1 Wednesday, 9 July 2008
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, please call the
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
10 the Prosecutor versus Jadranko Prlic et al.
11 Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Today is Wednesday, July 9th, 2008. Good morning to the accused,
14 to the Defence counsel, to the witness. I hope you had a pleasant
15 evening. And good morning as well to the OTP and to everyone assisting
16 us in this case.
17 Before I give the floor to Mr. Karnavas, the Trial Chamber will
18 read out a brief oral ruling. This is a decision for clarification by
19 the Chamber with respect to timekeeping at the hearing.
20 The Trial Chamber noted at the hearings of the 7th and 8th of
21 July, 2008, that the Prlic Defence repeatedly stated that its questions
22 were follow-up questions to those of the Judges. In order to avoid any
23 misunderstanding as regards timekeeping at the hearing, the Trial Chamber
24 wishes to stress the following:
25 When a Defence team adopts a question asked by a Judge and asks,
1 as they are called by the Prlic Defence, asks follow-up questions, time
2 used to ask these questions will obviously be deducted from the time
3 granted to the Defence team in question. In other words, when a Judge
4 puts a question, the time used will be deducted from the Judges' time, of
5 course, and not from the Defence time; but then if the Defence takes up
6 that question again, that time will be deducted from the Defence time.
7 I believe that this clarification was necessary.
8 Mr. Karnavas, you have the floor.
9 MR. STRINGER: If I could just raise one preliminary thing before
10 Mr. Karnavas begins, and that's to introduce the Trial Chamber and the
11 other counsel to a couple of new faces that are here in the courtroom
12 this morning. Anthony Hucklesby on my immediate right is an legal intern
13 with the office of the Prosecutor; and on my far right is Ronnie Ervin,
14 and he's working with us as in intern with our trial support unit. And
15 these gentlemen have been assisting me in preparing the
17 Thank you.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Thank you for
19 introducing these two new members of your team, and welcome to them in
20 this courtroom.
21 Mr. Karnavas, you have the floor.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you. Before I begin, I do wish to note my
23 objection to the Court's ruling. I don't think that it is in keeping
24 with prior proceedings for the following reason: When, for instance, a
25 Judge asks a question in my direct, it takes me in a different direction
1 and I have to go back. It takes some time. And, so, while at the same
2 time the Judges do have all the right to ask questions, if a Judge asks a
3 question which puts the witness in a different direction and I have to
4 get them back, now I'm being asked to use additional time, time that I
5 had not planned, in keeping with formulating my direct examination.
6 That being said, I understand your ruling. I've continuously
7 said in the past, Your Honours, that none of us would want to be tried
8 this way. None of you would want to be tried this way, but that's
9 neither here nor there.
10 Having said that, originally we had planned eight hours for this
11 gentleman. It is obvious to us that we cannot complete our task in six
12 hours. You gave us a certain amount of hours. We did not challenge that
13 decision, recognising that it is a discretionary matter on your part to
14 decide how many hours the Defence would put on. And barring, you know,
15 something extraordinary, we recognise that the President of the Tribunal
16 is not going to overturn a discretionary issue such as time allotment, in
17 keeping with his obligations to the United Nations and the Security
18 Council as a result of the completion strategy.
19 Having said that, at this point in time, I wish to ask that we be
20 granted an additional hour for this particular direct examination.
21 Obviously, we're not asking an additional hour to the hours that have
22 been allocated to us. It would be within the hours that you gave us.
23 And to compensate for that, we do anticipate dropping one or two
24 witnesses or proposing that they come in as 92 bis.
25 So we believe we will be able to complete our task. We also have
1 in mind of reserving several hours for just in case what other witnesses
2 are being brought for other teams, in order to elicit positive
3 information versus, you know, confronting them. So, at this point, we
4 wish to ask for an additional hour, again to be taken from our overall
5 hours which were granted to us. We believe that these are our hours, and
6 it's up to us to determine how to utilise them, recognising that at the
7 end, we have to live with the consequences of the decisions that we are
8 making right now.
9 And, again, I didn't mean to be disrespectful by saying that, you
10 know, there are times when you take the witness in a different direction,
11 but that's my opinion. And, in any event, I was told that on follow-up
12 questions, time was not being taken out. That was what my original
13 understanding was.
14 Anyway, that's my request, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
16 With respect to the additional hour, of course, it will be
17 granted to you because that's part of the overall time that was granted
18 to you by the Trial Chamber; and you know that the Appeals Chamber
19 confirmed the decisions taken by the Trial Chamber in that respect. So
20 you're perfectly entitled to use an additional hour; but, of course, we
21 are in charge of keeping time in this case, and this time will be
22 deducted from the time you would have had for other witnesses. It's your
23 choice. If you need an additional hour, you will be granted that
24 additional hour. We have nothing to say about the matter.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
2 WITNESS: ZORAN BUNTIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Examination by Mr. Karnavas: [Continued]
5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Buntic.
6 A. Good morning.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Perhaps I failed to say good morning to everyone
8 in and around the courtroom, so good morning to everyone.
9 Q. As you heard, we are under certain time restraints, so I will beg
10 you, beg you, to at times give me shorter answers; and when necessary, I
11 will ask you for complete answers.
12 If we could continue, I believe we were on the topic of the
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Very briefly, if you go to 1D 0201, 1D 0201 [sic].
15 Q. We see that this is a decree on the application of the law on
16 regular courts. It's dated 23 December 1992
17 And, again, this would be consistent with what you told us
18 previously yesterday; that is, for all intents and purposes, there were
19 no substantive changes. Correct?
20 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me. Was that 1D 0201 or 1D 02001 or --
21 MR. KARNAVAS: There were two 00s, sorry. 1D 00201. My
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, is it the Law on Regular Courts?
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I have that under 2001 in the first binder.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, it is. But if you look at the top of the
2 page --
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: 2001, I have a decision to appoint the Croatian
4 Defence Council-- oh, no. That's 2061.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: And it may be that there may is a mistake on
6 the -- there may be a mistake in the label, but it's 1D 00201.
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, that's good.
8 MR. KARNAVAS:
9 Q. So, sir, could you, very briefly?
10 A. Correct. In this specific case, this is a decree on the
11 application of the Law on Regular Courts. It has to be emphasised that
12 the HDZ-HB did not abolish any regular court, nor did he establish any
13 new regular courts. This decree served to take over the organisation of
14 regular courts that was prescribed by the Laws of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the
15 only exception being the Department of the Supreme Court.
16 Q. Right. And if we look at Article 10, it shows that the operation
17 of the court is being financed out of the budget of the Croatian
18 Community of Herceg-Bosna; correct?
19 A. Correct, because there was no other possibility of financing in
20 the territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 02132.
22 Q. We see that this is December 23. It's a decision on the
23 allocation of funds for the need of the Department of Justice; and, here,
24 we see that on behalf of the HVO, Dr. Jadranko Prlic has signed this
25 decision. You would confirm this, would you not, that this is -- this
1 decision was passed?
2 A. Correct. This is a HVO decision on the allocation of the funds
3 for the judiciary. I believe that this referred to the -- or was used
4 for the redecoration of the Court in Mostar to which the Municipal Court
5 of Mostar was moved, after the JNA attack on Mostar, during which the
6 building of the Municipal Court of Mostar had burned down.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 02123, 2123.
9 Q. This is a decision to appoint -- on the appointment of the
10 assistant of the head of the Judicial, Justice, and General
11 Administration; and we can see the gentleman who was being appointed.
12 Can you confirm that the gentleman was appointed to this position?
13 A. Yes. This is a decision on the appointment of my assistant for
14 criminal and disciplinary punishments, and he was an attorney from
15 Mostar, Aid Glavic.
16 Q. Could you please tell us again, for the record, whether he was a
17 Croat or a Muslim?
18 A. He was a Muslim, a Bosniak.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 02124.
20 Q. It's dated 15 January 1993
21 can see, it's pursuant to Article 5 of the decree of the establishment of
22 a branch of the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina on the territory of
23 Herceg-Bosna. And if we look at Article 1, we can see there's a decision
24 here taken by the HVO that was signed by Dr. Jadranko Prlic, and we see
25 the appointments of certain individuals. Can you confirm that and can
1 you please tell us, of the individuals that were appointed to this branch
2 of the Supreme Court, how many of them are Croats and how many are
3 Muslim, or Serb, or other?
4 A. Correct. This is a decision and the appointment into the
5 Department of the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, headquartered in
6 Mostar, which is a relocated Department of the Republican Court. And we
7 spoke at great length about this court yesterday. People who were
8 appointed, and there were seven of them, seven judges, four of them were
9 Croats and three were Muslims, Bosniaks.
10 Q. All right.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, 1D 0 --
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Mr. Karnavas. I read eight names on
13 this list, and I would like the witness to identify the names he says are
14 names of Muslim judges.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise. Indeed, there are
16 eight names on the list, and the following are Muslims, Bosniaks: Semir
17 Pusic from Mostar, the president of the court; Alija Zaklan, a judge; and
18 Mehmed Sator, another judge, yes.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Sorry, Mr. Karnavas.
21 Witness, normally speaking, a Supreme Court has several chambers
22 or sections, depending on the countries. You may have a constitutional
23 chamber, an administrative chamber, and so on and so forth. But here we
24 are talking about a branch of the Supreme Court. What does that mean?
25 Is that branch specified in a specific area of the law, or is it just a
1 branch dealing with everything which is a sort of a subsidiary of the
2 Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina that is located in a different
3 area from Sarajevo
4 to be established in Mostar.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a general department with
6 general jurisdiction, rather than a specialised chamber; and we spoke
7 about that yesterday. I don't know whether my answer today satisfies
9 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, to your knowledge,
11 this Supreme Court, and I note with great interest that the president of
12 the Court is a Muslim, but this Supreme Court, did it have to rule on any
13 kind of proceedings? Did it deal with any proceedings?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The department passed all the
15 decisions, depending on the case. As you may well know, in certain
16 cases, this department issued decisions in a chamber composed of three
17 judges, which was the most common case. The laws often prescribe that
18 decisions were adopted by three judges in a chamber, but there were also
19 situations in which there was an independent judge passing decisions or
20 five judges in a chamber. All situations were possible, but the
21 president, as an individual judge, could only pass decisions which
22 concerned the internal affairs of the court itself.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
24 MR. KARNAVAS:
25 Q. Okay. As I understand your testimony from yesterday, then today,
1 this branch of the Supreme Court essentially functioned as the third
2 instance; is that correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And would it be fair to say that it was necessary, under your
5 legal system, in order for certain cases to be finalised, they had to go
6 through the third-instance court?
7 MR. STRINGER: I object to the leading question, Mr. President.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm trying to save some time, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I believe that in common law,
10 you're right; but we are sitting here in an international court, and the
11 Judges are qualified enough to decide how far the question can go. And
12 here the question is so obvious that even if it's a leading question, we
13 may allow it.
14 So, please, Mr. Karnavas, please proceed.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I start my answer, please?
16 We've already said that this was a third-instance court.
17 However, there were cases in which the higher court in Mostar issued the
18 decision in the first instance; and then the Supreme Court appeared as an
19 appeals court, but it could also appear as a court issuing extraordinary
20 legal remedies. So two options were possible. It could act as a
21 second-instance court or a third-instance court, sitting on certain
22 extraordinary cases which called for the protection of the legality, for
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
25 Q. And, again, just to make sure it wasn't lost yesterday or the day
1 before when I asked you the question: Decisions that came out of this
2 branch of the Supreme Court of Bosnia-Herzegovina, were they ever -- to
3 your knowledge, were any of those decisions overturned after the
4 formation of the Federation as a result of the Washington Agreement or,
5 later on, after the Dayton Peace Accord?
6 A. No. No decision of the Supreme Court was ever overturned for the
7 reason of the lack of competence of this department.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Well, that was exactly the question that ought
9 to have been asked prior to the last question. Was there any remedy
10 against a judgement of this Bench of the Supreme Court to a higher
11 instance, whatever?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] An appeal could be lodged to the
13 Constitutional Court
14 this never happened. No decision was ever the subject of any appeal
15 procedure, let alone being overturned by anybody.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: And this may be of some assistance to
18 Judge Trechsel as well.
19 Q. After the Dayton Accord, were there internationals involved in
20 overseeing the judiciary, especially -- was there an Ombudsman office as
21 well, to deal with any such matters where there might have been
22 complaints, perceived complaints of violations of human rights or any
23 other rights?
24 A. Yes. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, after the Washington and Dayton
25 Accords, both the Ombudsman office and the Court of Human Rights were
1 established, and there were eight foreign judges participating in those.
2 Some of them were even members of the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg
3 The composition of this court that acted as the Chamber for Human Rights
4 was eight foreigners, seven locals. The president of that court was
5 Michel Picard, a foreign national.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you. If we go on to 1D 02379, 2379.
7 Q. Here is a decision dated 15 January 1993, and it's for the
8 selection of certain judges to the Lower Court in Stolac.
9 Can you confirm that the HVO took this decision that was signed
10 by the then-president, Dr. Jadranko Prlic? And can you please tell us
11 whether any of the judges that were selected for that court were Muslim;
12 and if so, who and in what position?
13 A. Yes. This is a decision on the first selection of judges for the
14 Lower Court
15 appointed, of whom one was Bosniak, Muslim; and two Croats. The Bosniak
16 member was Edin Beca, the president of the court.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to 1D 01898.
19 Q. This is 16 January 1993
20 following judges were elected to the Bosanski Brod District Military
21 Court. If we look to the second page, we see that it is signed by the
22 then-head of the Defence Department, Bruno Stojic.
23 And can you confirm that this decision -- this proposal, I should
24 say, not decision, but can you confirm this proposal? And in looking at
25 some of the names, can you confirm that there are Muslims who are being
1 proposed to sit on these courts?
2 A. Correct. This is not a decision; this is a proposal by the
3 Defence Department, i.e., the head of the Defendant Department, for the
4 appointment of judges for the District Military Court in Bosanski Brod.
5 This is a proposal for the appointment of five judges of whom --
6 actually, six judges, of whom five are Croats and one is a Muslim,
7 Bosniak. He is under number 4, Fuad Perlice.
8 Q. And then we see there is another list of elected judge jurors,
9 and then -- and for some of us, we may not be familiar with that concept.
10 What is it a judge juror? Is that a layperson who serves, also, along
11 with professional judges?
