mr. Rupcic, during the time that you were in the HVO in 1992 and
21 1993, did you have any information about the HVO having any helicopters?
22 A. Yes. The HVO did have helicopters.
23 Q. Approximately how many helicopters did they have?
24 A. I think two.
25 Q. And do you know where those helicopters were based?
1 A. In Posusje.
2 Q. And can you tell the Judges whether those helicopters were used by
3 the HVO to make flights, for example, into Central Bosnia?
4 A. Yes. The helicopters were used to fly in food to Central Bosnia,
5 while that was possible, of course.
6 Q. Thank you, Mr. Rupcic.
7 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I have no further questions.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We will have a 20-minute break,
9 and I don't know who is going to start the cross-examination.
10 To make sure there is no ambiguity, any more, I'd like to get back
11 to Rule 70. Mr. Scott, do you intend to file a new written submission
12 which would enable the Defence to file its submissions, or do you leave it
13 at that and stand by what you said orally as regards Rule 70?
14 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I think that we've made our position
15 clear. I heard the Defence today say that they wanted to not be burdened
16 by additional written submissions, and I have to say the Prosecution, to
17 be honest, feels the same way. I think the Prosecution's made our
18 position very clear. I think the statement of facts that have been put
19 forth by the state of -- I think we're still in -- we can go into closed
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
22 MR. SCOTT: And the witness should --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's first ask the witness to
24 leave the courtroom and then let's move into closed session.
25 [The witness stands down]
1 [Closed session]
11 Pages 23476-23478 redacted. Closed session
8 [Open Session]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's move into
10 closed session.
11 [Closed session]
11 Page 23480 redacted. Closed session
16 [Open session]
17 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Who is going to start off the
20 Mr. Ibrisimovic?
21 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Pusic's Defence
22 has no questions for this witness. We give our 30 minutes to the Defence
23 of Mr. Stojic.
24 [The witness entered court]
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Karnavas.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours again.
2 Good morning everyone in and around the Court.
3 Cross-examination by Mr. Karnavas:
4 Q. Good morning, sir.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. My name is Michael Karnavas and with me is Suzana Tomanovic.
7 Together, we represent Dr. Jadranko Prlic.
8 Let me, first, begin by asking you some questions with respect to
9 your background. I want to make sure I have it correctly. As I
10 understand it, you are -- you went to university and you got a degree in
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Part of your work experience dealt with you being an inspector
14 when you were with the Ministry of Interior, I believe. This is prior to
15 the commencement of the conflict.
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. All right. In that capacity as an inspector, you were able to put
18 to use your background in economics; is that correct?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. So it would be fair to say that you know a little bit about how
21 the banking system works?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. The payment bureau, the SDK, how that worked?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Okay. And we will he a talk a little bit more about that. As I
1 understand it, prior to your involvement with the HVO, you were living in
2 Vares; is that correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. That's where you're from?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Now, I don't know if you're aware, but it's part of the
7 Prosecution's theory, that at some point the Croatian Community of
8 Herceg-Bosna, which they claim was a criminal enterprise, was engaged in,
9 among other things, ethnically cleansing Croats from various places in
10 Central Bosnia.
11 With that in mind, in Vares, could you please tell us whether, to
12 your understanding, being from there, whether you were being ethnically
13 cleansed by the Croats themselves?
14 A. That is not correct; that is to say, I personally left before the
15 conflict with the Bosniak side, or rather, the BiH army. However, the
16 Croats from Vares were expelled by the BiH army.
17 Q. And when was that?
18 A. 1993, say, October, I think.
19 Q. All right. And I believe that at some point, when you gave your
20 statement, you briefly touched upon the events in Vares and your
21 experiences there?
22 A. Correct.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: When I'm referring to the statement, Your Honours,
24 I'm referring to the statement that the gentleman gave on the -- on
25 20th -- between the 20th and the 22nd of June, 2005.
1 Q. Now, as I understand it, when you spoke with the Prosecutor, you
2 also talked a little bit about the establishment of the Croatian Community
3 of Herceg-Bosna; correct?
4 A. As much as I knew about the establishment.
5 Q. You weren't part of the -- you weren't one of the founding
6 members, but you obviously knew something of the formation and the intent
7 behind the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna; correct?
8 A. I was not among the founders, unfortunately. I'm sorry about
9 that. It's not that I was somebody important, but I did know why it was
11 Q. All right. And did you share that, that reasoning, with the
12 Prosecution when you gave your statement?
13 A. I think that the Prosecutor didn't even ask me that, why
14 Herceg-Bosna had been established.
15 Q. All right. Well, would you like to share that with us before I
16 move on to my next set of questions?
