1 Thursday, 10 July 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
10 the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
11 Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Today is Thursday, July 10, 2008. Let me first greet the
14 witness, the accused, the Defence counsel, as well as Mr. Stringer and
15 his associates, and good morning to everyone assisting us.
16 Today we are going to proceed with the beginning of the
17 cross-examination by the Defence counsel of the other accused. But
18 before we do so, I'm going to read out an oral ruling related to
19 cross-examination of witness Zoran Buntic.
20 At the hearing of the 9th of July, 2008, the Defence teams
21 requested for the cross-examination of the Prlic Defence witness Zoran
22 Buntic the following amount of time: The Defence of accused Stojic
23 requested one hour and a half; the Defence of accused Praljak requested
24 15 minutes; the Defence of the accused Petkovic asked for about two hours
25 and 15 minutes; the Defence of the accused Coric requested about 45
1 minutes; and the Defence of the accused Pusic asked for 15 minutes.
2 That's a total of five hours. The Defence teams of Stojic and Petkovic
3 are therefore asking for additional time for their cross-examination.
4 The Trial Chamber would like to note that the Prlic Defence used
5 about seven hours and 15 minutes for its examination-in-chief.
6 Guide-line number 5, paragraph 15, of the decision of the Trial Chamber
7 adopting guide-lines for the presentation of Defence evidence dated
8 24th of April, 2008, states that the Defence teams conducting a
9 cross-examination will receive 50 per cent of the time used for the
10 direct examination.
11 Furthermore, pursuant to guide-line 5, paragraph 16, of the
12 24th of April, 2008, decision, the Defence teams should have notified the
13 Chamber of the fact that they wanted to be granted additional time to
14 cross-examine witness Zoran Buntic, and they should have done so in
15 writing and within seven days of the filing of the monthly schedule,
16 indicating which matters they wish to raise with the witness.
17 In view, however, of the examination-in-chief of witness Zoran
18 Buntic, the Trial Chamber agrees on an exceptional basis to consider the
19 late request for additional time submitted by the Stojic and Petkovic
20 Defence teams. After considering the requests submitted by the Defence
21 teams, the Trial Chamber decides by a major, me being in dissent or
22 dissenting, the Trial Chambers decides to grant three hours and 30
23 minutes to the Defence teams that will lead the cross-examination, and
24 the additional 90 minutes will be deducted from the overall time they
25 were granted to present their case.
1 Furthermore, the Trial Chamber would like to recall that pursuant
2 to guide-line 6, paragraph 20, of the 24th of April, 2008, decision, time
3 spent on matters not raised during the examination-in-chief will be
4 deducted from the time allocated for the presentation of the Defence case
5 of the team conducting the cross-examination. As far as my own
6 dissenting opinion, I have the following reasons.
7 First of all, pursuant to paragraph 16 of guide-line number 6,
8 the Defence teams requesting additional time should have done so in
9 writing and not orally within seven days of the filing of the monthly
10 schedule; and, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, I was not inclined to
11 consider this request and to decide on an exceptional basis to grant the
12 additional time requested. That was my first reason.
13 The second reason I have is that, as far as I'm concerned, the
14 cross-examination conducted by the other accused is only allowable or
15 possible if the other Defence teams have reasons to believe that they can
16 challenge the credibility of the witness or if they believe that the
17 answers the witness provided to the questions put by the other Defence
18 team may incriminate their own client. And I believe that throughout
19 these seven hours and 15 minutes, none of the answers given by the
20 witness to the questions put to him, none of these answers, was likely to
21 incriminate the other accused.
22 Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, there was no ground to grant
23 the three hours and a half for cross-examination purposes. But the
24 Trial Chamber has decided by a majority that the other accused will have
25 three hours and a half to conduct their cross-examination, and that's the
1 way we are going to proceed.
2 Furthermore, the Stojic and Petkovic Defence will have 90
3 additional minutes. In other words, the other accused will be granted a
4 total of five hours to cross-examine the witness. I don't know who is
5 going to start, but I'm going to give the floor to the first Defence
6 counsel who will cross-examine the witness.
7 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good morning. Good
8 morning to everyone in the courtroom. Before beginning my
9 cross-examination, I would only like to emphasize two points. As far as
10 the time in extension that I asked for in relation to this witness, I did
11 not ask for a total of two and a half hours. I asked for additional time
12 so that I have just for an hour and a half. That's considerably less
13 than what we said.
14 Second, this concerns that we need to make written submissions
15 requesting additional time within seven days after the schedule is
16 presented. I have to say that based on the witness list, that is, 65
17 ter (G), we cannot know exactly what's going to be in the direct
18 examination. We can only judge about the contents of the direct
19 examination only after seeing the documents that will be tendered through
20 the witness. We received the definitive list of documents for this
21 witness last Monday morning, and only then were we able to see that some
22 topics will be missing from the direct examination; whereas, some new
23 topics will be discussed through this witness.
24 In any case, we know the definitive contents of the direct
25 examination only once it is over, and only then can we design our
1 cross-examination and assess if we need additional time or not.
2 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, may I just supplement a different
3 point. I'll ask a practical question. It's one we've raised in writing
4 before, and it relates to what Your Honour has just said starting at
5 page 2, line 24, that time spent on matters not raised during
6 examination-in-chief will be deducted from time allocated for the
7 presentation of the Defence case of the team conducting the
9 And it's a certain amount of puzzlement as to exactly how that's
10 going to work. Is that done retrospectively, in which case we're not
11 sure how the computer system does it. It can't be done prospectively on
12 many occasions, because until the evidence has been heard, one can't
13 allocate it into one or other of those boxes. And, also, who and how is
14 that decision made, because essentially, as we have pointed out before,
15 it's a judicial decision; it's not an administrative decision. And the
16 fourth point - I think I've made three points so far - the fourth point
17 would be that, in fairness, we are entitled to know what is being done
18 and to know how the allocation is being done and what allocation is being
19 done, so that we have the opportunity, if necessary, of challenging it.
20 Often it will be very trivial, we acknowledge that; but it could
21 be important on occasions. So not necessarily now, Your Honours, it may
22 be the answer will come from some other source in some other form. But
23 fairly soon, if not now, we would welcome knowing exactly how this
24 procedure is intended to work.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, the Trial Chamber
1 has duly noted your submissions. I can give you my personal opinion. I
2 fully share what you've just state. It's very difficult, indeed, to
3 decide what is part of the cross-examination and what is part of matters
4 not raised during cross-examination; and as far as I'm concerned, I
5 believe that this can only be decided at the very end because you may
6 have questions asked during cross-examination that are part of
7 cross-examination, but other questions go beyond the scope of
8 cross-examination. You're absolutely right and I fully agree with your
9 concerns, but, obviously, it will be up to the Chamber to rule, after the
10 hearing, how time will be allocated or divided.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may add something, I would first like to
12 recall that this is not something the Chamber invented, but this is a
13 translation of what is said in Rule 90(H) of the Rules of Procedure.