12 A. No. A judge juror is something that could be similar to the
13 persons who serve in the Anglo-Saxon system. They are laymen. They
14 don't have to have legal education. But there were situations in which
15 there was a judge sitting independently with two lay jurors. So they are
16 actually lay jurors. They're not legally educated persons. And there
17 were also instances in which there was a chamber of three judges which
18 could also have an additional two lay persons sitting as judge jurors.
19 In practice, they were just making up the numbers.
20 Q. All right.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next number, 1D 02382, 2382.
22 Q. And, here, we see that this is a list of employees of the Mostar
23 Lower Court
24 know that there was a general mobilisation, so that individuals 18 to 60
25 had to respond. Can you please tell us what "work obligation" means for
1 those who may not be familiar with the concept?
2 A. I'll do my best.
3 The system of All People's Defence then, in the former
5 assignment. As soon as a person became of age, that person was given a
6 war assignment. That war assignment could be one of several things: One
7 could be an assignment to a military unit, another to a unit of
8 Territorial Defence, the third one could be into a unit of civilian
9 protection, or the fourth option was the so-called work obligation.
10 In such a system, "work obligation" meant that people who were
11 under work obligation during a state of war were not duty-bound to serve
12 in any of the military units or any of the units of the civilian
13 protection or Territorial Defence. That duty to serve was discharged in
14 their company or an institution they had worked for up to then.
15 In this particular case, these are the judges for whom eight was
16 envisaged that their obligation would be work obligation in court. In
17 other words, they would continue to discharge their judicial duties.
18 Thus, the HZ-HB, for all the judges who were judges before the war,
19 regardless of their assignment, even if they had been assigned to a
20 military unit, the HZ-HB introduced work obligations for them, which
21 means that even if one of the judges had been mobilised, we, as the
22 department, asked for these persons to be demobilised and returned to the
23 court in order to continue performing their judicial duties. And as may
24 be seen from the list, all the judges of the Municipal Court in Mostar
25 performed their judicial duties. And even if some of them had been
1 assigned into the army, we asked for them to be demobilised and returned
2 to their original duties.
3 My answer may have been too long, but I don't know how else I
4 could have explained this term "work obligation," and I apologise.
5 Q. You spoke of judges, but also here we see "Administrative
6 Technical Section," and we see court registry officers, typists,
7 cleaners. Were they -- based on the answer that you gave us, were they
8 also employed by the courts and simply continued working under this work
9 obligation, or are these new people that are being brought in to fill
10 those positions?
11 A. In all the cases, those are people who performed the same duties
12 in the court even before the war. I would like to say that of the 12
13 judges who were on the list as the judges of the Basic Court in Mostar,
14 eight were Muslims, Bosniaks; three were Croats; one was a Serb; and the
15 president of the Basic Court in Mostar was also a Bosniak, a Muslim, Ziba
16 Nozic. The HZ-HB never changed this composition.
17 And now, with regard to a question I was asked yesterday, before
18 the war, this Basic Court in Mostar had 23 judges, of whom 11 Serbs,
19 eight Muslims, and only four Croats.
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 02388 --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, if I understand
23 correctly, this Lower Court that existed, prior to events prior to the
24 war, continued after January 1993, but what seems to me important, and
25 you pointed this out because it was not obvious for the Judges, is that
1 this Lower Court will function after January 1993 with a majority of
2 Muslim judges, including the president, a Muslim?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour. The
4 Basic Court
5 same composition, save for the fact that some of the Serbs had left,
6 together with the JNA. I suppose that we will see that later. Based on
7 the structure of the Higher Court in Mostar, we will see what happened to
8 them. All the other judges who had been appointed to the Municipal Court
9 in Mostar remained in their positions, and this is the composition that
10 the HZ-HB accepted.
11 Just a while ago, when we spoke about the decree on regular
12 courts, we also said that the HZ-HB did not establish any new regular
13 court, nor did it abolish any regular court. But I need to emphasise
14 here that since the building of the Basic Court in Mostar had burnt down,
15 they were moved after the month of January, and we saw that funds had
16 been approved for that, to the building of the former building of the
17 Court of Associated Labour that had been reappointed for that purpose.
18 And all that was done because the former building of that court was
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I assume that this Associated
21 Labour building that housed the tribunal destroyed by the Serbs was in
22 Mostar West or East?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was on the border between East
24 and West Mostar, but it was in East Mostar. It was destroyed at the
25 beginning of the war in May 1992. I believe that it was destroyed by the
1 shelling on the part of the JNA, Then it caught fire and burned to the
2 ground; and all the documentation of the court was also destroyed, as I
3 told you on the first day of my testimony.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. During the conflict in
5 Mostar, we know there was a frontline, the HVO on one side -- can you
7 I repeat. During the conflict, there was a demarcation line or a
8 frontline. How did the defendants go to the court? Could Muslims travel
9 to see the judges? And vice versa, could the Croats go to the court to
10 meet the judges, to meet their lawyers? And you, as a lawyer, during the
11 conflict did judicial activity continue? Were there trials, hearings,
12 proceedings, and rulings?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was a time of fierce fighting
14 in Mostar, during which nobody could go to any courts, either Croats or
15 Bosniaks, because both buildings in the vicinity of this separation line
16 were inaccessible. Therefore, during the peak of the conflict, neither
17 Croats nor Bosniaks could access any of the courts.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just to follow up, Witness, here, just to follow
19 up, it sounds now as if the courts were not working, practically, during
20 the conflict period or during a certain period. Could you give us more
21 information on that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I said this, I meant the
23 period between May 1993 and sometime up to mid-1994. During that period
24 of time, if these courts were operational at all, it was just the judge
25 on duty who went there, and they could, indeed, do very little. They
1 could not perform their duties properly.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Would this also apply to Western Mostar?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This applies to Croat judges and
4 Bosniak judges, and to citizens of both Croat and Bosniak origin.
5 Because of the location of these courts, of their buildings, on the very
6 separation line, the access to neither of the courts was possible. What
7 we tried to maintain was to provide access to the buildings for the judge
8 on duty and the prosecutor on duty for the most urgent cases.
9 It was possible, from the Bosniak side, to hit every person in
10 any of the court buildings from infantry weapons, and the same was
11 possible from the Croat side. What I'm saying is that this could be done
12 from both sides. Anybody in the court buildings could be a target. And
13 the buildings themselves were very damaged, and it had very few window
14 panes. Both court buildings had very few window panes left. I'm
15 basically speaking about the Basic Court, the Higher Court, as well as
16 the Municipal Court and --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: The Municipal
18 Prosecutor's Office and the District Prosecutor's Office.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
20 MR. KARNAVAS:
21 Q. What about 1992, were the courts working then?
22 A. From 1992 until mid-1993, that is, until the outbreak of the
23 fiercest fighting in Mostar, both the Municipal Court in Mostar and the
24 Higher Court
25 discharge their functions. And as you can see from this list, they were
1 able to do so with the number of staff listed here. So the Municipal
2 Court in Mostar did not work with full capacity because we said before
3 the war there were 25 judges; but in this -- in this period, there
4 were 12.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 02388, 1D 02388.
7 Q. If we look at this document, and if you look at the second
8 page -- well, if you look at the original page, this is a list of
9 judicial employees who received salaries for the month of 1993 -- January
10 1993, and we've already seen some of the names. Could you please tell us
11 what positions these individuals held - and we do see a disparity in the
12 payment - just very quickly?
13 A. Can you hear me?
14 In this specific case, we have judges and prosecutors who were
15 assigned to the Municipal Court and the Municipal Prosecutor's Office in
16 Stolac. The difference in salaries results from the fact that Edin Beca
17 was the president of the Court, while Niko Moro was the Municipal
18 Prosecutor. The person under number 4 was his assistant, and numbers 2
19 and 3 were judges. So the difference in salaries is accounted for by
20 their respective positions. The president of the Court had a higher
21 salary than a judge.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: And if we look at now the next document, 1D 02383,
24 2383, this is 4 February 1993
25 Q. You'll see at the very top it's the Department of Justice and
1 General Administration. At the end of this document, we see the name of
2 the president of the Court, Mladen Barbaric.
3 And I just want to focus everyone's attention, and particularly
4 your attention, to paragraph number 3 on the first page.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm told that there is no translation.
6 Q. Mr. Buntic, have you been able to hear me?
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. Obviously, Mr. Buntic has not heard me, and
8 that time should not be used against me. It must have been at least five
10 Q. Can you hear me, Mr. Buntic, now?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: All right. We're going back to this document,
14 1D 02383, and let us focus our attention now on paragraph number 3.
15 Q. It says:
16 "According to the guidelines from the Ministry of Justice and the
17 General Administration of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a
18 wartime staffing plan was prepared in June 1992, with a total of 41
19 employees (one court president, 14 judges, and 26 staff)."
20 Now, could you explain to us a little bit about this particular
21 paragraph in 1D 02383, because it says clearly that at least there are
22 some guidelines that are being applied from the Republic of Bosnia
24 A. In this specific case, we are dealing with information that, at
25 my request, was provided by the president of the Higher Court in Mostar.
1 And he informs me that according to the wartime staffing plan, a wartime
2 staffing was established according to which the Higher Court in Mostar
3 must have a president and 14 judges; while in peacetime, the prescribed
4 number was 19 judges plus the president, so 20 in total.
5 He also provides information about the identity of the 14 judges
6 who, according to the wartime staffing plan, were to continue working as
7 judges. He provides a list of the judges, from which it is obvious that
8 in the composition of the then-Higher Court in Mostar, there were six
9 Muslims, Bosniaks; five Croats; two Serbs; and one Jew.
10 Can I please continue about the composition before the war?
11 Before the war, there were eight Muslims, six Serbs, five Croats,
12 and one Jew. I'm saying this to supplement what I said yesterday;
13 namely, that regardless of the population make-up in Herzegovina, that is
14 the jurisdiction of this court in Mostar where Croats were in the
15 majority, Croats were represented only with 20 per cent in the
16 composition of the judiciary.
17 I'm not sure if I need to provide the names because I know the
18 ethnicity of each of them.
19 Q. That's not necessary, unless the Judges want. We do need to move
20 a little bit quicker, Mr. Buntic.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 023 --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. There seems to be
23 a very important item, which is the conclusion of the letter of
24 Mr. Barbaric, because he refers to Judge Nada Dalipagic; and he states
25 that this court, from the presidents of the Republic of Bosnia
1 no document nor the Official Gazette, for that matter. So we have the
2 impression that this judge, who is the president of the Court, states
3 very clearly that they are cut off from the Presidency of
4 Bosnia-Herzegovina from Sarajevo
5 he's trying to make due as best he can.
6 Do you think that this last sentence correctly summarises the
7 situation in which these judges found themselves?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's true, Your Honour. The
9 president of the Higher Court in Mostar confirms in this sentence all
10 that we have discussed earlier, that is, yesterday; namely, that there
11 was absolutely no possibility for the Official Gazette to come from
13 could be smuggled somehow across the separation lines, I don't know about
14 that; but mail could not reach Mostar from Sarajevo, including the
15 Official Gazette.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you. And I take it there are no questions
17 from the Bench concerning the use of the guidelines from the Ministry of
18 Justice in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 That being so, I'll move on to the next document. 1D 02381.
20 Q. Very quickly, we see a list of employees, Lower Court, who are
21 under work obligation?
22 You already explained to us what the "work obligation" meant?
23 Can you confirm, given your position, that this is accurate?
24 A. Correct. Here, again, we have a list of judges and staff of the
25 Municipal Court in Mostar, submitted by the president of the Basic Court
1 Mrs. Ziba Nozic; and it is the list is provided for the purpose of
2 payment of salaries to the judges and staff whom the president of the
3 court had found to have worked in that month.
4 Q. If we look at the judges, and then we can look at the typists and
5 what have you, If you could tell us how many of the judges, for instance,
6 are on this list are Muslim; and then do the same thing for the typists
7 and anyone else that you see on the list.
8 A. As we said a moment ago, this list included -- includes seven
9 Muslim judges, four Croat judges, and one Serb.
10 Q. The president of the court?
11 A. The president of the court continued to be Mrs. Ziba Nozic. She
12 had been appointed to this position before the war, and she was never
13 relieved by any enactment of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna or
14 any other body.
15 Q. What about the land registry officer?
16 A. I'm not sure we are talking about the same person. Maybe you
17 meant the registry books that we managed to save from the fire in the
18 Municipal Court in Mostar. They were relocated during the war to Citluk
19 and returned after war to the Municipal Court in Mostar. Is that what
20 you meant, the registry books, land registry books?
21 Q. No. We're on this document, and we're looking at the names,
22 Mr. Buntic. Very quickly, if you look at number 13, and then if you look
23 at number 23, you know, we're trying to get an assessment because the
24 allegations are that this whole region was Croat-ised and ethnic
25 cleansing is going on. So this is the purpose of all of this. It may
1 not make sense in a normal setting to be discussing it because that's
2 crude fashions, but we must do it in this case.
3 A. You're right. Under number 13 and number 23, we see Amira Nozic
4 and Mustafa Velagic. They are land registry officers; that is, persons
5 who were in charge of and were authorised to enter -- to make entries
6 into the land registry books, recording ownership of real estate. They
7 continued in their positions during the war. Nobody replaced them.
8 Q. This is very important, because if you try to Croat-ise an area,
9 you're obviously going to ethnically cleanse even in those departments.
10 So what is their ethnicity, sir? That is the point I'm asking you.
11 MR. STRINGER: I object to the statement or argument of counsel.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: It's based on the Prosecution theory which we've
13 heard for two and a half years.
14 MR. STRINGER: No. It' an argument. It's actually a tirade.
15 MR. KARNAVAS:
16 Q. Mr. Buntic, help us out here, because the Croatian Community of
17 Herceg-Bosna, the HVO of which you were the minister of justice, is being
18 accused of having ethnically cleansing even in the court system. Could
19 you lease tell us here how many of these positions are Muslim? That's
20 why I asked concretely the land registry, which is a rather important
22 A. I'm sorry if I didn't understand the question at first. Both are
23 ethnic Muslims, Bosniaks. On the staff of the Court, there are seven
24 Muslim judges, four Croats, and one Serb; whereas, in these other
25 services, both the land registry officers are Bosniaks; whereas, among
1 other staff, I could go through them one by one, but I believe it's
2 obvious, from the list itself, that there are Croats, Muslims, and Serbs.
3 All three ethnicities are represented.
4 Q. Very well.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, 1D 00274.
6 Q. And this is just as an aside for the Judges to get a better
8 Here, we have the president of the municipal HVO in Livno
9 appointing a Dinko Galic, who is an engineer, to be the acting president
10 of the Livno Municipal Court. And, perhaps, you could explain to us how
11 is it that an engineer is being appointed to be none other than the
12 president of a misdemeanor court in Livno?