17 A. Indeed, what I know I will say. I will share. Herceg-Bosna was
18 established in order to protect the Croat people that had been threatened,
19 that had been attacked. For them to defend themselves, some - I don't
20 know how to put this - a community called Croatian Community of
21 Herceg-Bosna was established.
22 Q. All right. Okay. Now, at some point you -- you moved to Grude
23 and you began working with or for the HVO; is that correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. And as I understand it, for all intents and purposes, you've
1 described yourself as primarily being a courier.
2 A. That was the basic part of the work I did; that is to say, these
3 transactions with the bank.
4 Q. All right. But I want to make sure we understand exactly what you
5 were now, and what you did not do during the relevant period that we're
6 discussing here and that we're interested in.
7 As I understand it, you were not a member of the executive
8 authority, the HVO executive authority, the civilian part.
9 A. No.
10 Q. You did not participate in any of the meetings that were being
11 held by the executive authority when they would meet?
12 A. No.
13 Q. You were not involved in any budgetary matters concerning, you
14 know, that the civilian part, the executive authority, would be involved
16 A. No.
17 Q. You were not either subordinated to or a confidante to Mr. Tomic,
18 who I understand was the head of the department of finance at the time?
19 A. No; that is to say, I was not.
20 Q. And I take it, based on that answer, can I conclude that you did
21 not sit down with him or he sit down with you to discuss the budgetary
22 issues, either formally or informally, with respect to the Croatian
23 Community of Herceg-Bosna?
24 A. If we are confining ourselves to this period, 1992, 1993, no;
25 1997, 1998, yes.
1 Q. Well, let's stick with 1992, 1993. We'll deal with 1997, 1998
2 later on.
3 A. Then the answer is no.
4 Q. And I take it that you didn't have an opportunity to discuss these
5 matters with Dr. Jadranko Prlic?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Now, prior to giving your statement, which was over a period of
8 three days, did you by any chance review any of the decisions in
9 establishing the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?
10 A. No. Because I was in prison, that was not accessible to me, and I
11 didn't know what I would be discussing with the Prosecutor.
12 Q. In other words, they didn't give you advance notice of the sort of
13 topics that they might be interested in so you could at least make some
14 attempt to prepare yourself?
15 A. On the paper, it only said: "Talks, Mr. Prlic et al."
16 Q. Okay. All right. Now, during your interview, were you given an
17 opportunity to look at any of the decisions before answering any questions
18 concerning how the -- the Croatian Community was structured? I'm speaking
19 about the civilian -- the HVO civilian, the executive authority.
20 A. No. No. None of that was put to me.
21 Q. And so the diagram that you prepared, which has been shared with
22 us, and the chart, which is Prosecution document P 10275, that was on the
23 basis of your understanding, not on the basis of you having read, analysed
24 the decisions; is that correct?
25 A. Correct, meaning on the basis of what was in my head at the time
1 and what I was thinking of.
2 Q. Right. Now, with respect to Mr. Boban and others, you were asked
3 several questions here today. I just want to get that out of the way
4 since we're talking about background right now.
5 I take it, if I understand you correctly, you did not sit down
6 with President Boban and have any conversations with respect to issues,
7 such as the budget or any other issue for that matter; is that correct?
8 A. I've already told you. I wrote what my position was roughly. How
9 would I be sitting with the president? I was just an ordinary desk
10 officer in a particular service.
11 Q. He didn't call you into his office to participate or to listen in
12 on any meetings or telephone conversations he was having?
13 A. No.
14 Q. And so, earlier, when you were being questioned by the
15 Prosecution, with respect to your diagram and with respect to what you had
16 said earlier, would it be fair to say that your answers were essentially,
17 other than knowing perhaps hierarchically who was your superior, as far as
18 who was making requests and who was issuing orders, you were not in
19 position to either have knowledge of or to be a participant of that
20 process; is that correct?
21 A. I certainly did not participate in that process. As for
22 knowledge, it is what I heard from others.
23 Q. All right. And since you were questioned about your statement,
24 and we have it as an exhibit as 1D 01775 - we may not need to look at it
25 in any great detail - I just want to read something that is stated on page
1 9, and this would be found on 4B. This is a 28234B because we have it in
2 different sections, your statement.
3 You indicate that President Boban was the Supreme Commander of
4 HVO, and he was the president of the political party. So if he said that
5 this was to be deposited there, then it was deposited there.