14 This distinction comes from there. It's not an invention of the Chamber,
15 which also means, if you allow me to finish, that we have practiced it
16 for two years. This applied also, of course, to the Prosecution. We
17 have also applied it after the beginning of the evidence of the Defence,
18 and so far it simply has worked. And I recall that usually the Defence,
19 including Ms. Alaburic, has indicated: I will have these questions that
20 are the same for you, and then I will embark upon a field which does
21 not -- is not the same that was raised in direct.
22 And I am confident that we will be able to apply this as we have
23 done so far without too much difficulty.
24 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, the distinction is perfectly clear.
25 We accept that completely; and the distinction that needs to be drawn
1 when counsel is embarking upon cross-examination on matters not raised in
2 examination-in-chief, that's perfectly clear. I was addressing myself to
3 the very real practical problems, and actually underneath them the
4 problems of who makes the decision. The real practical problem is of the
5 actual time allocation which is of real significance in this case given
6 the way that the trial is being managed, and that's actually a separate
7 point, Your Honour, from the clear division. After all, that rule is
8 saying nothing at all about time allocation; it's simply dividing the
9 nature of the cross-examination and the scope of the cross-examination
10 into those two boxes.
11 So, Your Honours, with respect, my question remains on the table
12 and remains requiring an answer, as His Honour, the President, Judge
13 Antonetti, very fairly acknowledged.
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me,
15 just one sentence when we have already broached this issue that I believe
16 is very important, but we haven't discussed it before due to very
17 specific circumstances.
18 I believe we have two different rules regarding topics in
19 cross-examination that were not raised in direct. Under the rules of
20 this court, cross-examination is allowed to raise issues that were not
21 broached in direct examination if they are, in a certain way, related to
22 the subject of this trial. As my colleague, Mr. Stewart, said the Rules
23 do not say whether that time goes against the cross-examination time or
24 direct examination time, but the rule on cross-examination says
25 unequivocally that it is the time that belongs to cross-examination.
1 Contrary to that, neither in the guide-lines that the
2 Trial Chamber -- in the guide-lines that the Trial Chamber prepared, we
3 have an opposite rule. The topics raised in cross-examination will go
4 against the time allocated to respective Defences. I would appreciate it
5 very much if the Trial Chamber would consider this comment and change the
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The Trial Chamber will
8 clarify all these in due course.
9 I'm going to give the floor now to Mr. Coric's counsel, who is
11 Good morning again, Madam.
12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your
13 Honours. Good morning to everyone in the courtroom.
14 WITNESS: ZORAN BUNTIC [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:
17 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Buntic.
18 A. Good morning.
19 Q. Mr. Buntic, I asked Mrs. Tomanovic, and I believe she did as I
20 asked and showed you the CD containing registries of various prosecutor's
21 offices, civilian and military, from Mostar, Livno, and Capljina. Before
22 we move to the documents themselves, to facilitate understanding by
23 everyone in the courtroom, I would like us to go through certain
24 abbreviations and acronyms together, those that we'll be able to see both
25 in registries and in documents.
1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] And the Chamber has three
2 pages received from us containing these abbreviations and acronyms. It's
3 just an aid, it's not an exhibit. It's just a visual aid. I believe
4 that Mr. Buntic should have a copy as well.
5 Q. Do you, Mr. Buntic?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I will now read the
8 acronyms and I will just ask the witness to confirm that they, indeed,
9 designate what I say.
10 Q. So, on page 1, we see that "K" is a designation for a criminal
11 file, municipal or district; "KT" is a prosecution document; "KTN" is a
12 designation for a prosecution file with a perpetrator unknown; "KTA" is a
13 designation for a prosecution document where it is presumed that no crime
14 has been committed; "KZ" is the acronym for penal code; "ZKP" is the
15 acronym for law on criminal procedure; "KZ RBH" is the penal code of the
16 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina; "KZ SFRY" is the penal code of the
17 Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia; "JT" is the acronym for the
18 public prosecutor; "SUP" is the acronym for the secretariat for internal
19 affairs, later renamed MUP.
20 Mr. Buntic, is all this correct?
21 A. Correct. Those are the acronyms that were commonly used to refer
22 to court files and in-court files, and they were also used in everyday
23 speech, documents, textbooks, forms, statistics, et cetera.
24 Q. Let us now turn to page 2 where I listed certain crimes according
25 to the penal code of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Article 36, murder;
1 Article 38, manslaughter; Article 42, serious bodily injuries; Article 55
2 security breach; Article 56, violation of integrity of an apartment;
3 Article 88, rape; Article 129, illicit trade --
4 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Theft.
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Article 136 --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Article 147, theft.
8 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Article 148, aggravated theft; Article 150 robbery. Article 147,
10 theft; 148, aggravated theft.
11 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Article 88 is rape. I'm
12 informed by my colleagues that it was not recorded previously.
13 Q. Article 150, robbery; Article 153, seizure of motor vehicle;
14 Article 172, inciting a general state of danger; 226, crime of abuse of
15 office or powers. And I singled out one crime, 154, racial and other
16 discrimination from the penal code of the SFRY.
17 Can you confirm all that I said, Mr. Buntic?
18 A. I believe you did.
19 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we move on to the
20 first document 5D 0 --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please.
22 Witness, I read the list related to criminal offences with great
23 interest, but it seems to me that there is one article missing, a
24 significant one, the one related to crimes against humanity, war crimes,
25 and so on and so forth.
1 To your knowledge, which article regulated these sorts of crimes,
2 if there was such an article?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It existed and it was included in
4 the penal code of the SFRY; that is, the federal penal code. I don't
5 know the exact article, but it is chapter 1 of the federal penal code.
6 There are a number of articles concerning violations of international
7 humanitarian law. I don't know exactly which one this is, but it is a
8 special chapter of the federal penal code.
9 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] If I may be assistance of
10 Your Honour, the reason I didn't mention it is that there is chapter 16
11 of the penal code of the SFRY, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
12 The reason I didn't mention it is I wanted to draw some conclusions
13 together with the witness after we look at registries, and then we will
14 talk about how certain crimes were qualified legally and why they were
15 qualified that way.