13 A. I know this may cause a laugh in the courtroom, but you have to
14 understand that there were no other solutions in that situation. As you
15 saw yesterday, we had to organise a district military court, a district
16 prosecutors' office in Livno, to preserve the operation of the Municipal
18 Until that time, the position of the misdemeanor judge - I
19 believe his name was Mr. Bravo - who is appointed to the District Court,
20 we had to assign him to the Municipal Court, a regular court, after which
21 this position of the misdemeanor judge was vacant. And there was no one
22 with a law degree in Livno or in other places to fill this vacancy. A
23 similar situation was in Tomislavgrad, where throughout the war the court
24 had to function only with one judge, that is, the president, Andrija
25 Kolak. There were no other people available, so the only option was to
1 appoint an engineer by training until a list became available with
2 someone from a law degree to fill this vacancy.
3 Maybe I'm too lengthy, but it's not easy to answer with a "yes"
4 or "no."
5 Q. Let me just stop you here. Could you just explain to us, very
6 briefly, in one sentence - you don't have to go on for 20 lines, just one
7 sentence - how is it that it is the president of the Municipal Court of
8 the municipality of the municipal HVO that is making the appointment for
9 this municipal misdemeanor court?
10 A. The Municipal Council was in charge of that before the war and
11 during the war. The Municipal Council was always the one who appointed
12 misdemeanor judges.
13 Q. I'm going to have to cut you off on occasion, Mr. Buntic, if
14 you're going on, because we just need concrete answers.
15 I want to speak about January 15, 1993, in particular, this
16 decision that was rendered by the HVO, and I'm referring to --
17 A. I would appreciate it very much, if the Defence has completed the
18 topic of the judiciary, I would appreciate it very much if the Court
19 would allow me to make a brief statement regarding this topic, the
20 operation of the judiciary, very briefly.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to confer with my
22 fellow Judges.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Mr. Karnavas, after
25 considering the matter, the Trial Chamber believes that if the witness
1 wishes to supplement answers given to your questions, then that time
2 should be deducted from your time. So it's up to you to decide whether
3 you want your witness to give additional information on that particular
4 topic, or you may think that what has been said so far is sufficient for
5 the Judges and you decide to move on to another topic. It's up to you.
6 I know that I'm putting you in quite a tricky position, but
7 you've seen worse than this and you'll see worse than this in the future.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. I believe that I will
9 ask one general question, and that might assist.
10 Q. Mr. Buntic, is there anything else you wish to tell us about the
11 judiciary before I move on to the next topic? Make it brief, if
13 A. Two minutes.
14 Your Honours, over the past three days, I gave evidence about a
15 great number of regulations, decisions, and documents in the spirit of
16 the judicial system; and I, therefore, ask to be allowed to make this
17 brief statement about the way in which the judiciary of the Croatian
18 Community of Herceg-Bosna operated in reality.
19 For that purpose: I, Zoran Buntic, before this Court and under
20 oath, hereby state: If this Court, in the course of these proceedings,
21 finds that any judge appointed by any body or agency of the Croatian
22 Community of Herceg-Bosna, and regardless of who proposed the
23 appointment, had committed any act punishable under the Statute of this
24 Court, I, Zoran Buntic, former representative of the General
25 Administration Department in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,
1 assume hereby the responsibility for any such acts and hereby invite the
2 international prosecutor here present to issue an indictment against me.
3 This statement also applies to any action taken by my deputies and my
4 assistants. This statement does not apply to the judges appointed by the
5 Wartime Presidency of Bosnia
6 After this, I would like to briefly explain this statement that
7 I've just made.
8 In the work of the courts and judicial departments of the
9 General Administration, there was absolutely no interference whatsoever
10 by the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna or any of the
11 accused here. On the contrary, within the limits of what was possible at
12 the time and their own capacity, they contributed to the functioning of
13 the judicial system. I led my department independently on my own to the
14 best of my abilities and with good intentions. My deputy and my
15 assistants discharged the functions assigned to them with due diligence
16 and performed my instructions. So within -- with my full mental capacity
17 and without incitement from anyone, I decided to make the statement that
18 I did.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you have the
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. Buntic. I'm sure we all appreciate
22 those remarks and observations.
23 We now want to switch to January 15, 1993, and I'll refer to
24 document P 01155, P 01155.
25 Q. We've seen this document before in this court. This is dated
1 January 15, 1993
2 Dr. Jadranko Prlic. And is it safe to say that you are familiar with
3 this decision?
4 A. I am. And as far as I know, a day or two after this decision,
5 the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina made an
6 order that was very similar to this decision.
7 Q. All right. Now, were you -- were you in Mostar on 15 January
8 1992 when this decision was issued?
9 A. No. On the 15th of January, 1993, I was not in Mostar. At that
10 time, I was coming back from Geneva
11 concerning the implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan. I heard of this
12 decision on TV. I believe that on the 15th, I was somewhere in Zagreb
13 on my way home.
14 Q. I'm going to walk you through step by step. So if you could
15 please tell us, what exactly did you do in Geneva, who were you with, and
16 what, if anything, was reached, decided?
17 A. In Geneva
18 believe there was somebody from the military. Akmadzic and I dealt with
19 civilian issues, civil affairs. I believe there was also someone from
20 the military staff of the HVO, where they talked about military issues
21 with the Bosniak delegation; whereas, our team discussed the future
22 constitutional arrangements for Bosnia and Herzegovina.
23 We had reached an agreement on the text, and I remember that this
24 text was, indeed, a great insight with the constitutional principles
25 along the lines of the Vance-Owen Plan. I believe it was harmonised, as
1 well as the military agreement. I believe the military agreement was
2 also reached, but I'm not sure about that. I believe, in fact, our
3 agreement was certainly agreed and initialled in Geneva. I believe the
4 same is true of the military agreement, but don't hold me to that.
5 Q. All right.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, if we go on to the next document, 1D 00818.
7 Q. This is dated 18 January 1993
8 do not see you there having been a participant. We see others, but we
9 don't see you. And, of course, if we just look through this, these
10 minutes, we see that at some point there is a discussion concerning
11 communications that were had between Mr. Alija Izetbegovic and
12 Dr. Jadranko Prlic.
13 My first question is: Were you present on the 18th of January,
14 1993, when there was a discussion, there was a meeting?
15 A. No. As you can see from the record, my deputy, Karlo Sesar,
16 attended. I returned a day or two later. On the 19th or perhaps 20th, I
17 was back in Mostar, but not on that day.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: If you look at the next document, which is P01227,
19 these are the minutes on the 19th of January, 1993.
20 Q. And, here, we do see your name. Can you confirm to us that you
21 did, in fact, attend the extraordinary session that was held on that day?
22 A. Correct. I attended this session, as you can see from the
23 minutes. I returned on the 19th. I wasn't sure a moment ago whether I
24 returned on the 19th or the 20th; but from the minutes, you can see I was
25 there on the 19th.
1 Q. Would you have been briefed, incidentally, by your associate,
2 your deputy, about what, if anything, had transpired the previous day
3 during that extraordinary session on 18 January 1993?
4 A. He told me briefly what had been discussed at that session. He
5 told me there had been a session a day earlier and what was discussed.
6 Q. All right. Have you had a chance to look at this particular
7 document, the one of 19 January 1993
8 confirm to us whether the minutes, as stated, truncated as they are,
9 whether they reflect what was being discussed at the time?
10 A. I think the minutes are done properly and reflect what had been
12 MR. KARNAVAS: And then if we look at 1D 00820, this is dated
13 20 January 1993
14 Q. It's a letter from Mr. Mate Boban, wherein he indicates that he
15 wishes to -- for certain changes to be made to the decision that had been
16 issued on 15 January 1993
17 A. No. I saw this document for the first time when you showed it
18 to me.
19 Q. Were changes -- were changes made to the decision of 15 January
20 1993 subsequent to your arrival in Mostar? And we saw that you were
21 there on the 19th of January, 1993.
22 A. As you were able to see, I was in Mostar already on the 19th.
23 This document is of the 21st, and I was back in Mostar already on
24 the 19th.
25 Q. Going back to the decision of January 15, what was your
1 understanding of this decision?
2 A. I've told you already that I had been in Geneva for negotiations
3 about the implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan, that certain matters
4 were resolved there, agreement was reached about the basic constitutional
5 arrangements for Bosnia and Herzegovina. I believe that the military
6 agreement was also reached. I don't know the details of that agreement.
7 But what Mr. Akmadzic and I were told was that everything had to
8 be done to put an end to the war between Bosniaks and Croats, and that
9 that was not possible without separating the warring sides. I was told
10 that that agreement contained provisions about the separation of the two
11 sides, and I saw this decision in that context. It's not an order to
13 It requires a certain conduct on both sides, and that in areas
14 which have a majority population, one of the armies had to be withdrawn,
15 units of the HVO had to withdraw from provinces 1, 5, and 9. So it's not
16 prejudicial to any of the sides, because provinces 3, 8, and 9, and 10
17 were considered to be majority Croatian, because indeed they were.
18 It was not possible to leave both armies in one area. One had to
19 withdraw. Provinces 1, 5, and 9 were majority Bosniaks, so it was clear
20 that Croatian units had to be subordinated, as it says here, to the
21 VH Army, in order to have peace, to restore peace. The presence of both
22 armies in one locality, in one region, is impossible. I'm saying it's
23 impossible, because it will always lead to a conflict. There is no
24 civilian authority that is able to control them and maintain peace if
25 they continue to be in the same area.
1 That's my opinion, my position, and I stand by it.
2 Q. Thank you. Now, if we go on to our next topic, this deals with
3 districts. We'll try -- I don't know if we can deal with this --
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honours, if I look at the time, it
5 might be more prudent to have a break at this point, before I start the
6 next chapter, because it's impossible to do it in five minutes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. It's 25 past 10.00.
8 The best is for us to have a break now to allow Mr. Karnavas to prepare
9 for the next topic, and we'll resume in 20 minutes.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 --- Recess taken at 10.26 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understand that the
14 Prosecution wishes to intervene.
15 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
16 We just wanted to take a brief opportunity to raise a couple of
17 timing-related issues with the Trial Chamber in respect of this witness,
18 because it's clear that we're going not only deeply into this week but
19 perhaps deeply into next week with Mr. Buntic. I don't know, at this
20 point, what other examinations the other Defence teams have planned. We
21 have some information from the Coric team which I'd also like to raise.
22 But with respect to the following witness -- actually, the
23 following two witnesses, and I don't know whether they are both open
24 session or not, and whether I don't know if I can say the names - I know
25 Mr. Zuzul is - but we don't know how we're going to accommodate the
1 witnesses who are scheduled for next week, given the way it's going with
2 Mr. Buntic. And if, in fact, there's going to be any adjustments made,
3 it would be very helpful to the Prosecution to know. That's my first
5 And if I could just raise the other, then the Trial Chamber could
6 hear from the Defence.
7 We've been -- yesterday, we were given notice by the Coric team
8 of its intention to use some exhibits with this witness, Mr. Buntic; and
9 it appears to us to be a situation which the Prosecution's being placed
10 in the position of having to perhaps cross-examine him or follow up with
11 Mr. Buntic on areas that are outside the scope of his direct examination
12 or which otherwise are certainly matters which we should have been given
13 more notice about. These are registers, photos copies of registries from
14 Mostar and Western Herzegovina
15 We can't read them, we don't have translations of them, I don't
16 know how the Coric team intends to proceed in of this witness on direct.
17 But the indications from the Prosecution perspective are that this is
18 going to lead to something that we haven't had sufficient notice about or
19 sufficient ability to prepare for in cross-examination, and it's possible
20 we're going to be asking that this witness be brought back to The Hague
21 at a later time, after we've had sufficient opportunity to prepare. I
22 don't know, because I don't know what the witness is going to say and I
23 don't know what the Coric team is intending to do.
24 But it appears to us, based on the late notice of -- and the
25 information that we have at hand, is that there's a good possibility that
1 we're going to feel prejudiced by what's going to be happening during the
2 so-called cross-examination of Mr. Buntic by the Coric team.
3 And I just raise that now, and I asked the witness not be brought
4 in because I thought it appropriate not to have him here while we talk
5 about what the Coric team may or may not be planning to do with him on
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
9 Madam, you may answer.
10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC-TOMIC: [Interpretation] I will respond.
11 These are from various prosecution offices from Herzegovina
12 Yesterday, we provided CDs of these documents, and we sent an e-mail
13 showing what parts of these registers, and they are only several examples
14 for illustration, and where they can be found. These CDs are on our
15 65 ter list. They have their number. On the 31st of March, they were
16 submitted in a timely fashion.
17 I believe that this witness spoke about the establishment of
18 military prosecutors' offices, military courts, and also of the civilian
19 judicial system. I don't want to overstep the boundaries of the
20 examination-in-chief of this witness. I wish to show him the registries
21 solely for purposes of identification. I want the witness simply to tell
22 me whether these are, in fact, the registries, whether this is what the
23 registers looked like; and there is no translation needed for that
24 because this has been provided to the OTP. The list of abbreviations, we
25 will ask him to explain.
1 For example, His Honour Judge Trechsel yesterday asked what "KT"
2 stands for; and for all the Judges, we have prepared a list. This is not
3 to be tendered into evidence, but is simply an explanation of what is
4 meant by "KT," or by "KF," and so on and so forth. We've also prepared
5 the articles of the law mentioned in these registers, and I only want to
6 show some examples. For example, where we have a criminal report or
7 something else from a file, how this can be identified with a file number
8 in the registry. I don't think this falls outside the scope of the
9 examination-in-chief or that it requires preparation longer than one day.
10 Yesterday, everyone, including Mrs. Majkovski and the Prosecutor
11 and the Registrar received the list of every image from the register that
12 we will refer to. And this can be then zoomed in, too, electronically,
13 and one can see whether the numbers correspond to the numbers from the
14 criminal report and the names of the persons concerned.
15 That's all I wanted to say. That is what I will deal with in my
16 cross-examination. There will be no surprises; and precisely for this
17 reason, yesterday we provided this, and it's all on the list of the
18 31st of March. There's not a single document that is not on that list.