6 And if you take a look at the last part - and that's where you're
7 cut off by Mr. Scott - the conversation goes on in a somewhat slightly
8 different direction. Do you stand by this statement that he was the
9 Supreme Commander and also the head, the president of the political party,
10 and also that essentially what you're trying to say here in between the
11 lines and what you told us explicitly today, that Mr. Boban was the number
12 one person?
13 A. That is correct. As far as I see things, it was not that somebody
14 was reinventing hot water. This was just copied from the Republic of
16 Q. All right. Now, before we look at some documents, just very
17 briefly, because of your experience prior to the conflict and then during
18 the conflict, before the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, obviously
19 the Bosnia and Herzegovina, within the former Yugoslavia, had a central
20 bank, did it not?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Now, was there also a central bank at the national level, that is,
23 for the entire country?
24 A. What country?
25 Q. Well, Yugoslavia.
1 A. Yes, yes, yes. There was the National Bank of Yugoslavia.
2 Q. Right. And then every republic, including Bosnia-Herzegovina, had
3 its own central bank.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And also as I understand it, something that is not commonly used
6 or at least not that I'm aware of, in some countries there was a payment
8 A. It's a Communist set-up. It was called the public accounting
9 service, and it was used for internal payment system; that is to say, it
10 had to do with payments made within the country.
11 Q. Okay. In one sentence can you give us an idea of how it worked,
12 or a couple of sentences? If you have to explain it to someone like me,
13 how would you explain the system and the process?
14 A. Say you have a company, Soko Mostar. It has an account that it
15 opened with the SDK. They bring a money order. Say, they are paying for
16 aluminium from their often account, and then aluminium is in Mostar, too.
17 Now, this is a type of bank. However, the bank was used for
18 external payments, foreign payments to foreign countries; whereas, the SDK
19 was used for internal payments within the country.
20 Q. All right. So, rather than paying by cash, it would be sort of
21 paper transactions?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. All right. Now, with the coming of the conflict, is it not a fact
24 that at some point the central bank for Bosnia-Herzegovina collapsed or
25 stopped to exist as it had previously existed?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. In other words, it wasn't functioning as it should have been;
4 A. It did not function at all.
5 Q. All right. Can we also say that during that period of time the
6 banks system within Bosnia and Herzegovina was also non-existent? You
7 told us that -- you told that to the Prosecutor, and I believe you said
8 that today as well.
9 A. I repeat that because there was not a single bank there, and there
10 was not a central bank there. So there were no commercial banks and also
11 there was no central bank.
12 Q. Now, when you say that there were no central bank and no
13 commercial banks, are we just talking about the area where the Croatian
14 Community of Herceg-Bosna is located, or are we talking about throughout
16 A. Well, this pertains to all of Bosnia-Herzegovina. During the war,
17 in Sarajevo they tried to establish some central bank, but you have to
18 know what all the functions of a central bank are, from the monetary
19 system onwards. So, basically, Bosnia-Herzegovina did not have its own
21 Q. All right. Now, we talked a little bit -- or you talked a little
22 bit about the Croatian bank of Mostar. There was some references to that
23 in your testimony; correct?
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Now, I want to go through a series of documents very quickly.
1 We're going to start off with 1D 01770.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: If we could provide the gentleman with the
3 documents, it might be good to assist him at this point. There you go.
4 Q. So, 1770, this is a request for permission for carrying out
5 payment transfers and loan guarantee dealing with foreign entities. The
6 date of it, you will see, is 13 October 1992.
7 Do you see it? Have you found the document, sir? 1770.
8 A. Yes, see it.
9 Q. And if we just look at the very first paragraph, or let's look at
10 the second page and look at the signature line, the signature line is from
11 a Jozo Martinovic. Do you know this gentleman?
12 A. I did know him, yes. In fact, well, actually I've heard of him.
13 He was the Minister of Finance.
14 Q. Okay. Now, it says in the first paragraph that: "We are writing
15 to you with respect to -- in respect that you consider our application for
16 permission to carry out payment transfers and loan-guarantee dealings with
17 foreign entities, and make an affirmative decision."
18 This request is being made to the national bank of BiH, and it
19 says here: "Attention Governor Stipo Andrijic." Do you know Stipo
21 A. He was my professor at university.
22 Q. Okay. Was he not the governor of the then existing national bank
23 of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
24 A. He was appointed to that post, as far as I know.
25 Q. Now, if you look at the second paragraph, it just makes an
1 illusion to a feasibility study. I want to point that out to the Court's
2 attention: "The founders of the bank through the adoption of the
3 feasibility study, statute, and the contract on the founding of the
4 bank..." and then it goes on.