16 So I wanted to call up into the electronic courtroom 5D 04234.
17 Q. You have your sets of documents. Could you please find this one.
18 I will try with every document, with every file that we look at, first to
19 show you the documents and then we will try to identify them and compare
20 them to the registry of the prosecutor's office and the number of the
21 prosecution that refers to that case.
22 5D 04234. It's a criminal report of the police station Capljina,
23 dated 7 July 1993
24 Capljina. The number -- the registry number is KT 91/93.
25 This criminal report was filed against a person named Dragan
1 Bunoza. We see that he is an ethnic Croat. The report was filed
2 concerning aggravated theft, Article 148 of the penal code of the
3 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the injured party is named as
4 Habib Suta.
5 Mr. Buntic, will you agree with me that from the name of the
6 injured party, we see that it is a Bosniak?
7 A. Obviously, it is a Bosniak, and the report is made against an
8 ethnic Croat.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please, Witness.
10 Here we see "KT," but I also see the following: KU 89/93 on the top left
11 corner. What does "KU" stand for, please?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure. KT is a prosecution
13 file. KU, I'm not sure about KU.
14 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] If I may be of
15 assistance, Your Honour. I believe KU concerns internal affairs, and
16 K is crime. I believe it is the police file in which this report is
18 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, just stating the obvious, I take it
19 the Trial Chamber is going to distinguish between the witness's evidence
20 and the representations of counsel, which may be correct and I'm not
21 disputing them. But I think that we don't really know what KU is in an
22 official way until a witness has said what it is.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, can you confirm what
24 the Defence counsel has just explained, or is it something you really
25 can't tell us anything about? Would KU mean that this is a document
1 coming from the civilian police and that it was thus recorded here or
2 registered here?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I stand by my previous answer. I'm
4 not sure, so I cannot affirmatively state whether it is or isn't.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Very well.
6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now please look at
7 PD 04246 [as interpreted].
8 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Could counsel kindly
9 adjust her microphone. We have trouble hearing her. Thank you.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot find these documents. I
11 don't know whether I've been given these documents, and I don't know in
12 which order they were given to me or should I follow them on the screen?
13 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. You should have it on the screen. We handed them over to the
15 court deputy, and I think that you should have all the documents. Is
16 there any way the court deputy can help you?
17 A. I don't know in which order they are registered.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. The usher,
19 who's very experienced, is going to help you.
20 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I hear that it says "PD"
21 in the transcript, and it should say "5D," 5D.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters again kindly ask that counsel
23 adjust her microphone. We have great trouble hearing her. Thank you.
24 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I see that we have a
25 problem. Perhaps I can give the witness my own copy where all the
1 documents are put in the right order, but you can see it on the screen as
3 Q. What really matters for me are names and numbers. We have here a
4 document of the higher prosecutor's office --
5 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters did not hear the number, there
6 is too much background noise, and we cannot hear the speaker.
7 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, Mr. President. I don't know, I think
8 only a few of us are listening in the English; but on the English channel
9 we're hearing from the booth that they're asking counsel to adjust her
10 microphone, so that they can hear her more clearly because they're having
11 trouble hearing counsel.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I may have been the culprit
13 because my microphone was still on. I may be the one responsible for it,
14 and she's not.
15 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. So what we have here is a document of the higher prosecutor's
17 office in Mostar. Later on, we are going to look at the basic
18 prosecutor's documents and the higher prosecutor's number.
19 KT 44/93 is the number. Yet, again, it has to do with a crime
20 for Article 148. We see that the defendants are the same; and further on
21 in the text, in the very last paragraph on the first page, we can all see
22 the name of the injured party, again as Habib Suta. I think it is
23 obvious that it is the same case.
24 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Right now I'm not going
25 to read this out, but everyone in the courtroom can read the entire
1 document and see that the crime described is the same, and this is a
2 motion to issue an indictment without conducting an investigation.
3 Later on -- or rather, we should move to the next document,
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, let me ask you a
6 technical question which may be of relevance to the Trial Chamber when we
7 look into the issue of Article 7(3) of the Statute.
8 Through this case, we saw that there is a police report sent to
9 the prosecutor. The prosecutor seizes the investigative judge of the
10 file; that is, the judge in Mostar. Let us imagine that the judges would
11 do nothing or that he would say that no crime was committed. The judge
12 does nothing or just keeps the file in a file of documents. Can the
13 prosecutor appeal if a judge fails to do anything?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The prosecutor always had such
15 possibilities; that is to say, to call for an investigation to be carried
16 out and to seek information about the investigation. Also, if the
17 investigating judge believes that there are no elements for issuing an
18 indictment, the prosecutor can file an appeal against that decision to a
19 panel of judges. So the prosecutor does have all these possibilities
20 available even after the investigation was carried out. Obviously, this
21 is a document of the deputy senior prosecutor. I know that this was
22 Mr. Blago Dodig, and it is his document. Again, I see on the basis of
23 the designator in this document, again we see that this is a KT document;
24 that is to say, a prosecution document.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for this very clear
2 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Then we have document
3 5D 04151.
4 Q. It's going to appear on the screens. Don't bother trying to find
5 it. 5D 04246 -- or rather, 4151. I am going to say that it is the
6 indictment that was issued by the senior public prosecutor's office in
8 Can you confirm that?
9 A. Yes, I can.
10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Let us move on to the
11 next document in relation to this; that is, 5D 04236.
12 Q. Now we see the judgement that was passed by the high court in
13 Mostar, and the number is K 18/94. Can you confirm to me that this
14 K 18/94 designates a court file, and since it says 1994 that the
15 prosecutor handed over these files to the high court in Mostar in 1994?
16 A. Obviously, on the basis of the designator, because this is -- it
17 is a court file. As for the names of the accused persons, it is obvious
18 that this is the same case that we've been following through all the
19 time, through all the stages, from filing a report and then issuing an
20 indictment and then passing a judgement. It is obvious on the basis of
21 the number of the file and the names of the accused persons.
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see in
23 e-court 2112 from 5D 04288.
24 Q. This is a KT register of the senior prosecutor's office in
25 Mostar. Here it is. I think that in the third box we see -- or rather,
1 before we look at it, Mr. Buntic, will you agree with me that the
2 prosecutor's list contains the number of the file, the name of the
3 accused, the name of the person filing the charges, and the name of the
4 injured party inter alia? It contains other elements, too, but this is
5 what matters the most for us at this point in time.