19 Thank you, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. As I 0understand it,
21 these lists were forwarded on CD-ROM the 31st of March to the
22 Prosecutor's Office. So the Prosecutor's Office is in possession of
23 these registers since the 31st of March, so you've had them for several
24 months, not since yesterday. Secondly, and personally, and I'm not
25 committing my fellow Judges, but it's part of an investigation at the
1 very least regarding justice, because it is stated in the indictment.
2 The question of justice, we had to get the Prosecutor's Office to verify
3 the list of prosecutors were on the ground. It wasn't done by the
4 Prosecution but by the Defence, and now the Prosecution says it doesn't
5 have enough time to prepare itself.
6 So, since March 31st, you're in possession of these registers;
7 but from what I understand, the legal counsel, she just wants a few
8 minutes to determine that the prosecutors in question recorded the cases
9 under the numbers "KT," "KF," et cetera, and the witness will say, "Yes,
10 which proves that justice continued to operate." That's all she wishes
11 to establish, and there's no need for weeks or even months to be able to
12 cross-examine the witness on this.
13 So on the first point, Mr. Karnavas, what is your view?
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
15 I was going to address this issue at the end of the -- at the end
16 of the day today. I was going to ask for a couple of minutes just to
17 brief this issue.
18 We acknowledge that we are going to go into next week with this
19 particular witness, and the following witness is an important witness.
20 He is due to arrive shortly. He will be on standby until he goes on. I
21 understand that we have Mr. Zuzul, who is expected to testify, who also
22 come back, and it has been prearranged.
23 And so we - Ms. Tomanovic and I - had concluded that it would be
24 best to ask or to inform the Court that in our opinion, it might be best
25 to postpone Mr. Zuzul's arrival until the following week, in other words,
1 to start on Monday, as opposed to him coming on a Friday. This way, we
2 have the following witness testifying, and then we don't start -- disrupt
3 that in order to hear Mr. Zuzul and then go back. This way, we would
4 finish the second one. Mr. Zuzul will then pick up from there, so he can
5 be here to be ready for Monday. In other words, he would arrive here on
6 Sunday, to be ready to testify on Monday. Monday is a full day, as I
7 understand, the following Monday. And we still have another short
8 witness after that.
9 So based on our calculations, we're not going to be losing any
10 time. As you can see, we're very, very efficient and very well prepared,
11 even for these eventualities, and we welcome this intervention.
12 However, I must say that in the future, we could save a lot of
13 courtroom time if we just communicate to each other, especially with the
14 second issue. There was no need to spend ten minutes. I think if they
15 had a five-minute conversation outside the record, this matter could have
16 been clarified; and then if they still needed to go on record to raise
17 their objections of how they're being, you know, prejudiced, they could
18 do so. But I think this could have been handled quite nicely. And right
19 now, we've had all these people sitting around, international taxpayers'
20 dollars being abused, in my opinion, on matters that could be handled
21 with a tete-a-tete.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With this witness, we will end
24 on Thursday with him. He will remain, and we will resume with him on
25 Monday afternoon, July 14th; and then we will move on to the witness of
1 next week, and we'll also have a hearing on Friday. So we should end
2 with your witness on Friday, and then we will hear Mr. Zuzul on Monday
3 morning and afternoon.
4 Let me clarify because the Chamber saw the problem. We will end
5 at 12.30 on Monday, so that people can have lunch, and then we will
6 resume at 2.15 p.m.
7 That's the timeline. As Mr. Karnavas indicates, the Prosecution and the
8 Defence can settle that amongst themselves, and that will save time so
9 we're not running behind. Everything is proceeding at a speedy pace.
10 We can bring in the witness.
11 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, just so the Trial Chamber's aware,
12 by our records. The Prosecution has five hours for the cross-examination
13 of Mr. Zuzul. The Prosecution intends to use all of that time, and so we
14 still think that there's a likelihood that we will not be able to finish
15 both of the witnesses during that final week before the summer recess.
16 But, obviously, we'll see how things go.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, normally, Mr. Stringer,
18 with five hours on Monday, Mr. Zuzul, if there's no objections or
19 numerous additional questions, we should end on Monday with Mr. Zuzul.
20 MR. STRINGER: That would be our hope, Mr. President.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: There's no need for anticipatory anxiety.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We must always be
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Or as the Jewish mother says, "I see it, I
25 believe it."
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing resumes.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
4 Q. Mr. Buntic, again, good morning. We're going to move to the next
5 topic dealing with districts; and, again, I'm going to beg you, I'm going
6 to beg you to please, at times, be a little shorter.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: We're going to look at 1D 00509, 1D 00509.
8 Q. This is a decree with the power of law on the power of work --
9 and work of districts. It's dated 13 August 1992 in Sarajevo.
10 And just very briefly, are you familiar with this particular
12 A. I'm familiar with the degree and I have -- I have an echo in my
13 headphones. I have already provided my testimony about this subject by
14 pointing out that the Presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina, because of the
15 blockade of Sarajevo
16 the Parliament, Presidency, and government, they were forced to pass a
17 decree on the establishment of new bodies that would be functioning
18 during the war. And it is of no essence what their names would be: The
19 districts, as they're referred to by the Presidency, or the unions of
20 municipalities, as we call them.
21 As a lawyer, by trade, I believe that I'm allowed to note that
22 the then-prevailing Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina allowed for the
23 association of several municipalities into unions, with a purpose of
24 defending their territory; whereas, that same Constitution did not give
25 the authority to the president to change the internal territorial
1 organisation of the then-existing Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2 I would kindly ask the usher to help me with the headphones. I'm
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. Registrar, please stop the time.
5 THE WITNESS: Okay.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: He was on the phone. I was wondering or I was
7 hoping that he didn't -- okay.
8 Q. Now, so, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying to the
9 Trial Chamber here is that this decree, in your opinion, as a trained
10 lawyer, familiar with the system in your country, and especially the
11 Constitution, the then-existing Constitution, that this decree was
13 A. [Interpretation] Correct. In my view and according to the
14 then-prevailing Constitution, the literal territorial organisation of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina could only have been changed pursuant to a decision by
16 the Assembly, because this is a constitutional matter and the Parliament
17 of Bosnia-Herzegovina could not transfer that authority on to the
19 And if I may be allowed, I would like to read parts of Article 4
20 of this decree, if that would not constitute too long an answer.
21 Q. Okay. Go ahead.
22 JUDGE PRANDLER: Before it is necessary to give us some further
23 for information, I would like to ask the following: A decree has been
24 adopted by the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I would
25 like to know -- it was, of course, dated 13th August 1992. Now, the
1 question is that if Mr. Buntic might be able to tell us: What was the
2 voting, if any, voting results of the voting in the Presidency in view of
3 the fact that there should have been also the then-Croatian members of
4 the Presidency participating in the decision-making?
5 So my question is if you know anything about the internal
6 proceedings, what happened within the Presidency when the decree was
7 adopted, and if the Croat members also voted for it. It would be
8 important, in my view, because you said that it was against the
9 Constitution; and then we have to look at it, how the Presidency adopted
10 this decree.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not familiar with
12 these details. I'm not familiar with the way the Presidency passed this
13 decree and whether at that session all the members of the Presidency were
14 present. I just said that the Presidency did not have such
15 constitutional powers because the Parliament of Bosnia-Herzegovina could
16 not transfer such powers on to the Presidency, according to the
17 Constitution. This the exclusive power of the Assembly and could not be
18 transferred on to the Presidency in war or in the immediate threat of
19 war. Legal authorities could be transferred, but the matters that were
20 regulated by the Constitution could not be transferred. The
21 municipalities, themselves, could, however, issue a decision on
22 association. They could associate themselves into a union of
24 For the Presidency to issue a decision changing the territorial
25 organisation of the state, it was not possible, because it is a
1 constitutional matter rather than a law.
2 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you for your answer, but I simply would
3 like to state that it would have been better then to attach that part of
4 the Constitution which is relevant, as far as this very decree, and in
5 order to show to us, to the Bench, that it was anyway against the
6 Constitution itself. And, again, I say that since it was wartime and in
7 wartime many of the provisions of the Constitution had been referred to
8 the Presidency to act upon, therefore we should know, really, that
9 according to the Constitution, according to the Presidency, according to
10 the members of the Presidency, if this act of adopting the decree was
11 legal or illegal.
12 Thank you.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Judge Prandler, for that, and just let
14 me respond very briefly to your observation.
15 We try not to try the entire case through any particular witness.
16 So we do -- and given the time constraints, we can't do that. I agree,
17 in a perfect world, that's what I would do. But I have both my hands
18 tied behind my back and one of my legs has been taken, and you're asking
19 me to sprint. It's rather difficult. So we're put in a position where
20 we have to discriminate. That's number 1.
21 Number 2, we do intend to tie it up through another witness.
22 However, that being said, we do welcome the judicial hint. We welcome
23 that there's an issue that you obviously wish to hear from, and we will
24 try to provide that information to you through another witness.
25 Q. Now, you wanted to make reference to certain portions of
1 Article 4, so if you could do so rather quickly, Mr. Buntic.
2 A. Article 4 says:
3 "Within the areas that are regulated by republican regulations,
4 the district or bodies within the purview of their duties and authorities
5 may, if the interests of defence and protection and the agency of
6 regulation of certain matters and relationships so require, issue
7 regulations to regulate that matters and relationships of an immediate
8 importance for the district should these regulations not be passed in due
9 course by the Republican organs."
10 And this quote points to the fact that the districts could also
11 pass regulations from the areas that were within the purview of the
12 Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
13 case in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: If we could go on to the next document, and I
16 believe the Trial Chamber has seen the next document, which is 1D 02565.
17 Q. And, here, we see that this is a letter from the Minister of
18 Energetics, Mining, and Industry, and it's to a Mr. Demirovic. And in
19 the first -- the first letter, we see that he's being asked to provide
20 certain materials to Mr. Prlic. So Demirovic is the go-between to
21 Mr. Prlic.
22 If we go to the next page, we see that this is another letter.
23 This one is from the vice-president of the government of RBiH,
24 Mr. Ljubuntija. This is to the commander of the 4th Corps of the Army of
25 BiH, in other words, the Muslim army; and, there, he's being asked to
1 urgently implement the matter. This is -- we can see Dr. Jadranko Prlic
2 is being copied.
3 And then if we flip the page, we see this is on February 25th,
4 yet you see another document. This time it's from the Ministry of
5 Defence, the deputy minister, Mr. Bisic; and he is writing about the
6 setting up of the Mostar-Livno district. This is February 25th, 1993
7 Now, let me stop right there.
8 By February 25th, 1993, had the Croatian Community of
9 Herceg-Bosna been set up and had it been operational for some time?
10 A. Yes. The Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna at that time had
11 already been established. It was operational, and I believe that it is
12 interesting to point out that everything was happening at a time after
13 the Vance-Owen Plan was signed in Geneva and accepted by both sides.
14 That plan employed a completely different territorial organisation than
15 the one that is being proposed and requested; i.e., whose implementation,
16 even through military force and through a military commander, is
17 requested by Vlatko Lugunja, vice president of the government of the
18 Republic of Bosnia
19 I'm familiar with these documents. They were discussed at the
20 Croatian Defence Council.
21 Q. A little bit step by step, I want to slow down because it's
22 rather interesting. The first decree is August 13; and now, several
23 months later, it appears that the army now wants to implement this, the
24 Ministry of Defence. And, of course, it's March 3, 1993, that Mr. Prlic
25 is going to be noticed of this, at least that's what it appears from the
1 first page of the document.
2 And can you please tell us, from August 13 to March 1993 - it's
3 August 1992
4 negotiations had been taking place concerning the internal organisation
5 of Bosnia-Herzegovina to which the representatives of the Muslim nation
6 were discussing with the representatives of the Serb and the Croat
8 A. Yes. I personally participated in these talks and negotiations,
9 which were conducted in Neum between the 19th and 23rd December, 1992.
10 On the Muslim/Bosniak side, Professor Kasim Trnka was the head of the
11 Bosniak delegation. Attorney-at-all Camil Salahovic and Mensud Borogovac
12 from Tuzla
13 delegation; and with me, there were also Professor Ante Margetic and Anto
15 Q. Throughout this period, because it would appear that this is the
16 first notice, did any representatives from Sarajevo come to share their
17 views on how to implement this particular decree, especially if you look
18 back to the decree at 1D 00509, if you look back to it, and you look at
19 Article 5, which says:
20 "Funds for work of district bodies shall be ensured in the
21 Republic's budget."
22 MR. KARNAVAS: And I say this for the Trial Chamber's convenience
23 because we heard from the Minister of Finance, and what we had learned
24 was that there was no budget, to speak of, as a result of the situation
25 on the ground.
1 Q. So did anybody come from Sarajevo
2 were to work, how to implement this decree, and where the money would
3 come from to pay the salaries for the judges, for the court system? So
4 all the things that this piece of paper, this decree, claims are the
5 responsibilities of these newly-created territorial districts.
6 A. I was not privy to any document of that kind. Nobody ever spoke
7 to me about the financing of these districts. So when I say "no
8 document," I mean documents of a financial nature or talks about the
9 financing of these districts. As for the rest of the issues, I was fully
10 familiar with the issues when it came to these districts.
11 Q. Yesterday, I believe we saw an interview - I can dig it up here -
12 where you indicated that Alija Izetbegovic had been in Mostar, and that
13 there was a 50/50 arrangement. You recall that interview, And we do know
14 that Alija Izetbegovic was in Mostar in October 1992.
15 Now, did Mr. Izetbegovic and his entourage, his colleagues, his
16 collaborators, did they come with expert services to describe how these
17 districts were to function, how they were to be organised, how to
18 implement this legal instrument, and, of course, where they would find
19 the money, the budget, in order to make these districts, these
20 newly-created districts, function?
21 A. I've already said that nobody ever spoke to me about financing or
22 wrote to me about financing. We never discussed the matter of financing,
23 I repeat.
24 Q. I'm not so worried about the wondering. I'm worrying -- I'm
25 wondering whether they had somebody draft this decree. It's rather
1 detailed. Obviously, when you draft such a decree, you have in mind how
2 it's going to be implemented; otherwise, it's just empty words on a piece
3 of paper.
4 My question, again, concretely: Was there a delegation that ever
5 came from the government of Sarajevo
6 a delegation to explain how to organise these districts, so at least you
7 would have some sort of knowledge of how they intended to implement this
8 particular decree which for several months went unnoticed until March
10 A. I've already said that when it came to the implementation of
11 financing and the implementation of this particular decree on the
12 establishment of the districts, nobody ever spoke to me. I'm not
13 familiar with any talks about that. I'm not familiar with the arrival of
14 any delegation that was supposed to implement this. I'm familiar with
15 these letters, and I know the documents arrived and were discussed. But
16 as for some delegations arriving to implement things or to talk about
17 things, I wouldn't know anything about that.