5 I just wanted to point that to everyone's attention out, because
6 if we look at document 1D 01769, this is dated November 1992. We see that
7 this is feasibility study on economic justifiability of the founding of
8 Hrvatska Banka, joint stock company?
9 A. Okay.
10 Q. And, I think, if you look at your very last page and look at the
11 signature line of this document and the signature of the previous
12 document, would it be fair to say that, at least to the naked eye, they
13 appear to be the same signature, and that is from a one Mr. Jozo
14 Martinovic? Just look at the very last page of the document, sir, and
15 compare 1007 and 1769.
16 A. Yes, yes, yes.
17 Q. Okay. All right. Now, if we go to the next --
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. If we go to the next document, 1D 01765, this is of November 10,
20 1992. We see that this is a decision.
21 Have you found it, sir?
22 You see that it's a decision. We also see at the very bottom that
23 it's written in or signed by a Dr. Stipo Andrijic, governor of the
24 national bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Were you aware of this document,
25 this decision, by the way, at the time?
1 A. No, I wasn't aware of it.
2 Q. Okay. Now, it says here that the decision is: "1. Permission is
3 granted to establish the mixed ownership bank, Hrvatska Banka, Ltd.
4 Mostar," and, "2. This decision is final."
5 Now, if we look at the next document, to round off this series of
6 questions, 1D 01764, again, it is dated November 10, 1992. It is again a
7 decision, again by Dr. Stipo Andrijic, governor of the national bank
9 Here we see, under number 1, after decision, "the mixed ownership
10 bank, Hrvatska Banka Ltd. Mostar, is hereby granted authorisation to
11 conduct international money transfer and credit-warranty activities."
12 Do you see that, sir?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. Okay. Now were you aware of this particular decision at the time?
15 A. No.
16 Q. All right. But it would be fair to say, based on your education
17 and background, that this would be an official document by the governor of
18 the national bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina, authorising the establishment
19 of a mixed-ownership bank, Hrvatska Banka, with the authorisation to
20 conduct international money transfers?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. Okay. All right. Thank you. Now, we're going to move on to
23 another subject, just very quickly to cover this. It's a small one. This
24 dealing with the SDK or the payment bureau system.
25 Am I to understand, sir, that the payment bureau system also
1 ceased to exist or to function country-wide, that is, within
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina, as a result of the conflict?
3 A. All links were severed.
4 Q. Which made it then impossible or difficult for the SDK to
6 A. Of course.
7 Q. All right. It would be fair to say, because I wasn't there in
8 country at the time, but as I understand it, at some point there was some
9 sort of a -- Bosnia and Herzegovina was, as well as the other republics,
10 were transforming their economies and their economic sectors from a sort
11 of command economy to a market economy; is that correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. That hadn't occurred at this period of time. Some steps had been
14 taken to liberalise. But for all intents and purposes, the financial
15 structures of the country were still heavily involved or relying on the
16 then existing system.
17 A. That's quite natural, because they were owned by state
19 Q. Exactly. Okay. Now, I just want to look at two very quick
20 documents. One is 1D 00036, so it would be 36 or 1D 00036. This is a
21 degree. It's dated September 1992.
22 If we look at the bottom, it says: "President of HVO HZ HB,
23 Dr. Jadranko Prlic." We see that on 22nd September, 1992, at that
24 session, a decree was passed on the regulation of payment transactions.
25 36, That would be at the front, the very beginning, properly.
1 A. Yeah. Yeah.
2 Q. We see that: "There is decree on the regulation of payment
3 transactions in Croatian dinars on the territory of the Croatian Community
4 of Herceg-Bosna during the immediate threat of war or state of war." Do
5 you see that?
6 A. I do.
7 Q. And then if we go to Article 2, it talks about "Organisation units
8 of the Social Accounting Service (hereinafter SDK), in HZ HB, shall open a
9 subgroup of accounts within the main group of accounts, with numerical
11 Do you see that?
12 A. I do.
13 Q. Okay. Then if we go to Article 3, we see that: "Payment
14 transactions in HRD..." What does HRD stand for?
15 A. Croatian dinar.
16 Q. "... shall be registered in the subgroups of the giro accounts;
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. Now, let's me just stop here for a second. At that point in time
20 was there a currency, a viable currency circulating within Bosnia and
21 Herzegovina, given that you've already told us that at that time the
22 central bank, for all intents and purposes, was not operating?