6 A. I've just seen it on my screen, so I need to have a look. Yes,
7 that is the information concerned.
8 Q. We can all see that in the fourth column we find the names of the
9 accused, and two columns onwards we see the name of the injured person?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. In the first rubric, we see KT 44, and that is that number
12 KT 44/93 that we saw earlier on in the documents of the senior
13 prosecutor's office in Mostar; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 2317, please. Here it
16 is. Column 2.
17 Q. It's the first number we looked at of the prosecutor's office in
18 Mostar, KT 91/93. Can you confirm that it is one and the same case and
19 that is the number?
20 A. On the basis of the names that appear on the screen, it is
21 obvious that it is the same case.
22 Q. Now we're going to move on to another document.
23 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 5D 04245 in
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me.
1 Unfortunately, Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic, we have not received this
2 document in paper. We just -- what we have here is a photocopy of a CD
3 which is not, in fact, very helpful.
4 Now, could we see this again, Usher, and see it all to the end of
5 the form because we have only the left part, and obviously the form is
6 bigger. What is on -- I would like to see what follows, whether there is
7 any other entry on the same case.
8 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I think, Your Honour,
9 that it can be moved left and right.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes.
11 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] You can see the entire
12 procedure. I do apologise to the Trial Chamber, but quite simply there
13 is no photocopier that is big enough, either in this Tribunal or the
14 court in Mostar. I believe that some specialised institutions for
15 photocopying perhaps may have such facilities; but, technically, in our
16 investigation, we could not make a hard copy of this document for
17 technical reasons. That is why we provided the CD in the 65 ter list;
18 and, again, we provided it at an early stage so that everyone could
19 become aware of it. I do apologise. But for technical reasons, there
20 was no other way of doing it.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. I take that. Architecture offices
22 normally have big photocopying machines because they use them for plans
23 and that might be where you could find assistance, but I'm glad that this
24 was possible. Thank you.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness -- one moment. I have
1 a question for the witness.
2 At some point in time, you were in charge of the justice area.
3 We have this document in front of us; and as was pointed out by counsel
4 just now, we can see that this entire case was recorded in the office of
5 the prosecutor. And for those like me who know how justice works, how
6 the judiciary works, we can see that this entire case is recorded in this
7 type of registry or register.
8 The prosecutor, whomever he may be, when he or she receives a
9 case from the police, were they obliged to record everything in a
10 register, mentioning every step of the proceedings including the final
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is correct. Once a criminal
13 report is received, that is to say, when a prosecutor receives it from
14 the police, he is duty-bound to record the criminal report in his own
15 records. As the colleague already mentioned, it has to do with
16 prosecution registers that are of large format. That is what they looked
17 like. It is true that this is a standard form that was used in the
18 former Yugoslavia
19 too, is standard, like the ones that existed before the war.
20 And the prosecutor's office kept the file once they received it
21 from the police or from the citizen concerned or from authorised
22 officials. And then, as we can see here, from beginning to end, they're
23 going to keep it in their own register.
24 The court also keeps it in its own register once they receive it,
25 and then they keep it up until the end. As you know, it can go from
1 first instance to second instance even to third-instance courts, and then
2 it receives different designation numbers from each and every one of the
3 courts involved and in connection with the legal remedies that were
4 involved in terms of the decisions of the lower courts.
5 You see here that the file was recorded by the prosecutor's
6 office and it's one and the same file. It's obvious here from the
7 numbers, designators, as well as the names of the accused persons and the
8 name of the injured party. It is one and the same file or case.
9 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we call up in
10 e-court 5D 04245.
11 Q. While we're waiting to see it on our screens - here it is - yet
12 again this is a special report of the Capljina police station sent to the
13 senior public prosecutor's office. Again, we see the KT 74/93 number, as
14 it was received in the prosecutor's office. We see from the
15 document - we can have a look - that the crime involved is aggravated
16 theft from Article 148 and the suspect is Andrej Zovko. It says that
17 he's an ethnic Croat, a national of the Republic of Bosnia
19 Sir, can we agree yet again on the basis of the names that the
20 accused person is an ethnic Croat and the injured party an ethnic
22 A. This special report itself says that the -- a person charged is
23 an ethnic Croat and the injured party is an ethnic Bosniak. We can see
24 it by the names.
25 Q. One more thing in relation to this that is of interest.
1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have a
2 look underneath the name in the next paragraph.
3 Q. It says that the person was suspected of committing other crimes,
4 falsifying documents and false representation.
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at page 2
6 now, and the paragraph that starts with the words: "On the 19th of
7 May ..."
8 I don't want to read the entire paragraph because we can all read
10 Q. The person misrepresented himself impersonating a police officer
11 and he falsified a police ID, forged a police ID.
12 Sir, do you know that there were cases when different
13 perpetrators of crimes falsely represented themselves as members of the
14 police or the military; whereas, they were not members of either?
15 A. I am aware of such cases. For the most part, it had to do with
16 persons who had had a criminal record. They were trying to take
17 advantage of the war situation and the fact that all state organs were
18 functioning with difficulty. So they tried to take advantage of the
19 situation, and we can see that they used it for looting, theft, and
20 different forms of property-related crime. So the times did make it
21 easier for such people to engage in crime. This is not an isolated case;
22 there were other such cases.
23 Q. When we were looking at page 1 of this document, we saw that
24 below the heading "Special Report," there's another line supplementing
25 the criminal report. On page 3 in -- page 4 in English and page 3 in
1 Croatian, we see the relevant information.
2 From the brief description of crime following the word "because,"
3 we see that the crime is against Adem Fazlagic and that it is the same
4 offence described in the supplement to the criminal report. Can you
6 A. Yes. It is obviously the same case and the same persons, both
7 the injured party and the offender, yes.
8 Q. Under the rubric "against," we see NN. Does that mean that at
9 the time of the report, the perpetrator was unknown and his name was
10 given only in the supplement to the criminal report? Does that mean that
11 the investigation resulted in an identification of the perpetrator?
12 A. Yes. A criminal report against perpetrator NN means unknown
13 perpetrator. So it is the same person, Adem Fazlagic, as we have seen
14 before from these documents shown earlier. And from the later procedure,
15 we see that it is the same case.
16 Q. While we are with the unknown perpetrator, do you know that a
17 special problem for prosecuting authorities --
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic.