18 What I already told you yesterday or the day before is that
19 sometime in the month of July or August, the only person I spoke to was
20 the Deputy Minister of Justice and General Administration, and that was
21 about the functioning of the courts. That was either in July or August
22 1992, either the end of July or the beginning of August. I testified
23 about that, I provided my testimony to that effect, but I'm not familiar
24 with any other delegation that arrived in order to implement anything.
25 This is the third time you're asking me, and I don't know whether
1 my answer satisfies you, but I can't tell you anything more than I
2 actually knew.
3 Q. I'm satisfied. I just want to make a clear record of this.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, if we look at document P 01161 -- P 01661.
5 Q. We see these are minutes of the 30th session of the HVO, and you
6 indicated that you were familiar with the decree that we talked of. I
7 don't see your name in the minutes, but first let me ask you: Have you
8 had an opportunity to review these minutes, and do you recognise or can
9 you confirm to us, one way or the other, that you would have been aware
10 of the discussions in this particular session as a result of your
11 position in the HVO?
12 A. I know that because of the following session of the HVO, these
13 minutes were adopted. I was not at this session. I delegated my deputy,
14 Karlo Sesar, to attend the session. But knowing how the HVO function, I
15 know that the minutes of the previous sessions are adopted at the
16 following sessions. So I had an opportunity to read the minutes, and my
17 deputy also informed me and reported to me about the discussions that
18 were held at this particular session that I didn't attend.
19 Q. All right. Two very quick points. If we look at item 2, under
20 item 2, it is said that, and I'm reading in the middle of the paragraph,
22 "A special social and political communities which should function
23 during a state of war is neither envisaged by the current Constitution of
24 the Republic of BH, nor is it in line with the Vance-Owen Peace Plan or
25 the agreements signed by the Muslim and Croat delegations in their talks
1 in New York
2 Then I'll skip a paragraph, I'll skip the next paragraph, and
3 then it goes on to say:
4 "In addition to being illegitimate and unacceptable, the decision
5 on districts is also impossible to implement. For instance, the district
6 of Mostar includes, according to the decision, the municipality of
7 Bileca, Gacko, Ljubinje, Nevesinje, Trebinje, which have wholly been
8 occupied by the aggressor for almost a year now. On the other hand, it
9 is obvious from the list of powers and duties of the district
10 administrative bodies that BH is being divided as a unitary basis, which
11 is the aim of strengthening the central government of the republic. This
12 is a concept similar to the former Yugoslavia, just in another form."
13 And then it goes on, at the very beginning of the next paragraph,
14 it says:
15 "The decision on the establishment of the so-called districts of
16 Mostar and Livno obviously ignores the existence of the HVO HZ-HB."
17 And my first question is: Do you agree with what is being stated
18 here in these minutes?
19 Now, you told us or we already heard from you that it's not
20 constitutional, and we'll provide the additional information for
21 Judge Prandler and others. You told us that this was not in compliance
22 with the Vance-Owen Peace Plan that you were involved in, and we'll see
23 concretely in a second.
24 But do you agree with the part where it says "impossible to
25 implement because these areas are under Serb occupation," and, number 2,
1 that this seems to be another way of diluting the Croatian people's
2 constitutive powers in establishing a unitary state?
3 A. I believe that I've already partly provided my opinion about
5 It is correct that the territorial organisation of the districts
6 by and large operates from the Vance-Owen Plan that had been adopted by
7 the Bosniak and the Croat side. It is true that Gacko, Ljubinje,
8 Trebinje, Nevesinje, Bileca became a part of the District of Mostar,
9 although they were under Serb occupation; and, realistically, it was not
10 possible to include them into this district.
11 It is also true that the establishment of these districts, as may
12 be seen from the previous documents, was requested through the commanders
13 of the BiH Army, i.e., the 4th Corps, which is very indicative and very
14 characteristic. It is true that all of this was happening at a time when
15 attempts were made to implement the Vance-Owen Plan.
16 In my opinion, all of this was nothing but an obstruction to the
17 implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan, even by force if necessary through
18 the BH Army, i.e., through the 4th Corps, when it came concretely to the
19 issue of Mostar.
20 And I believe that after this session which was held at the time,
21 the HVO sent a letter to the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina in
22 which they expressed a position very similar to the one I provided just
23 now and that I provided earlier.
24 Q. All right. Now, if we look at the letter that you mentioned, or
25 if we look at document 1D 01972, we see that it is signed by Dr. Jadranko
1 Prlic on behalf of the HVO, dealing specifically on the formation of
2 Mostar and Livno districts.
3 Is this what you were referring to about the letter that was sent
4 to the government, which is also based on the minutes of the meeting that
5 we saw earlier in P 01661?
6 A. That's correct. I took part in the drafting of this document
7 that was signed by Dr. Jadranko Prlic, president of the HVO.
8 Q. We do note, we do note that on item 4, page 2, it makes reference
9 to, it says here: "The formation of Mostar and Livno districts has not
10 been regulated either by the current Constitution of the Republic of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was signed by both Muslim and Croatian
12 delegations at the peace negotiations in Geneva and New York
13 And can we conclude from this that you're talking about the
14 Vance-Owen Peace Plan?
15 A. Correct. It's about the Vance-Owen Plan, and it notes that the
16 establishment of this district is neither in conformity with the
17 Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina or with the already accepted and
18 signed Vance-Owen Plan.
19 Q. All right.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: If we look at P 09276. This was a map that was
21 provided, I believe, by the Prosecution. It's map 11. I don't know if
22 we're able to pull it up in the e-court.
23 And while that's being done, if I could have the assistance of
24 the usher to put something on the ELMO. I don't know if that's possible
25 to do both at the same time. If not, I could do it one at a time. And
1 on the ELMO, I guess we will need some sort of IC number for this
2 document, this map. What is on the ELMO is not on the e-court.
3 And, Your Honours, it may be of some assistance to you if you go
4 back to the decree itself and you look under Article 6 of item 4. It
5 talks about the District of Mostar, and it lays out -- I apologise. I
6 apologise, Your Honours.
7 If you look at the bottom, at the very end, there's a decree with
8 the power amending, so that would be the second-to-last page of this
9 document, Your Honours. It's attached to the decree. This is the
10 amending of it.
11 Again, under item 4, it says: "District of Mostar, Centre in
12 Mostar, for the territories of the municipalities of Bileca, Capljina,
13 Cikluk, Gacko, Grude, Jablanice, Konjic, Siroki Brijeg, Ljubinje,
14 Ljubuski, Mostar, Neum, Nevesinje, Posusje, Stolac, and Trebinje."
15 My apologies to my colleagues for my pronunciation of the names,
16 but that's the best I can do.
17 Q. If we look at what was envisaged in the district for Mostar, and
18 if we now compare this with map 11 of P 09276, and we can provide this to
19 you, sir. Do you have it? Okay.
20 Now, can you please tell us whether Mostar District comports with
21 the Vance-Owen Peace Plan that was being negotiated at that very moment,
22 where Izetbegovic and company were signing and agreeing, while at the
23 same time pushing the military to establish a district of this sort
24 which, as you said now and back then with your colleagues, was
1 A. I would like to thank you because I believe these maps confirm
2 what I've already said; namely, that there are significant - not small,
3 significant - departures in the structure of the district from the agreed
4 and initialled Vance-Owen Plan.
5 If we look at these maps, specifically the District of Mostar, we
6 will see that municipalities Gacko, Nevesinje, Bileca, Ljubinje, and
7 Trebinje, under the Vance-Owen Plan belong to a Serb province or a
8 province with a majority Serb population; whereas, these same
9 municipalities, in the establishment of districts, were included in
10 Mostar District. I believe this one example of the Mostar District is
11 sufficient; although, I could also speak of District Livno where, with
12 the use of the BH Army and its security services, security services being
13 attached to the services in Mostar, Livno, they wanted to belong to
15 MR. KARNAVAS: For the Judges, I'm going to eat up some of my
16 time, and I don't mind. It's like being in, I guess, a casino, where you
17 have so many chips to play.
18 Q. So let's put Livno on just to show you. Again, it's worth
19 showing because we see Livno; and from your answers, it would appear that
20 a double policy or some nefarious attitudes are being displayed by the
22 MR. STRINGER: Objection to the state of counsel, again,
23 characterizing the evidence. It's for the witness to testify, and for
24 the Trial Chamber to draw its conclusions.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm only trying to help the Trial Chamber,
1 Your Honour, but I take his point.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not clearly visible on the map
3 whether it is, indeed, so. I can't read the text, but I believe this is
4 Glamoc, which according to the Vance-Owen Plan was included in a province
5 with a majority Serb population. Here, it is included in Livno District.
6 MR. KARNAVAS:
7 Q. All right. If you look at -- if you look back at document
8 1D 00509, and you look at the amended redistricting, if you want to call
9 it that, under number 10, you see there Livno, with the centre of Livno,
10 the territories are Glamoc, Kupres, Livno, Prozor, Tomislav Grad.
11 A. That's correct. This confirms that I was right when I said that
12 Glamoc was included in Livno District. I've said that earlier. In the
13 previous territorial arrangement, it was included in a territory with a
14 majority Serb population.
15 Q. Thank you. Just one final question on this before we move on to
16 the next topic.
17 You were involved in these international negotiations, and help
18 us out here. During those negotiations, did they ever pull out this
19 decree and make this part of the negotiating process, and inform, say,
20 Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen that this was, in fact, what the Presidency had
21 decided and was, in fact, implementing at the time?
22 A. I don't know if the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina advised
23 Mr. Vance and Mr. Owen of these contracts; but at the peace conference
24 that I attended, these districts were not a subject of discussion. I
25 don't know if the Presidency informed them of this, but these provinces,
1 as they were accepted in the Vance-Owen Plan, we harmonised, we agreed at
2 the meeting in Neum on the 22nd and 23rd of December, 1993, because it
3 was 95 agreed -- 95 per cent agreed in conformity with the Vance-Owen
5 Q. Thank you. We're going to move on to the next topic, and this
6 dealing primarily with the area I call it "April 1993." It's, for
7 general purposes, sort of the topic for it.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: And, first, I want to show P 01798, 1798.
9 Q. And this is the 34th session held on 3 April 1993, the third
10 session of the HVO. We see that your name is there being present; and,
11 of course, we see from the very first item that Mr. Boban is there. And
12 they're analysing the themes of the peace plan which had already been
13 signed by the representatives of the Croatian and Muslim people in BH.
14 So this is a month after the letter from the Ministry of Defence
15 regarding the districts. Here, it would appear that we're back to the
16 peace plan.
17 And, of course, I want to focus your attention to the
18 second-to-last paragraph on page 2, where it says, and this is part of a
19 letter, as I understand it, or a letter to be sent, that:
20 "Until the Republic is fully demilitarised, the armed forces will
21 be organised in accordance with the relevant documents of the Vance-Owen
22 Peace Plan, in accordance with the joint statement issued after the
23 agreement by Mr. Boban," Mr. Mate Boban, "and Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, who
24 led the delegations of the Croat and Muslims at the peace talks.
25 "The statement was signed by Mr. Mate Boban, and its integral
1 part reads as follows," and we don't need to read it.
2 Now, having attended this meeting - and you don't need to go into
3 any detail. If the Judges have questions, I'm sure they will ask - was
4 it your understanding at the time that this was correct, that, in fact,
5 Mr. Alija Izetbegovic and Mr. Boban had, indeed, signed an agreement
6 concerning the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?
7 A. At this session, Mr. Boban presented it this way in his
8 introductory remarks.
9 Q. All right.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: And I'll move on to the next document, unless
11 there are any questions from the Judges. 1D 02003.
12 Q. This is dated 9 May 1993; and, here, we see that it says the HVO
13 decided, at a meeting on 3 April 1993
14 should visit all municipalities and provinces 3, 8, and 10 in order to
15 familiarise the persons responsibility with the essence of the Vance-Owen
16 documents and decisions made at the meeting of the HZ-HB HVO.
17 And, of course, if we look at number 6, we see for Konjic,
18 Jablanica, Prozor, and Rama, we see your name along with Mr. Kvesic, who
19 I understand was with the Department of the Interior at the time.
20 And my question is: Did you, indeed, go visit those areas as it
21 reflects in this particular plan, May 9th?
22 A. I'm familiar with this plan, but I did not go with Mr. Kvesic to
23 these municipalities, because very soon after this, I was to go visit
24 Central Bosnia. I know, from the reports, that Mr. Kvesic did go.
25 Q. Did you go to Central Bosnia?
1 A. Correct.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, let's look at 1D 02738.
3 Q. And this is from "Vjesnik," dated 29 April 1993. Now, this
4 predates the plan, and it says here, very first paragraph, this is
6 "The Vice-President of the Croatian Defence Council of the
7 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, Creso Zubak; the head of the
8 Department for Justice and Administration, Zoran Buntic; and the head of
9 the Under-Department of Labour, Social Welfare, and the Family, are on a
10 two-day visit to the municipalities of Central Bosnia."
11 So is this what you were telling about earlier, that you spent
12 two days in Central Bosnia?
13 A. Correct. This is a report about this trip to Central Bosnia.
14 Q. If we go on to the next document, this may be of some interest
15 both to you and the Trial Chamber, P02142, dated 29 April 1993, Citluk,
16 where you hail from, as I understand it, and where you practice law.
17 If we look on page 4 -- if we look on page 4, we see your name,
18 and there you provide some commentary, some opinion; and we need to get
19 from you some testimony concerning what exactly you're trying to say
20 here, to ensure that the Trial Chamber understands from you and can
21 perhaps ask you questions, as opposed to hearing theories from the
23 What are you saying here?
24 A. It's obvious from this that this meeting was held a day or two
25 after I returned from Central Bosnia, where I had been with this
1 delegation visiting municipalities Vitez, Busovaca, Travnik, Kresevo,
2 Kiseljak, and Zenica. We found that the situation was particularly
3 difficult and grave in Zenica, where we had intended to visit the Zenica
4 HVO; however, that was not possible.
5 What was possible was to find the leadership of the HVO, Zenica,
6 in St. Ilijas's Church in town, where we were received by Fra Stipan, the
7 priest. And I have to emphasise that we arrived in Zenica on the SFOR
8 armoured personnel carriers, practically secretly because it was the only
9 possible means of travel there. And as we were entering the church, we
10 were shielded by SFOR APCs; whereas, just outside the church, in the park,
11 there were around 50 tents holding between 100 and 300 persons. And it
12 was quite obvious that none of these persons were citizens of Bosnia
14 Inside, we found the president of Zenica HVO, who informed us
15 that all of the Zenica HVO had been disarmed, and that they were all
16 being locked up in some mine in Zenica.