23 A. A currency didn't exist. Well, when the war began, in Sarajevo
24 they printed some bonds that could be used only on the territory of
25 Sarajevo as a sort of legal tender.
1 Q. All right. I want to go back to another document, and this was
2 shown to you yesterday by the Prosecutor, I believe. It's P 00606. It's
3 in the Prosecution binder. It's in the other binder, sir.
4 You can -- here, for ease, because we're trying to be as efficient
5 as we can, if you could look at that.
6 You recall that you were shown this document yesterday, and I just
7 want to point to -- point something out that perhaps wasn't clear to
8 everybody yesterday.
9 We see this is 20 October 1992. If we look at number 4, which
10 actually should be number 3, but it's been typed in as number 4: "Budget
11 of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna," under (a), we see the terms
12 "BHD." Now, that stands for Bosnia and Herzegovina dinar; correct?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. The numbers, what do they refer to? You know, "11800-630-128."
15 What does that refer to, if you know?
16 A. That should be the account of the budget for the Croatian
17 Community of Herceg-Bosna.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. The giro account.
20 Q. So you have one account for Bosnia -- for Bosnia and Herzegovina
21 dinar; and under (b), the HRD, that would be the account for the Croatian
22 dinar; that is correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Okay. So, at least from this particular document, we're able to
25 glean, as of 20 October 1992, we have two accounts: One for the Bosnian
1 dinar and one for the Croatian dinar.
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Okay. All right. That's it for that. I want to talk about
4 another subject here. You're going to have to help me out here, because
5 I'm really not an economist; and while I think I understand some of these
6 things, the content is rather elusive.
7 Yesterday, you talked a little bit about non-residential accounts,
8 and, in fact, you tried to explain it to the Prosecutor when you met with
9 him over that period of three days. But, again, if you could help me out
10 here, first of all, please explain to us why it was essential or necessary
11 to have a non-residential account?
12 But maybe before you even answer that question, what is a
13 non-residential account? So we understand. So we can start off with a
14 proper definition of it.
15 A. Whether I can give you the proper definition, I don't know, but
16 the substance is in this: A legal subject from one country can only have
17 a non-residence account in other country; not a real account, a
18 non-residential account, so not a basic account. It's a sort of an
19 auxiliary account in a third state.
20 Q. All right. Why was it necessary, then, for some folks to have a
21 non-residential account? I mean, if they're residents of one country, why
22 would you necessarily need a non-residential account?
23 A. Well, because the banks system wasn't functioning in the BH, which
24 means you couldn't pay anything out of BH abroad. There was the social
25 accounting service, which was for internal payments, but there was no bank
1 via which you could pay into an account in Germany, Holland, Italy, or
2 wherever else.
3 Q. All right. So just to make sure that I understand, you mean to
4 tell me that during that period of time the government in Sarajevo, the
5 government that represented the entire country of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
6 assuming that's what it was doing, made no provisions, and it was
7 necessary to open up non-residential accounts? Is that what you're
8 telling us?
9 A. That is precisely what I'm telling you. There was not a single
10 bank in Bosnia-Herzegovina via which you could pay in money and have that
11 money reach Germany, for instance --
12 Q. All right.
13 A. -- until the Hrvatska Banka Ltd. Mostar appeared.
14 Q. Thank you. And, of course, we saw that that was created legally,
15 given that there was a request, there was a feasibility study, and we have
16 the governor of the national bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina authorising it
17 legally to be established; is that correct?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. All right. Now, if we could look at some documents relating to
20 this, these issues that we've been discussing, 1d 001768. 1768, if you
21 could look in your binder -- I'm sorry, it's 01768. So just look at 1768,
22 and they're in order. They should be in order, the numbers, so you should
23 be able to find them rather quickly.
24 And while you're looking at it, while you're trying to find it,
25 for the record, this is a payment agreement. It's dated 17 February 1992,
1 and it's a payment agreement between the Republic of Croatia and the
2 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
3 First question I guess I need to ask is: When we say it's the
4 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, at this point in time, to your
5 recollection, 17 February 1992, had Bosnia and Herzegovina declared its
7 A. I think so, yes.
8 Q. This is --
9 A. I think so.
10 Q. This is February 17 now, because look at the name: Socialist
11 Republic. All right. If you don't know, that's fine; or if you think so,
12 that's okay.