19 The last number of a document that I find in the record is
20 5D 04245. I guess that you have switched to another document, but I
21 missed the number and it is not recorded. You're on the same document?
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] The same document, Your
23 Honour. It's just page 4, the same document, page 4.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.
25 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Tell me, sir, do you know that for the prosecution authorities
2 and the judiciary, the group of unknown perpetrators were a special
3 problem, and can you say something about this phenomenon, why was it able
4 to occur?
5 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me. I apologise for the interruption.
6 Mr. President, I think if a person just walked into the courtroom
7 or the gallery, they would assume that they're watching a direct
8 examination because that's really what's happening here. I think we need
9 to be honest about what the status of this investigation is. It's only
10 different from a real direct examination by the fact that these documents
11 were provided to the Prosecutor yesterday and that, of course, we've
12 received no summary or prior indication of the nature or the scope of
13 this direct examination. So it's certainly not a direct examination in
14 that respect.
15 But I am going to object to the use of leading questions. I've
16 been hesitant to do so. I think it's fair to let counsel lead to the
17 extent necessary and it moves things along faster to allow us to navigate
18 through these documents, particularly through these photocopies. But at
19 the same time, this is a direct examination. I think leading questions,
20 such as the one that's being put to the witness now, are inappropriate.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, Counsel, try to take
22 into account what the Prosecutor has just said.
23 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I will rephrase.
24 Q. Would you be able to tell us anything about the criminal
25 prosecution of unknown perpetrators? Did such a problem exist and what
1 do you know about it?
2 A. It was a recurring problem, a constant problem. It's better
3 perhaps to explain using an example. For instance, at a location known
4 as Ubarak, around 70 bodies were discovered, and it was presumed they
5 resulted from a crime committed by the Yugoslav Army before they withdrew
6 from Mostar. After the discovery of these bodies, normally a criminal
7 report was filed recording this crime, but even that report was filed
8 naming unknown perpetrators, referring to unknown perpetrators, because
9 neither the civilian police nor the military police nor the prosecutor
10 had access to information about the persons who might have committed it
11 and there existed another problem.
12 Even if they had been able to file a criminal report against
13 specific persons, those persons had by that time become inaccessible.
14 They had left the territory together with the Yugoslav Army; and even if
15 one were able to identify a perpetrator to the degree of well-grounded
16 suspicion, as the phrase goes, there was this other problem.
17 And at this time, there were, indeed, a number of similar
18 problems that made the work of the prosecutors and the judiciary
19 difficult. Not only in this case but in many cases criminal reports were
20 filed against perpetrators unknown, but this is a very eloquent example
21 of the whole category.
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at
23 5D 04153.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since counsel has finished
25 examining the document, I'd like to go back to it for a detail. I looked
1 at it closely. I was interested in it, and I see that the author of
2 these offences, there are many of them, hails from Mostar. He went to
3 Capljina, and he wore a camouflage uniform and green beret and was armed
4 with a rifle.
5 At the time, as far as you know because you were in the area, was
6 it customary to see individuals circulating, moving around, in camouflage
7 gear with green or red berets and armed individuals? Was it something
8 normal, current?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, perhaps I do have an
10 example that might be illustrative. After the 4th of April, 1993
11 interpreted], there were international monitors in Citluk, five of them;
12 and on a daily basis or once every two days, they called on the command
13 of the Citluk Battalion. And they asked me, and it was typical for their
14 whole stay in that area of two or three months, they asked me how come
15 they never saw a person in civilian clothes. For the duration of their
16 stay, they did not see a person in civilian, a woman, a child, or an
17 elderly person. All persons who were not fit for the army were by that
18 time removed from Citluk, and everyone was moving around wearing military
19 uniforms. Sometimes it was the uniform of people serving in the civilian
20 protection, sometimes it was a police uniform, but it was always a
22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. The witness said that
23 it was the period after 4th April 1993
24 that it must be 1992 because that's the year when the witness was in
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure whether I made a slip
2 of the tongue or it was recorded inaccurately. I thought I said 1992.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Buntic, do you have some knowledge in
4 criminology, statistics?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We discussed yesterday a large
6 number of reports that misdemeanour courts filed, civilian courts filed,
7 prosecutor's offices filed. A large number of reports went into
8 evidence, and they contain all sorts of statistics about cases dealt with
9 by prosecution offices and tried in various courts. You will see that
10 there are thousands of cases there.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes. Thank you.
12 Now, are you also aware of studies that establish the percentage
13 of crimes where an author is eventually found, as compared to those where
14 the author remains unknown?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From statistics, I can agree that
16 the ratio between detected, charged, and convicted persons is
17 considerably lower in this period and the statistics in peacetime. So,
18 in this period, much fewer perpetrators were detected and tried than in
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Would you have any figures that established
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in principle, I'm talking
23 about pre-war statistics at the level of Yugoslavia. The number of
24 elucidated cases and identified perpetrators was 75 to 80 per cent, and
25 the number of convictions compared to the number of indictments was also
1 around 70 per cent. And I believe it is quite understandable, and it is
2 not even to be expected, that in times of war when armies came and went
3 and one war was immediately followed by another and the buildings of
4 courts were completely destroyed and the number of judges, as you saw on
5 the example of the municipal court in Mostar, 10 out of 23 judges left --
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Witness. I did not actually ask for
7 interpretation and so forth. What I would finally also like to know is
8 whether you are aware or whether you have compared these figures with the
9 figures of other countries? And, of course, the average is one thing,
10 but normally the investigations differentiate between different kinds of
11 crimes and the elucidation rate differs also very much as to the kind of
12 crime. What you have told us has sounded very familiar to me. I also
13 had to do with the criminal prosecutions, where quite a considerable
14 number of offence could not be elucidated, no author was ever found.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think we had the
16 possibility to compare. I don't think it was possible to compare that
17 with another state in a state of war. We could only compare with the
18 statistics maintained by other countries and that Yugoslavia, too, had
19 maintained in other peacetime conditions. But I'm not aware that anyone
20 in those wins of war could reliably keep such statistics about the number
21 of committed crimes, identified versus unknown perpetrators, and the
22 number of convictions. I don't know that such statistics exist, and I
23 don't think I could have used them for comparison. I could only compare
24 to peacetime. But in the state of war, and as I said one war was
25 immediately followed by another, the comparative method was not of much
1 use to me.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
4 Q. I would like to follow-up on what His Honour Judge Trechsel said
5 concerning statistics and the possibility to prosecute. We heard
6 yesterday from you about the shortage of judges, and we saw the example
7 of the engineer who was misdemeanour magistrate. We saw that in your
8 reports. But what can you tell us about forensic experts, ballistic
9 experts, medical forensic experts, and other experts that are
10 indispensable for prosecuting the gravest crimes?