17 The people were crying for help because they were in a desperate
18 and hopeless situation, and they also wanted advice, what to do. I
19 remember very clearly that I said at that meeting what was the official
20 political position of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, that they
21 had to remain in that territory, after which the people asked me a very
22 logical question: How? How were they to stay, and how we can defend
23 them from what was outside in the park opposite the church?
24 It was a fact that everyone in the HVO, Zenica, was disarmed and
25 held imprisoned in some mine.
1 So after I presented the official views, the president asked me,
2 "Okay. That's your official view." In fact, the priest, Fra Stipe,
3 asked me if I can give him my personal opinion, and I said, "No. I'm
4 only authorised to give you the official position."
5 After that, I went to a meeting in Citluk; and from the
6 representatives who attended the meeting, I sought their opinion, what to
7 do and how to proceed in these situations. How were we to help those
8 people who were obviously seeking help and needed help?
9 This segment that reflects what I said, I don't think it
10 faithfully reflects my thoughts and what I said. It's obviously the
11 phrasing chosen by the clerk who made the notes, but some of his
12 formulations are clumsy and awkward and might lend themselves to
14 I mean, I can see that five sentences here begin with the words:
15 "He thinks ... ," "He thinks ... ," so this is the understanding of the
16 recording clerk, not what I actually said.
17 Q. First of all, who are these people that you said were obviously
18 not citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina? You said "from their appearance."
19 Perhaps you could tell us what they looked like, and perhaps you could
20 tell us who they were, if you know.
21 A. It was quite evident that those people come from the Middle East.
22 It was obvious from their appearance with the small beards, the way they
23 were dressed, the turbans, and all the rest, all different headgear. It
24 was obvious they were not from Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was obvious they
25 were not citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, And all this was later
1 confirmed by the president of the HVO and Father Stipe.
2 Q. All right. Now, you say "the president of the HVO." That's the
3 president of the local HVO?
4 A. I apologise. You are correct. The HVO, Zenica.
5 Q. All right. Let me put to you what is being alleged here. It's
6 being alleged here that what you're representing, and others, during that
7 time was reverse ethnic cleansing, to cleanse the Croats from Central
8 Bosnia in order to repopulate them into Herzegovina, in order to make it
9 more homogeneous than it already was. Was this -- are you suggesting
10 that in this particular meeting, concretely?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, just for the Court's attention, I want to go
14 back to a document. We'll have to flip back a little bit. It's
15 1D 01670, unless it was --
16 Q. It's your next document. We rearranged your binder.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: We saw this document yesterday or the day before,
18 Your Honours, 1D 01670. And these are the minutes -- it was yesterday,
19 in fact -- no. It was the day before. It's the 3 July 1992 minutes of
20 the meeting of the Presidency.
21 And as you may recall, I indicated that Mr. Buntic was responding
22 to what a Mr. Blago Artukovic from Zenica said on 3 July 1992. Of
23 course, the Citluk meeting is April 29, 1993.
24 Q. So let's see, let's take a walk back in history, and see what
25 Mr. Artukovic said to which you responded?
1 On page 4 of the minutes -- Mr. Buntic, I believe it's the very
2 next document in your binder. It's 1D 01670.
3 On page 4, item 8, it says:
4 "Blago Artukovic, Zenica:
5 "Due to the prominent Muslim population in Zenica Municipality,
6 the HVO organisation there was quite poor. The Muslims did not accept a
7 single suggestion from the HVO.
8 "He suggested that they be given political and military
9 assistance. The situation was quite grave and the HVO numbered around
10 700 soldiers only.
11 "The SDA and their leaders were advocating a unitary BH known as
12 a civic one, and would not renounce that principle. The people were
13 inadequately informed of the work and organisation of the HVO and HZ-HB."
14 And, of course, then you respond to that.
15 Naturally, he's speaking back on 3 July 1992. Would it be fair
16 to say, Mr. Buntic, that when you went back there nearly a year, not
17 quite a year later, that the situation was even more dangerous for the
18 Croats as had been noted by Mr. Artukovic on 3 July 1992?
19 A. As may be seen, there is a time difference here and the situation
20 as it was when we were visiting Zenica. I described it. It was alarming
21 and called for action. People's lives were at stake, and what Artukovic
22 said at that time during that session obviously came true in the month of
23 April 1993.
24 Q. All right.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: We're going to move on to the next topic, and this
1 deals with the implementation of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan. That's how
2 I've titled it basically, so it doesn't necessarily mean that they were
3 actually implementing anything. They were trying.
4 If we look at now several documents in succession. Okay, the
5 next document is 1D 01596.
6 Q. This is the next chapter, the next area I'm going to, Mr. Buntic.
7 Your documents have been organised in that fashion.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: So if you go into the next section, we're going to
9 be looking at 1D 01596, 1597, 1598, 1599, 1600, 1601, and 1602. These
10 are documents that we have seen. We've tendered them in the past, three
11 times, and to no avail. They haven't been accepted yet.
12 Q. But let me ask you this, Mr. Buntic: As a result of the
13 Medjugorje agreement on May 18th, 1993, were you aware that Dr. Jadranko
14 Prlic had been appointed to a position, which I believe was prime
15 minister, as a result of that agreement?
16 A. I was aware of that. Dr. Jadranko Prlic, himself, told us that.
17 He was appointed the prime minister of a transitional government, in
18 keeping with the Vance-Owen Plan. I'm familiar with Jadranko Prlic's
19 documents proving his efforts to establish this transitional government.
20 Q. [Previous translation continues]... step by step. We're talking
21 about prime minister for Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time, or what was
22 envisaged out of Medjugorje. Correct?
23 A. I believe that the proper term was a transitional government. He
24 was the prime minister of this transitional government. I believe that
25 that was its name. I'm also familiar with some other facts, because
1 after that appointment, Mr. Jadranko Prlic did not chair two or three
2 sessions of the HVO. It was his deputy, Mr. Kresimir Zubak, who chaired
3 those sessions. And I remember that, maybe two or three sessions later,
4 that he did not chair. When he arrived at one of the sequences sessions
5 which was not held in Mostar, but in Siroki Brijeg, he was being joked
6 about. There were jokes because -- and teased because the government had
7 a lot more work than we had at the time. So we asked what he was doing
8 there amongst us because the Vance-Owen Plan had to be implemented.
9 Q. All right. Was it your understanding at the time that during the
10 sessions that he missed, that he was working in his capacity -- in his
11 newly-appointed capacity? Was that the understanding that you had, and
13 A. The way I understood it was that he was no longer the president
14 of the HVO, because according to the agreement, he had been appointed the
15 prime minister of the transitional government. And as I've just told
16 you, I believe that government had a lot more work with regard to the
17 implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan, which I thought was a major job
18 that had to be carried out, and that he no longer was due to waste time
19 at the HVO session because this other duty was more important.
20 Q. All right. If we go on now to another set of documents. As I
21 understand it, you've told us already that you had been in Geneva
22 January. Did you go back or did you participate in any other activities
23 related to the implementation of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan? And,
24 specifically, I'm referring to drafting legislation.
25 A. Yes. I was in Geneva
1 the end of the first week of June 1993. The negotiations and the work
2 that we did was carried out in the United Nations building in Geneva
3 The person in charge was Szasz, I believe was his name. He was an
4 official of the United Nations, and Mr. Owen or Mr. Stoltenberg's
5 secretary, who also worked in the administration of the United Nations.
6 On the Croatian side, I was a member of the negotiations; and on
7 the Bosniak side, it was Professor Kasim Trnka. Our task was to prepare
8 and offer the draft proposals for documents that would serve for the
9 implementation of the Vance-Owen Plan. For the seven or ten days that we
10 stayed in Geneva
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Very quickly, if we look at 1D 02314, 1D 02314,
12 and we look at the bottom of the page, we see the name "Paul Szasz." I
13 believe that's how to pronounce it. It appears to be a Hungarian name.
14 I'm not sure. It's S-Z-A-S-Z. He's a legal adviser.
15 Q. And would that be the gentleman that you're speaking of?
16 A. Yes. This is indicated here he is the legal adviser of the
17 United Nations.
18 Q. Thank you. I'm going to have you look very quickly at documents,
19 and I'm going to name them. And I would like you to flip through them
20 briefly, and I'll ask you a question.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: It's 1D 02407, and this is a draft decree on the
22 law establishing the provinces and their government bodies; 1D 02408, the
23 draft decree law on the Ombudsman for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina;
24 1D 02409, and this is a final text on the decree on the law on courts --
25 on the Court of Human Rights of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
1 02410, draft decree on the adoption of international instruments for the
2 protection of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
3 02411, a draft decree law on cooperation with the International
4 Monitoring Mission
5 military counsel for the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and, lastly,
6 1D 02413, the decision to appoint members of the Military Consul of the
7 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
8 Q. Mr. Buntic, do you recognise these documents, and can you confirm
9 to the Trial Chamber whether these are, indeed, the drafts that you had
10 worked on while you were in Geneva
11 along with legal adviser for the UN, Mr. Szasz?
12 A. Yes. These are the documents, and it is correct that I
13 participated in the drafting, myself, together with Mr. Trnka. It is
14 also correct that in the heading of these documents, at the top of these
15 documents, you can see my handwriting, and I'm absolutely sure that this
16 is my handwriting.
17 Q. All right. Now, very briefly, before we leave this chapter:
18 After these drafts were done in Geneva
19 you and others do concerning these drafts or any other matters related to
20 the implementation of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan?
21 A. I remember very well that I did not go home from Geneva. I
22 arrived at the Split Airport
23 the delegation at Split Airport
24 scheduled for Sarajevo
25 about the implementation and adoption of these documents that we had
1 agreed upon in Geneva
2 the airport. Members of the delegation were Mr. Boban, Mr. Prlic,
3 Mr. Akmadzic, Mr. Petkovic, and maybe somebody else, but I'm not sure.
4 And we were supposed to take off from Divulje in an UNPROFOR helicopter
5 to Sarajevo
6 implemented and adopted by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
7 I know we got on two helicopters; and just before arriving in
9 General Petkovic, and I, was hit from an anti-aircraft machine-gun. The
10 helicopter swayed and almost fell to the ground. The commander ordered
11 us to return, and that's why we returned to Split. The helicopter was
12 inspected, and that's when we learned that it had been hit seven times
13 and that one of the bullets ended up some 12 centimetres from the tank.
14 We asked the flight captain what would have happened if that had been the
15 case, if it had ended up in the reservoir, and he said, "You wouldn't
16 feel anything. You would be dead in two seconds or less."
17 And whatever I'm saying here, I believe that it can be confirmed
18 by General Petkovic. That was the story of the second helicopter.
19 The first helicopter carried Mr. Prlic, Mr. Akmadzic, and maybe
20 somebody else, but I can't remember at the moment. I can't remember who
21 the third person was, if there was any.
22 Q. [Previous translation continues]... on your return, do you recall
23 meeting anybody or having any discussions with anyone, formal or
24 informal? You say you returned back to Split, to the air base.
25 A. When we returned, they told us to stay put while the helicopter
1 was being inspected to establish what had happened, because that is what
2 was requested, and I know that a person talked to us. I remember that he
3 was from Israel
4 long time. I know that he represented a monitoring mission or some other
5 international institution, but I really can't remember either his name or
6 his position. The only thing that I'm sure of is that he was from Israel
7 and that he was a member of the international forces or an international
8 organisation, but I don't know what his position was.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We need to take a break.
10 Yes, Mr. Karnavas, what did you want to add?
11 MR. KARNAVAS: I just wanted to ask him about when this would
12 have occurred, what was the month and the year when he took off from the
13 UNPROFOR base in Divulje, flew in UNPROFOR, and, so, does he recall.
14 Then that would be the end of that.
15 Q. Do you recall the month and the year, sir?
16 A. It was June, and it was 1993. I'm sure of that. I'm not exactly
17 sure about the date, but I believe it was the end of the first week of
18 June or thereabouts. I know that we had been in Geneva from maybe the
19 end of May to the beginning of June, but I know that I returned from
21 the first week or the beginning of the second week of June, or
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, when you say
25 that you will be finished, does it mean that you've completed your
2 MR. KARNAVAS: I didn't say that, Your Honour. I said that we
3 could --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Because I believe that you have
5 about ten minutes left. The Registrar will tell us later on.
6 --- Recess taken at 12.23 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I give the floor to
9 Mr. Karnavas, we need two IC numbers for the photographs that were shown
10 to the witness.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The map referring to the
12 District of Mostar shall be given IC number 00826; while the second one,
13 referring to Livno, shall be given Exhibit number IC 00827.
14 Thank you, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 Mr. Karnavas, I believe you have 26 minutes left out of the seven
17 hours you requested.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: That's correct. That's correct, Your Honour, and
19 we just might be able to do it.
20 Q. Okay. Mr. Buntic, the next section deals with the Croatian
21 Croatian Republic
22 we will have another witness go into greater detail. So I just want to
23 cover three basic documents very quickly, and then we'll move on to the
24 next two topics, which are a little bit more important.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: The first document is P 04560, P 04560.
1 Q. This is the 50th session of the HVO. And if we look at under
2 item 2, 3, and 4 on page 3 in the English -- page 2 in the English
3 document, we would see that your task, along with others, Mr. Zubak,
4 Mr. Petkovic and others, is to draft the decision constituting the
5 chamber, the deputies, the rules of procedure, and fundamental decisions?
6 So do you recall and can you confirm for us that, indeed, not
7 only were you tasked, but you, indeed, carried out those tasks?
8 A. That's correct. I attended this session. It's correct this
9 group was established, it's correct that I worked on the drafting of
10 documents indicated here, and it's true that was the assignment given
11 this group.
12 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me. At least on my screen, the e-court
13 doesn't appear to be working. I'm hoping that -- now it's working.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: I hope you stopped the clock on that.
16 Now, I feel it's overtime, Your Honour, and, you know, we're
18 1D 01778. And along with this document, we're going to be
19 looking at P 04611, Your Honours.