13 A. Well, I don't know.
14 Q. All right.
15 A. The Socialist Republic. Well, yes.
16 Q. We'll look --
17 A. So no.
18 Q. We'll look at another document that will help us out a little bit.
19 Now just looking very briefly, under Article 1, it says: "All payments
20 between the Republic of Croatia and the Socialist Republic of
21 Bosnia-Herzegovina shall be carried out as of January 1992," and it goes
22 on, "... in the domestic currency of the Republic of Croatia and the
23 domestic currency of the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
24 Then under Article 2, it says: "Signatories to the agreement have
25 agreed that they will enable their," it's illegible there, "to open
1 non-resident accounts with the commercial banks or with the Social
2 Accounting Service in the domestic currencies in their respective
4 And if we flip to the next page, because we don't want to dwell on
5 this document too long, we see that it's signed. We see that it's for the
6 Socialist Republic of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finance
7 Minister Momcilo Pejic. Did you know this gentleman and did he hold that
8 position, to your knowledge?
9 A. I don't know the gentleman.
10 Q. Okay. Now, from this agreement, it would appear that, at least
11 between the two countries, or the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and
12 Herzegovina, which to my understanding is sort of between the former
13 Yugoslavia and establishing its independence, and the Republic of Croatia,
14 we have a formal agreement that would allow then for the opening up of
15 non-resident accounts; correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Now, were you aware of this decision by --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, sir.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a comment to make. The
21 Minister Martinovic, who signed this document, signs in the name of the
22 government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia. That's what's written
23 here, government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia.
24 Mr. Martinovic was the Minister of the government of the Republic
25 of Croatia, then he was replaced; and after that, in 1994, he was
1 appointed as Minister of Finance of Herceg-Bosna.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: And one correction, Mr. President. I'm told that,
3 at least in the original version, there's nothing about the Socialist
4 Republic of Croatia, if that's what His Honour was looking at, the
5 "Socialist" part.
6 Q. Now, if we could go on to another document, 1D 01766, this is just
7 for comparative purposes. 1766. Here we have a decision. If we look at
8 the bottom, it's signed by the president of the government of the RBiH,
9 that would be the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Jure Pelivan. Of
10 course, here we have the date. It's May 8, 1992.
11 I point to the date and to the previous date which was February,
12 because we could see that at least there's a change in the name of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina from the Socialist Republic to the Republic of Bosnia
14 and Herzegovina.
15 Do you see that, sir? Do you see the difference?
16 A. Yes, I do. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the 1st of March is celebrated
17 as BH day.
18 Q. Okay. Now, if we look at this decision, here we have -- it's a
19 decision on regulating the payments between the Republic of Bosnia and
20 Herzegovina and Republic of Serbia.
21 Just to save time, if you look at Article III, Roman numeral III,
22 it says here: "Legal persons from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
23 may use the claims on non-resident accounts in the Republic of Serbia for
24 the payment of goods and services, other payments, and for the transfer of
25 means from non-resident accounts to other persons, all in harmony with the
1 relations in force in respective Republic."
2 So am I to understand, sir, perhaps you can help us out here, I
3 know you're not a jurist, you're not a trained lawyer but you are a
4 economist, that what I'm reading here there were actual agreements, and
5 here there is a decision allowing, permitting lawfully for persons to open
6 up non-resident accounts, and here we have it. This one is for the
7 Republic of Serbia. The previous one was for the Republic of Croatia.
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. So the use, in other words, the use - just to make sure I got it
10 absolutely right and correct me if I'm wrong - the use of non-resident
11 accounts, in either the Republic of Croatia or even the Republic of
12 Serbia, particularly in light of what you told us that the banking system
13 was non-existent in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the central bank was not
14 functioning, there was nothing illegal or nefarious about that.
15 In other words, the opening up and the usage of a non-resident
16 account is not part and parcel or the first step or part of the step of
17 establishing some sort of a criminal enterprise, as perhaps some may see
18 that as?
19 A. No. The documents themselves show that this was legal and lawful,
20 but exclusively because in Bosnia-Herzegovina a banking system had not
21 been developed. From the moment a Croatian bank, the Hrvatska Banka, was
22 established in Herceg-Bosna, I'm talking about now, from that point in
23 time, conditions were ripe to cancel all the non-residential accounts --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We need to adjourned now.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- close all accounts.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There is another hearing in this
2 courtroom very soon. So, sir, you will come back tomorrow to this same
3 courtroom and we will resume our hearing. Thank you.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 10th day
6 of October, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.