11 A. Ballistic experts, we did not have any in the Croatian Community
12 of Herceg-Bosna. We did not have a single forensic expert. We had some
13 medical experts, but we did have a single graphologist in the Croatian
14 Community of Herceg-Bosna. And in those circumstances, we had no other
15 choice but to ask someone from the Republic of Croatia
16 because we had no physical communication with other parts of the country,
17 and it was impossible to establish such communication. And the only
18 thing we could do is address a request either to an institution or to an
19 expert personally in the Republic of Croatia
20 Q. Thank you.
21 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up
22 5D 04153.
23 Q. It's the last document concerning this case before we move on to
24 the register. We see from the document that it is a decision of the
25 higher court in Mostar. Look at the name of the accused, please.
1 A. I see it.
2 Q. And the name of the injured party on page 2. Can you confirm
3 that it is the same person we discussed before?
4 A. I see page 1. I can see that it is a court file by the
5 designation K. I see that the accused -- the defendant is an ethnic
6 Croat. I just got page 2.
7 Q. Let's go back to page 1, para 1, and you will see the name of the
8 injured party. You will see it now. In English, we have the right page.
9 Look at the sentence beginning: "On 17th May 1992 ..." and then read the
10 name of the injured party.
11 A. Yes. I can see it's the person we discussed before, Mr. Adem
12 Fazlagic, and the defendant is Andrej Zovko.
13 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have in
14 e-court image 2313. It is part of the KT register of the prosecutor's
15 office in Capljina. Here it is, the one-but-last.
16 Q. You can have a look at all of it. Once you've had a look, can
17 you confirm that it's the same case?
18 A. Yes. Obviously, this is a copy of the prosecutor's register,
19 and, obviously, it's the same case, judging by the names of the persons
20 involved, namely, the accused and the injured party, and also the numbers
21 under which they were filed.
22 Q. Thank you, sir.
23 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please move on
24 to 5D 303482 -- P 03482.
25 Q. While we're waiting for the document, while everybody's looking
1 for it, I will say that this is a document of the department for fighting
2 crime at the military police administration in Mostar dated the 16th of
3 July, 1993.
4 It is the record of an interview of a member of the military
5 police. In the record of interview --
6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I don't really have to
7 read it out, everyone can see it in this courtroom.
8 Q. In the first paragraph, there is a reference to three persons in
9 addition to the person being interviewed; namely, three persons who are
10 members of the military police. And in the second paragraph, in order to
11 protect the identity of the person involved, I'm not going to mention the
12 names, it would be rather indelicate of me. The injured parties are two
13 persons of the female gender.
14 Sir, please don't give us the names, but tell me, at least as far
15 as one of these female persons is concerned, can we on the basis of her
16 name conclude that she's an ethnic Bosniak, or rather, Muslim?
17 A. I think that it is with a high degree of probability that that
18 conclusion can be made.
19 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] P 03571 is the next
20 document. Could we all please look at page 2 of the document first.
21 P 03571. Here it is.
22 Q. This is a request of the military police sent to the military
23 police administration on the 18th of July, 1993. We see from this
24 request that what is requested is that four military policemen be removed
25 from duty because they had committed the crime of rape as well as gross
1 breaches of military discipline. Can we confirm that it is evident that
2 these are the same persons from the previous document?
3 A. I can confirm that.
4 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at the first
5 page of this document now, please.
6 Q. It is an authorisation issued by the chief of administration of
7 the military police, Valentin Coric, dated the 19th of July, 1993
8 is an authorisation to remove from duty those policemen whose names we've
9 already seen.
10 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I apologise. But at page 30, line 2, the
11 answer of the witness hasn't been properly or fully recorded at this
12 moment. Perhaps that can be clarified.
13 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Sir, am I not right if I say that earlier on you confirmed to me
15 that the four names were the four names mentioned in the previous
16 document, that these were the same four military policemen?
17 A. Yes. That is what I confirmed in my previous answer.
18 Q. So now I said that we have an authorisation here, and it states
19 inter alia what I have already stated. And it also says that these
20 persons tarnished the name of the military police, that their further
21 presence in this unit would be detrimental, and that the entire case was
22 submitted to the military prosecutor's office.
23 Sir, you are familiar with military discipline rules. Is this
24 the right kind of procedure that is to be taken in such a case?
25 A. I think that this indicates that there was consistent
1 implementation of the rules on military police discipline, and also these
2 persons were removed from police duty and criminal proceedings were
3 instituted against them. So I see that this authorisation moves in that
5 Q. I would like us to look at 2413 and 2414 of the KT register of
6 the municipal prosecutor's office in Mostar. Would you please look at
7 the last column; the first one is 2413. I would be interested in the
8 first rubric. In it we see VT Mostar KT 265/93.
9 Can you confirm that this means that the case was transferred to
10 the municipal prosecutor's office in Mostar from the military
11 prosecutor's office, and that in the military prosecutor's office, it was
12 registered under number KT 265/93?
13 A. VT Mostar would mean military prosecutor's office; whereas, KT
14 obviously shows that it's a prosecutor's file. The rest is the number of
15 the file.
16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please have a
17 look at the second column. Could we scroll up a bit so that we see the
18 top of this column, so that we see what it says. Further on, further on.
19 Yes. Could you zoom it in.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that that is the column
21 where the persons against whom proceedings are instituted are recorded.
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. No. I am asking about the previous column because I think that
24 that has to do with the authority that is actually bringing the charges,
25 but we can't really see it here.
1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we go back down
3 Q. We see that it says VP in the next column. Is VP an abbreviation
4 for the military police?
5 A. VP, yes, military police; whereas, VT is military prosecutor.
6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I would like to say for
7 the record, if anyone challenges this, I would like to ask the Prosecutor
8 to check what I'm saying now, but we don't really have much time now. We
9 don't have the technical facilities, but I think that the column says, at
10 the top, that this is who is bringing the criminal charges against
11 someone so that can be confirmed.
12 Q. If we're looking at these names, let us look at the fourth column
13 and all the rest that is stated here. Is it not obvious that this is one
14 of the persons whose names we saw in the previous documents of the
15 military police?