20 Q. But if we look at first 1D 01778, we see that this is an
21 agreement regarding Bosnia-Herzegovina. We see it's "Mostar, 1993," at
22 the bottom. And, of course, we're going to be covering this in greater
23 detail with another witness, particularly with respect to Roman
24 numeral II and Roman numeral III in this document which deals with the
25 constituent republics and their responsibilities the common institutions
1 of the Union
2 But just for confirmation purposes, can you please tell us what
3 this agreement is, where did it come from, and how it was used? Just one
5 A. This is a draft agreement on the Stoltenberg plan, which was the
6 immediate proposal of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
7 copy of a brochure, in fact, that was distributed at the time to all the
8 MPs of the Parliament on the founding session.
9 Q. Okay. Now, I asked -- well, let me ask you this way: Was this
10 document used, this agreement and the contents there in, were they used
11 by you or any others in your work in drafting any legislation that would
12 have been part of the implementing process of the Owen-Stoltenberg Peace
14 A. Correct. That's the agreement that serves the basis for the
15 drafting of documents and the creation of the Croatian Republic of
17 Q. All right.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Now, if we look at P 04611, P 04611, we see that
19 this is -- the first page is the preamble, rather long.
20 Q. If we go to the second page, we see this the basic decision on
21 establishing and proclaiming the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
22 with leave from the Court, I will ask a leading question, which is: Was
23 the document that we saw, the agreement, was this the basis for the
24 drafting of the preamble in this particular basic decision?
25 A. I think I've already answered this question, saying that this
1 agreement was especially important and it was the motive why we have
2 opted for these arrangements.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: We're going to go on to the next topic, and we
5 need the usher's assistance. The next one I've titled: "Reports," and
6 hopefully it will become obvious.
7 If we look at 1D 02370, 1D 02370, that's the first document.
8 Q. And from here, it's a Department for Justice and General
9 Administration, Mostar; and if we look through this document -- first of
10 all, do you recognise the document?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. It's a report of the Higher Court for Misdemeanors, which was
14 hereby submitted to the General Administration.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: All right. And unless there are any questions
16 from the Bench, I will move on to the next document. I think it's rather
17 self-explanatory that the document contains certain observations,
18 including problems.
19 All right. Seeing no --
20 Q. Go ahead. If you wish to say something, be brief, please?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Perhaps I'd like to draw your
22 attention to two issues here in para 7. We see that misdemeanor courts,
23 too, emphasised the problem of the payment system not working, and the
24 other problem is the legislative bodies, due to inflation, do not
25 determine fines quickly enough. And this is hereby confirmed by reports
1 from the courts, themselves.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
3 If we go on to the next document, 1D 01978, 1978, well, this is a
4 report on the District Military Court until 30 June 1993.
5 Q. And, here, from the very first paragraph, we see that it's broken
6 down to first quarter and second quarter. And if we look at the last
7 sentence in the first page in English, that is, it says:
8 "The basic prerequisite for the court to work successfully is
9 unity. During the previous period, there was no unity in the District
10 Military Court
11 It then goes on to say:
12 "The circumstances were such that there were two military
13 factions, the HDZ -- HB-HZ and the former BH. This resulted in an absurd
14 situation where part of the Court implemented the general policy of the
15 other political authorities, which is contrary to the one which
16 established the Court."
17 Then it goes on to say:
18 "For example, during the period in question, not a single session
19 of a full bench of judges was held, which is also the result of
20 obstruction of the work of the Court."
21 Now, I recognise that your department was in charge of civilian
22 courts, but can you comment on this particular document and what is being
23 said here? And, again, this is for -- the purpose of this chapter of our
24 direct is to demonstrate transparency and reporting.
25 A. Correct. This is a report of the District Military Court, which
1 was supposed to submit its reports to both the Department for Defence and
2 the Department for Justice and General Administration. I would like to
3 point out the reasons for my statement, the statement that I made perhaps
4 an hour ago, saying that I assumed the responsibility for the work of all
5 the judges in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, but do not take
6 responsibility for the work of judges appointed by the Presidency of the
7 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And now I will tell you why.
8 The reason why is that these judges appeared in court only once a
9 month when it was pay day, and we see that from this report.
10 Q. All right.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, 1D020004, dated
12 6 August 1993
13 Q. If you look at the very last page, we see your name, head of the
14 department, "Zoran Buntic." And just can you confirm that this is your
15 report? And, of course, there may be some things that the Court may wish
16 to question you about.
17 We see, for instance, in the second paragraph, that reports of
18 the District Military Prosecutor's Office and District Military Courts
19 are submitted to the head of the Defence Department at the same interval,
20 and then from the head of the Defence Department to the Presidency or the
21 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?
22 Perhaps you can comment on that a little bit. I mean, what was
23 the purpose of it, if you know?
24 Then I would ask you also to look at item 13 on page 3, where it
25 says: "Certain commanders of civilian and military police, those who
1 deal with requests which have not been made by the HVO or of the HZ-HB,
2 do not act in line with decisions of civilian and military courts, but
3 simply ignore them.
4 "We want all those responsibility to warn that legally-valid
5 decisions are not to be discussed, but observed."
6 If you could comment on that, please, very briefly.
7 A. That's correct. This is my report, the one that I wrote
8 personally. I don't know why my signature is not here, but it is my
9 report and I stand by it. I stand by every word of it.
10 I was trying to draw the attention, through this report, that
11 reports should be submitted as prescribed by the valid regulations of the
12 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna; and, somehow, people automatically
13 submitted them to the Department for Justice and General Administration.
14 I personally stand by every word in this report. I wrote it
15 myself. I don't know why the signature is missing, but it's not logical
16 that this document was not signed.
17 Q. All right. Now, I'm going to go through a series of reports.
18 I'm just going to read out the numbers, and you have them in
19 chronological order. So you just have to look at them, and I'm going to
20 ask you whether you can confirm these reports.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Mr. Karnavas. This previous
22 document, it's rather interesting, in particular the number 13 you have
23 drawn attention to, which seems to indicate that it was difficult to
24 implement the law, to have the law respected.
25 And I would like to ask you, Witness: Did you take any further
1 steps in order to change this?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a report dated for the 1st
3 of January, 1993, until the 6th of August, 1993. As you know,
4 immediately after this report, I left the position of chief of Department
5 for Justice and General Administration, as you know. On the 28th of
6 August, 1993, the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was established, and
7 I was no longer a minister of justice there. I was in that position
8 before Herceg-Bosna was set up.
9 MR. KARNAVAS:
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Buntic. Now, I'm going to read several numbers
11 out, and I'll go through them rather slowly, and ask you whether you can
12 confirm that these are reports. Again, this is in order for the Trial
13 Chamber to see what was happening and to take notice of the transparency.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 01974, this is dated 5 August, 1993; 1D 02015,
15 again, this is from Livno, 5 August 1993; 1D 02005, we see your name at
16 the bottom; 1D 02341, this is 26 August 1993; 1D 02378, 27 August 1993;
17 1D 02377, 8 October 1993; 1D 02376, this is 9 October 1993; 1D 02369,
18 11 October 1993; 1D 02375, this is a report from 1 January 1993 to
19 30 September 1993; 1D 02374, again, from 1 January to 30 September 1993;
20 1D 02368, 12 October 1993; 1D 01777, this is 19 October 1993; 1D 01797,
21 8 November 1993; 1D 02285, and we see that this is 26 November 1993; and,
22 finally, 1D 01976, and this is a report from July to November 1993.
23 I'm sorry. There's one more document: 1D 02372, 16 December
25 Q. Now, I do understand from your previous answer that you would not
1 have been -- you did not occupy the position as the head of the
2 department; however, you were familiar with the reporting process, and as
3 I understand it, you have looked through these documents.
4 Can you confirm to the Trial Chamber that these documents
5 represent the sort of reporting that was ongoing at the time?
6 A. Obviously, these are reports of the work of judiciary bodies,
7 courts, prosecutors' offices, misdemeanor courts, in the territory of the
8 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna for the period indicated; but as I
9 said, all these reports were also submitted to the Department for Justice
10 and General Administration. And until the 28th of August, they were
11 submitted to the Department for Justice and General Administration, and,
12 afterwards, to the Ministry of Justice.
13 Until August, I received them; but after that date, the 28th of
14 August, they were received by the Minister of Justice of the Republic of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was later Mr. Zubak.
16 Yes, those are the reports.
17 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me. Counsel, I apologise for the
18 interruption, and, Mr. President, I'm going to lodge an objection. If
19 you want to take it against the Prosecution's time for cross, that's
20 okay. But I want to raise at this point, once upon a time, a witness by
21 the name of Christopher Beese as a Prosecution witness. The Prosecution
22 attempted to tender through Mr. Beese, who was with the ECMM, a large
23 number of ECMM documents that he had reviewed ahead of time and was
24 indicating were all appropriate reports of the ECMM.
25 The Prosecution was not permitted to tender the documents of the
1 ECMM through him in that way. I think that's essentially what is now
2 happening here. And I recognise that counsel's under time limitations,
3 but I think it's worth noting for the record, and we will raise this in
4 our written response to whatever documents are tendered by Mr. Karnavas,
5 but I think that what's happening here is the very same process that the
6 Prosecution was denied using with Mr. Beese on the ECMM documents.
7 So I just note that objection for the record. And if you want to
8 assign the time for my objection to my cross, I'm okay with that. I
9 don't want to cut Mr. Karnavas off or limit his time, but I just wanted
10 to raise it for the record at this time.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll respond, Mr. President, when we see their
12 written submissions on this, but again I wanted to note that the
13 purpose -- one of the primary purposes was to demonstrate the reporting
14 that was ongoing for transparency purposes. But we take Mr. Stringer's
15 observations to heart. We look forward to his written submissions, and
16 we will respond accordingly. And we welcome that intervention because we
17 do recognise he has the need to make a record, as we do.
18 1D 01676 is the next document -- 75. I'm sorry, 1675.
19 Q. Here, this is dated 18 August 1993, and we can see that this is a
20 working meeting. We see that you are named there, so you would have been
21 present. And, of course, we see that your department -- well, what's
22 interesting is paragraph 3 and paragraph number 6. But then if we look
23 at Roman numeral II, it talks about analysis of the application of
24 criminal sanctions established, and that: "In some areas criminal
25 sanctions are not being put into effect, although valid and excusable and
1 executable court decisions exist. In other areas, the circumstances for
2 their application are nonexistent; and, thus, not only is the purpose of
3 punishment not accomplished, but the result is also utter distrust in the
4 organs of authority and a rise of the feelings of insecurity among the
5 citizens. Concerning this matter, the meeting established the following
6 conclusions," and we can see certain conclusions.
7 Can you verify, sir, whether, indeed, you were at this particular
8 meeting? And I suspect you might have also contributed to the analysis
9 that I just read and to the conclusion that are reached, that are
10 contained herein.
11 A. As you can see from the header and from the introductory part of
12 the record, I did attend and did participate in the work of this session.
13 I have the minutes here from the 18th of August. You said "8th August."
14 I don't know if we mean the same record. I have minutes of the 18th of
15 August. It's true that I attended that meeting where these topics were
16 discussed, and I believe the conclusions, as phrased here, correctly
17 reflect the conclusions of that meeting.
18 Q. All right.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: One last document in this area, and that's
20 1D 01813, 1813.
21 Q. This is dated 18 September 1993, and we see that this is a letter
22 to the supreme commander of the armed forces of the Croatian Republic of
23 Herceg-Bosna and to the president of the Chamber of Deputies of the
24 Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna; and it's by Dr. Jadranko Prlic,
25 president of the government of the HR-HB.
1 And if we look at the very first paragraph, it says that:
2 "In the analysis of the application of the law in the Croatian
3 Republic of Herceg-Bosna made several months ago, the Government of HR-HB
4 stated that all forms of unlawfulness had increased, especially crime.
5 It has, therefore, adopted the appropriate measures and activities to
6 prevent and combat this."
7 And I'm wondering whether you might able to provide some
8 assistance of whether you were aware of the problems that are being
9 discussed and the solutions that are being proposed in this particular
11 A. It's obviously an enactment, a document that was made after this
12 session, the same day when the session was held on the 18th of August,
13 1993. And as far as I know, this was followed, I think, by Action Pauk,
14 Spider, an action to combat crime in the Croatian Community of
15 Herceg-Bosna, which was soon to be replaced by the Croatian Republic of
17 Q. All right.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm told the date is wrong. It says 18th
19 September --
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 MR. KARNAVAS:
22 Q. You indicated that it was 18 August; and from the document, it's
23 18 September. So did you misspeak or are we to take it that the meeting
24 was actually on the 18th of August?
25 A. I'm sorry. That meeting was held on the 18th of August, and this
1 document, yes, right says 18th September. The document is of the 18th of
2 September, one month later, already at the time when the Republic --
3 Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was created.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Witness, on the last
5 paragraph of the first page, this document refers to a meeting of
6 17 September 1993
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know if we have the same
8 documents before us. Under 1D 01675, I have minutes from a working
9 meeting held on the 18th August, 18 August 1993; and that is the document
10 that I have under the number I just mentioned.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I, Witness, am looking at document 1D 01813. I
12 was of the opinion that that was the one counsel has actually put before
13 us; 1D 01813, dated 18 September 1993.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's a different document.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No. Your document is different, Witness. This
16 is the document. You seem to be looking at the wrong document, and I ask
17 you to look at the right one. Sorry.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Maybe I can clarify it.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
20 MR. KARNAVAS:
21 Q. Mr. Buntic, let's move to the last document in this chapter, and
22 that is 1D 01813. Mr. Prlic has written to the Supreme Command, the
23 supreme commander of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as well
24 as to the president of Chamber of Deputies. He's referring to a
25 situation that obviously has been building up, because he has indicated
1 that in an analysis of the application of the laws of the Croatian
2 Republic of Herceg-Bosna made "several months ago" - and we know that up
3 until August sometime, you were in the Department of Justice - the
4 government of the HR-HB stated that all forms of unlawfulness had
5 increased, especially crime. It has, therefore, adopted the appropriate
6 measures and activities.
7 Now, can you comment on this, on this particular document itself,
8 and do you know whether any actions were taken as a result of this
9 particular letter by Dr. Jadranko Prlic, who at the time was serving as
10 president of the government, and this must have been a decision that the
11 government took?
12 A. When I stopped working in the HZ-HB and when the HZ-HB stopped
13 existing, I think that this document is the implementation of the
14 conclusions that were reached at the meeting on the 18th of August, 1993
15 As far as I know, after this document, an action was launched to fight
16 crime, and its name was Pauk or Spider. And I believe this document is
17 in this regard, and that's the only thing I can say because as of that
18 time I was no longer involved.