16 A. Yes, that is one of the persons.
17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 2414, could we see that
19 Q. It's the same number. This is the way it's been dealt with
20 technically. Please look at the names of the first three persons on the
21 list and the column of the injured party. So are these the remaining
23 A. It is correct. Judging by the names, these are the three
24 remaining persons who appeared in the previous document.
25 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would
1 just like to say for the record that there is image 1828 that I'm not
2 going to call up now. That is registry of the district prosecutor's
3 office in Mostar. The number is KT 265/93, and that is how it was filed.
4 We can see on the basis of this register that I showed that it was a case
5 that was transferred on the basis of both numbers.
6 Could we please have a look at PD 04172 [as interpreted] -- 5D.
7 5D 04172. Have we found it? Yes.
8 Q. This has to do with a criminal complaint of the military police
9 of Mostar, dated the 16th of June, 1992, against Jelenko Brajkovic for
10 having stolen a motor vehicle. And in the description of the crime
11 concerned, we see that it is an automobile that was owned by Rent-A-Car
13 A. Yes.
14 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Now I'm going to show a
15 short set of documents in relation to this. 5D 04171.
16 Q. While the document is being searched, I will say that this is a
17 document of the district military prosecutor's office in Mostar. Let us
18 remember the number, KT 40/92; and the date is the 5th of January, 1993
19 This is a request to conduct an investigation sent to the district
20 military court in Mostar to the investigating judge.
21 Tell us, sir, when we look at this request and the name of the
22 accused person and the name of the injured party, is it one and the same
24 A. On the basis of the KT number, 40/92, it is obvious that it is a
25 prosecutor's file. It is obvious from the request itself that it
1 involves the persons that we have already mentioned.
2 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 5D 04170, please.
3 Q. This is a document of the district military court in Mostar,
4 KI 90/93. This is a ruling on conducting an investigation, dated the
5 9th of April, 1993. Now I have a few questions in relation to this
7 Tell us, KI, that is an investigative file, right?
8 A. A court investigative file; that is to say, in the investigations
10 Q. We see the name and surname of the judge down here. Is the judge
11 an ethnic Bosniak?
12 A. Yes. That was an investigating judge of the then-court in
13 Mostar. I know him personally, Husnija Sabljic.
14 Q. On the basis of the information about the suspect and the injured
15 party, is it one and the same case?
16 A. Yes, Jelenko Brajkovic, the suspect we already discussed. And
17 the company concerned is the Rent-A-Car company, and I can confirm that
18 it is the case you said.
19 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we display 1627,
20 KT register of the district court in Mostar. We have that KT number,
21 40/92. Yes, here it is; the first person, the first column.
22 Q. Can you look at the information there. Here, it is more legible.
23 You see what it says here: "Who is bringing the charges" and the rest.
24 Can you confirm that it's the -- it's one and the same case?
25 A. Yes, I can confirm that.
1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would
2 like to ask how much time I have left so that I see what else I'm going
3 to show as far as these documents are concerned. I don't know whether
4 I'll have enough time.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The registrar has just told me
6 that you've used 45 minutes.
7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we
8 have a break now so that I can organize my documents? I would just like
9 to say that the Trial Chamber that I have some documents that are
10 extremely important. This is a document against a member of security in
11 Dretelj. It has to do with the theft of money, and also a few other
12 important things like attack against civilians of Bosniak ethnicity in
13 Mostar, a typical case. And we've heard about such things in this
15 I would like to go through these documents because I believe that
16 would be in everyone's interest; and, finally, I don't mind having it
17 taken away from my time ultimately because all of this is moving far
18 slower than I thought it would.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You had been granted 45 minutes
20 by a decision taken by the Trial Chamber by a majority. You've used
21 these 45 minutes. Now you may use additional time if you like, but it
22 will be deducted from your overall time. So it's not a problem.
23 We'll have a 20-minute break because in any case the time had
24 come to take the break.
25 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
1 --- On resuming at 10.50 a.m.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] First of all, Mr. Registrar,
3 let me give you the floor because you have two IC numbers for us.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour, actually it's a rectification
5 of the two IC numbers that were given yesterday.
6 The first map referring to the district of Mostar shall be given
7 Exhibit Number IC 00825, and the second map referring to Livno shall be
8 given Exhibit Number IC 00826, instead of 826 and 827, as referred to in
9 the record yesterday.
10 Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Can we move into private session for a few moments.
13 [Private session]
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
14 You may proceed, Counsel.
15 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 During the break, we produced two copies -- before the break, we
17 dealt with -- before the break, we dealt with two examples, and now I'd
18 like to call up 5D 04164. The reason I'm asking for this document, apart
19 from comparing it with the register, is that it will answer the question
20 of the President concerning the abandonment of criminal proceedings.
21 Q. Here, we have the document. It's a criminal report of the crime
22 prevention department from the military police administration, Mostar
23 division, dated 22 July 1993
24 the personal details of this person that it was a member of the 2nd
25 Brigade. He is charged with aggravated robbery, aggravated theft. The
1 report was filed under number KT 5/93. Can you see it, sir?
2 A. Yes.
3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can I call up now
4 5D 04179.
5 Q. This is a request to conduct an investigation filed to the
6 district military court. We see the same number, KT 588/93; and on the
7 stamp of receipt of the military court, it was filed under KI 118/93.
8 Can you agree that it's the same case?
9 A. What I see before me is a document under number KT 588/93. I
10 don't think -- I'm not sure. Is that the same document? It's a request
11 to conduct an investigation, correct, but what I see on the screen is the
12 document of the district military prosecutor's office in Mostar on the
13 3rd August 1993
14 Q. Correct, correct. And then the second number that I mentioned of
15 the military court written in hand is on the stamp?
16 A. Okay. I see it.
17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at the
18 third paragraph starting with the words: "Perpetrated the criminal
19 offence from Article 150 ..."
20 And can we now look at the last page, it's also in the second
21 page, points 1, 2, and 3. Under point 2, we see the names of persons who
22 need to be interviewed as witnesses in the case. Turn to page 2 so that
23 the gentleman can see it. We see the English, and now we see the
24 Croatian as well.
25 Q. Tell me, the persons in item 2, Hadzo Brkic and Hidzad
1 Hadziomerovic, are they Bosniaks?
2 A. Judging by the names, it is very likely that they are Bosniaks.
3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at
4 5D 04178. It's a decision to conduct an investigation from the district
5 military court in Mostar.
6 Q. We have that number KI that was handwritten on the previous
7 document, KI 118/93. Can you confirm it's the same case?