19 Q. Thank you. Let's go to the very last topic, and that's --
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry.
21 Mr. Buntic, you were not in office anymore when this letter was
22 written. I wonder what you know about this letter and about the proposal
23 to have a meeting concerning the crime problem. How do you know about it
24 when you were not in office anymore at that time?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have told you the
1 truth. I was at the meeting on the 18th of August, 1993. We're talking
2 about the previous document, number 1D 01675. Obviously, at that
3 session, certain conclusions were reached.
4 I've also stated that the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna
5 became the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna on the 28th of August, 1993,
6 and that I was no longer in any position. But I believe that this
7 document, dated 18 September, was part of the implementation of the
8 conclusions which were adopted at the session on the 18th of August,
9 1993, and I've also said that I believe - I'm not sure, therefore, but I
10 know how I would in my answer - that after this document, an action was
11 launched under the title "Pauk" to fight crime, which was then to be
12 implemented for the next six or seven months.
13 But I said it with a caveat that I wasn't sure, that I believed
14 it was in regards to the conclusions of that session, and that the Action
15 Pauk ensued. But I'm not sure of those facts. I just believe that that
16 was the case.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. Thank you.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, there are two or
20 three minutes remaining.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. I think it will be a topic that will
22 pique everyone's interests, including members of the Bench. So I'm sure
23 the questions that I don't ask, the Bench might wish to ask. This deals
24 with the issue of prisons.
25 If we look at - and specifically, Your Honours, just in case I'm
1 cut off - the documents that I would like to go through with the
2 gentleman are P 00452, 1D 01105, 1D 02826, 1D 02384, P 03350, P 02679,
3 P 03560, P 03573, 1D 02909. So these are the documents.
4 I put them on the record, because especially I heard a rather
5 interesting observation from Judge Prandler where he indicated why we
6 didn't bring the Constitution and so on, and I just wanted to demonstrate
7 through this. Again, it's impossible, with the time constraints, to do
8 everything, but I don't want to leave the impression that we're shying
9 away from a particular area, which then calls into question my
10 credibility as an advocate for my client or the credibility of the
11 witness. So there is no intention or we're not trying to hide. We're
12 just trying to make due with the time that we have.
13 So if we look at P 00452 --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Mr. Karnavas. My
15 colleague has pointed out that we all agree, but if you feel that the
16 issues are important, since you're master of your own time credit, you
17 can take additional time that we deducted from your time.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll do that, I'll do that. I recognise I only
19 have so many chips to play, you know, and I have to make some decisions.
20 On this hand, I'll play as many as I can.
21 If we look at P 00452, this is a decision.
22 Q. It says here that: "The Central Military Prison of the HZ-HB is
23 hereby established at the Mostar-Jesenica location, within the Heliodrom
25 Now, can you tell me us if you know anything about this, because
1 obviously your department to some extent was or would have been involved,
2 it would appear from what we saw a couple of days ago.
3 A. I'll try and be brief. At the end of the first day of my
4 testimony, I said that upon taking over my duties, I had spoken with the
5 president of the Higher Court in Mostar, who was in charge of the
6 situation in the District Investigation Prison in Mostar. That was the
7 only institution of that kind which we had in the entire territory of the
8 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. The president of that court informed
9 me at the time that in addition to the prisoners who were serving various
10 sentences, there were also prisoners of war there.
11 Shortly after that, I sent a letter, i.e., I sent a proposal to the
12 Defence Department, giving them my reasons why civilians and military
13 personnel cannot share the same facility, and I meant ordinary prisoners
14 and prisoners of war. We also spoke about a decree, how locations would
15 be chosen where detained persons would be kept.
16 Immediately after that, the Defence Department, as we can see
17 here already on the 3rd of September, issued a decision to establish the
18 Central Military Prison for the entire territory of the Croatian
19 Community of Herceg-Bosna. And as it is indicated here, it was
20 established in Mostar, in the area called Jesenica, which was a former
21 barracks of the JNA, also known as Heliodrom.
22 Q. I think that's fine.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: We'll go on to the next document, 1D 01045.
24 Q. Here, we have a decision granting permission to the Misdemeanor
25 Prison and the detention facility in the Capljina barracks to higher
1 certain employees. And we see, if we look at the bottom of it, this is
2 the president of the Croatian Defence Council, Pero Margetic. And as I
3 understand, he was the president of the HVO for Capljina.
4 Can you please explain how is it that he's making this decision.
5 A. One correction. It is not Pero Margetic but Pero Markovic. It
6 is true that he was the president of the Municipal Board of Capljina, and
7 this is a misdemeanor prison. It was the municipal organs that were
8 authorised in the matter.
9 Q. All right.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: 1D 02836, this is dated 16 March 1993.
11 Q. We see you at the bottom of the page, your name; and this is a
12 request for the delivery of uniforms for Mostar District Prison Services.
13 And, of course, we see that you're writing to the Republic of Croatia
14 the Ministry of Justice.
15 And I have two questions: One, why did you write to the Republic
16 of Croatia
17 is, personal contact, with representatives of the Republic of Croatia
18 concerning this or any other matter related to the establishment or the
19 functioning of this or other prisons which you were responsible for?
20 A. I believe that it was immediately before this day that the
21 decision was passed at a HVO session about the appearance of the uniforms
22 for the army, for the police, and the judicial police, since at the time
23 we did not have the money to create our own uniforms. What we adopted
24 was the appearance of uniforms such as existed in the Republic of
2 with some new solutions for uniforms, and this looked like a very
3 practical solution. And that's why this request was sent to the Minister
4 of Justice in the General Administration of the Republic of Croatia
5 a request for their assistance. We requested them to send us uniforms
6 for the judicial police. It is true that I signed those documents.
7 And as for your second question, I will answer by saying this:
8 Never, during my term of office, did I meet with the Minister of Justice
9 of the Republic of Croatia
10 the Judicial Council of the Republic of Croatia
11 president of the Judicial Council of the Republic of Croatia
12 MR. KARNAVAS: If we look at the next document, 1D 02384,
13 1D 02384, this is nominations for prison wardens.
14 Q. And we see, at the bottom, this is the assistant to the head of
15 the HZ-HB Justice Department, Mato Tadic, who I understand it currently
16 sits on the Constitutional Court in Bosnia-Herzegovina and has been --
17 has held Ministry positions since the Dayton Peace Accord.
18 Can you please explain who Tadic, Mato Tadic, was at the time,
19 whether you had any working relationship with him, and how is it that it
20 is he that is making the nominations for the prison wardens? And this is
21 for a military and civilian prison to be established in Bosanski Brod,
22 Orasje District. Be very brief about it, please.
23 A. It is true that this is about Mr. Tadic, who was my assistant,
24 indeed, all the time he was in Bosanska Posavina. It was very difficult
25 or impossible for us to communicate, for the well-known reasons, but this
1 is not about him appointing anybody. It is obvious that he submits a
2 proposal for the prison warden to be appointed, and this proposal was
3 sent to the HQ of the HZ-HB for Bosanska Posavina, i.e., Orasje to be
4 more precise, because at that time, we could not establish physical
5 communication. That was in March 1993.
6 Q. Would you confirm that he currently sits on the Constitutional
7 Court in BiH, or do I have it wrong?
8 A. That's correct. And before that, he was the Minister of Justice
9 of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: If we look at the next document, P 03350, this is
12 a work report.
13 Q. It's dated for the period of 1 January 1993 to 31 June 1993.
14 Very transparent. We see your name at the bottom of the last page. And,
15 of course, the Judges may wish to ask questions, although I would kindly
16 ask that the questions be asked tomorrow, so I can finish up, myself.
17 But you will notice that on item number 11, which is on page 3 in
18 English, it talks about the Capljina prison has been relocated to Gabela
19 and its warden appointed. And then on number 12, it talks about the
20 Mostar District Prison is not functioning, so the prisoners have been
21 relocated to the Heliodrom. And, of course, the Trial Chamber may wish
22 to ask about number 13. I'm not going to ask, due to my time
24 But could you please explain to us, on number 11, the Capljina
25 prison having been relocated to Gabela, what are we talking about here?
1 A. In one of the previous documents with regard to the same subject,
2 we saw that the Municipality of Capljina
3 establishing a misdemeanor prison in the Capljina barracks. As I already
4 said, municipalities had full authority both for the establishment of
5 prisons as well as for their functioning and the work of misdemeanor
6 courts. They were also authorised; and in keeping with the law, they
7 could, indeed, issue decisions on the establishment of misdemeanor
9 Document number 1D 01105, i.e., this particular decision that
10 we're looking at, shows that the Municipality of Capljina
12 Q. Thank you. That was my next question, but I'm glad you
13 anticipated it. And, again, I know the Judges may have questions on
15 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm told that I need to repeat the number. That
16 was 1D 01105. That was the document that we saw earlier, Your Honours,
17 and that's the document that Mr. Buntic was referring to, confirming what
18 he had said earlier.
19 Q. And, again, thank you for anticipating my question.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to move on to the next document, P
21 02679, and this is a decision.
22 Q. It's dated June 8, 1993
23 Dr. Jadranko Prlic on behalf of the HVO. It's a decision made by the
24 HVO. And it says here that the county military prison and the county
25 prison for the areas of Capljina, Neum, Ljubuski, and Rama municipalities
1 is hereby being set up in Gabela.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: And before I ask my question, I wish to point to
3 everyone's attention the preamble, which makes reference to Article 145,
4 paragraph 2 of the Law on Implementing Criminal Procedure of the
5 Misdemeanor Sanctions. And, of course, for Your Honours and for everyone
6 else's information, that would be 1D 02909. That's where you would find
7 Article 145.
8 Q. Very briefly, did you participate in the meeting or -- you know,
9 the HVO meetings that took place in passing this particular decision, if
10 you recall?
11 A. I don't remember that the HVO issued this decision. Also, I
12 don't remember that this decision was ever published in the
13 Official Gazette of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. I did not
14 see this decision before. The first time I seen it was here.
15 Q. All right.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: If we go on to the next document, P 03560, this is
17 minutes of the 46th session of the HVO, 19 July 1993.
18 Q. We see that you're present in that particular session, and then
19 we can look at the conclusions in that. And, of course, under item 7, on
20 page 4, before conclusions, we see after item 7 says:
21 "After discussion of the request of the HVO at the Capljina
22 Municipality to relocate prisoners in a discussion on the status and
23 accommodation conditions of prisoners and persons in isolations, with the
24 aim of improving their accommodation conditions and overcoming the
25 newly-arisen situation, unanimous approval was given in adopting the
1 following," and then we go to and we see the part of the conclusions to
2 secure accommodation conditions relative -- you know, that are in
3 accordance with the Geneva Conventions.
4 And, of course, we see that you are part of a working group,
5 under item 2. And, of course, a deadline is being given of the following
6 day, 20 July 1993.
7 Could you please comment on this? Obviously, you must have been
8 present. You were tasked. What was this about, sir?
9 A. As may be seen from the minutes, this is a request by the
10 Municipality of Capljina to relocate quite a large number of prisoners
11 who were in the territory of Capljina
12 conditions that prevailed in the places where those people were detained.
13 It is true that by conclusion of the government, a group was
14 assigned, consisting of Zoran Buntic, Darinko Tadic, and Berislav Pusic.
15 It is also true that on that same day or maybe the following day, we
16 visited the Municipality of Capljina, as had been provided for by the
17 conclusion. And we spoke about the problems that they had emphasised in
18 the request, and that was discussed at the government session.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: And if we then look at P0 3573, we see that these
20 are minutes of the 47th session.
21 Q. It's dated July 20th. That would be the deadline that was given
22 the previous day. We see that you are, indeed, present, and I assume
23 you've looked at this document.
24 And would it be fair to say that it was on this date that you
25 gave a report based on your -- the observations that you had been tasked
2 A. As it is stated here in the minutes, on that same day or on the
3 following day, we submitted our report to the HVO about our visit to the
4 Municipality of Capljina
5 the HVO.
6 This group carried out the task given to it by the HVO. We
7 visited Capljina, and, on the following day, we submitted our report
8 about that visit.
9 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Buntic.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: That concludes my direct examination. That was a
11 little shorter on this particular topic, but I believe Your Honours may
12 wish to ask some questions based on the answers that we just received.
13 Again, thank you, sir, and I trust you will be as forthright with
14 the Prosecution and anyone else who asks you questions over the course of
15 the next few days.
16 Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, 30 seconds.
18 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, the Prosecution would be grateful
19 to have some idea from the other Defence teams how much time they have in
20 mind to use during their own examinations.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very briefly, D2.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, D2 intends to submit
24 their request for additional time, because on direct, some topics were
25 touched upon that are of some importance for the Defence of Mr. Stojic,
1 in terms of reporting prisons, military judiciary, and judiciary, and
2 especially the establishment of Heliodrom that the witness mainly
3 outlined in his testimony. But these are very important issues, and the
4 time allocated to me will be too short. And based on the documents that
5 we are going to submit, we will be able to judge whether you can allocate
6 us additional time for our examination.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But how much time will
9 you need, Ms. Nozica, how much time?
10 MR. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in the distribution of
11 time, since you're asking me first and I can only talk about my time,
12 I've been allocated 30 minutes, and I need an additional one hour. And I
13 am prepared to deduct that from my total time because I believe it is
14 important to clarify some issues with this witness.
15 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] General Praljak's Defence will need
16 about 15 minutes for cross-examination, not more. Thank you.
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, according to my
18 calculations, we should be allocated 50 per cent of the time that was
19 spent on direct examination, which is a little bit more than my learned
20 friend Nozica calculated as particular times for particular Defence
21 teams. In my view, we are entitled to 42 minutes or thereabouts, and I'm
22 going to submit my request for additional time of one hour and a half.
23 Tomorrow, you will be able to see whether the topics that I need to
24 discuss with the witness are relevant or not.
25 MS. TOMASEGOVIC-TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
1 My situation is largely dependent on the technical situation. If we have
2 42 minutes, as my learned friend Alaburic has stated, I'm grateful; and
3 if I were to show all the CDs and if I were able to have the technical
4 support, then I would be able to finish within that time or maybe a
5 couple of minutes more than that.
6 Thank you.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] D6?
8 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: Mr. Pusic's Defence will take no longer than 15
9 minutes. Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We'll let you know what
11 we decide tomorrow. We have to stop here because there's another trial
12 after us.
13 See you tomorrow at 9.00.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.
15 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 10th day of
16 July, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.