8 A. Evidently, it is a document of the district military prosecutor's
9 office. It's a case in the phase of investigation, KI 118/93; and,
10 obviously, it is about the same person.
11 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at
12 5D 04175. This is a document with the same number, KI 118/93, document
13 of the district military court in Mostar.
14 Q. It's a decision, a ruling, terminating investigation against the
15 accused. And the second paragraph after the word "ruling" is what my
16 colleague Ms. Nozica emphasized in response to the question by President
17 Antonetti. It says: "The injured party may within eight days of
18 receiving notification continue the criminal prosecution of the accused
19 by submitting a request doctor facial investigation or filing an
21 And then we have a sentence stating that appeal is allowed before
22 the appeals chamber. First of all, tell me, do you think it is about the
23 same case; and, second, is this an example of abandoning the charges?
24 That's the question asked earlier by the Trial Chamber.
25 A. From the number of this file, KI 118/93, and from the text of
1 this ruling, it is obvious that it is the same case. That's the answer
2 to your first question. And, second, item 2 of this ruling indicates the
3 legal right of the injured party that in case of termination of
4 prosecution, he can continue the prosecution himself by submitting a
5 request for additional investigation or by raising an indictment. Those
6 were the two legal possibilities at the disposal of the injured party.
7 We see from the body of the ruling, I believe that it was taken according
8 to the law prevailing then.
9 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we scroll down a
10 little to see the bottom of the page.
11 Q. In English, it's obviously on page 2; but in Croatian, you can
12 see in the left bottom corner, legal relief, legal recourse.
13 A. I can see it. It is the right that I just described, and the
14 appeal should be lodged with the chamber.
15 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I thought Judge Trechsel
16 had a question.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, at least before you leave the document, but
18 I don't want to interrupt unnecessarily and prematurely. Are you done?
19 Then I would like to refer to the last paragraph on the English
20 page which should be rolled down. Up again a little bit or down. Yes,
21 the last paragraph.
22 This is a paragraph giving the reasons for the decision not to
23 prosecute, and it is not a substantive reasoning given here but a
24 referral to the decision of the public prosecutor. It was a public
25 prosecutor who decided not to proceed, and the judge seems to be
1 rubber-stamping this, which may be perfectly all right, I'm not
3 But, Mr. Buntic, somewhere are there reasons for the decision?
4 Can the victim know why the decision not to prosecute was taken?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As you probably -- I mean, you
6 probably know what I know. To comment on the legality of a judicial
7 decision is very difficult. It's difficult to comment on the reasons.
8 Its legality is hinged on the legal remedies, and the second-instance
9 court decides on it. If the higher instance finds that the statement of
10 reasons is not well explained or well grounded, then it would be a
11 violation of the appeals procedure. Therefore, if the injured party
12 considers that the reasons given are not clear enough or that they are
13 contrary to the ruling, then it would be a violation of the criminal --
14 it would be a violation of the proceedings -- of due process.
15 And in that case, he would file an appeal and the appeal would be
16 decided by the appeals chamber, by a higher-instance court, composed of
17 three judges. So the party does have a legal recourse, or take over the
18 prosecution himself or herself.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You have told us that. I reiterate, I'm not
20 criticising. I'm just trying to get all the facts, and let me put it in
21 another way or slightly different questions. Did the victim in this case
22 normally have a copy of the decision of the public prosecutor's office
23 not to prosecute; and if so, would that decision contain a short summary
24 of what was attempted with the resultant reasons why no prospect is seen
25 in going on with the investigation?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, that's how I read
2 this statement of reasons, is that it does not deviate from standard
3 statements of reason given in similar cases.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. If I may be of assistance to Judge Trechsel, can you tell me,
7 sir, do you know if the injured party had to have the right to seek
8 information from the prosecutor and be informed of the file?
9 A. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. His legal recourse -- his right to
10 legal recourse starts only from the day when the ruling is made, and
11 there is a dead-line of three days from receipt of the ruling and that is
12 the time within which he had the right to file a request for additional
13 investigation or take the prosecution upon himself through a lawyer or
14 himself. Those were the two possibilities.
15 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at image
16 1869, please.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Maybe just a small point. You have said or it
18 is recorded here that there was a dead-line of three days from receipt of
19 the ruling for further steps to be taken by the victim; whereas, in the
20 document before us, the second paragraph of the part entitled "Ruling"
21 speaks of a time-limit of "within eight days."
22 Was it a slip of the tongue of yours when you said three days?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. It was not a slip of the
24 tongue. He could lodge an appeal within three days, and within eight
25 days he could start a prosecution himself by bringing an indictment or
1 filing a request for additional investigation.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I asked for image 1869.
4 It's an extract from the KT register of the district military court in
6 Q. We see somewhere towards the middle of the screen the name of the
7 person. In the second -- it's, in fact, the fourth column that the
8 filing party is the administration in Mostar and the defendant is Stanko
9 Zelenika. Do you agree it's the same person we've discussed before?
10 A. We see the information from the second and fourth columns. From
11 the first column, we see that it's the administration of the military
12 police that files the report, and the defendant is, indeed, the same.
13 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 5D 04194, please. It's a
14 request to carry out an investigation from the district military
15 prosecutor's office in Mostar, number KT 1033/93, dated 22 August 1993.
16 5D 04196. Here it is.
17 Q. We see the name of the defendant under para 1 and para 2 on
18 page 1. We see the names of the injured parties. Are they Bosniaks? We
19 see a few members of the Becirevic family and a few members of the Kajtaz
21 A. On the basis of these last names, I can say with a high degree of
22 probability that they are Muslims, Bosniaks. As for the name and surname
23 of the person against whom this request was filed, I can also say with a
24 great degree of probability that it is an ethnic Croat.
25 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please display
1 page 2 now, and could we all pay attention to the paragraph above the
2 words: "I propose."
3 Q. We see here that it has to do with a crime of murder and the
4 crime of rape. Do you see that, sir?
5 A. I do.
6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please move on
7 to the next document now, 5D 04215.
8 Q. This is a document of the district military court in Mostar. The
9 number is KI 122/93, dated the 23rd of August, 1993. This is a decision
10 to open an investigation. As we look at this document, sir, can we agree
11 that it is a decision that was made on the basis of the request that was
12 the previous document?
13 A. I can confirm that on the basis of the number of the file and the
14 names of the persons that this decision pertains to. It is obvious that
15 it is the same case.
16 Q. I think that this is going to be an answer to His Honour Judge
17 Trechsel's question.
18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at
19 5D 0461 -- 4160, please.
20 Q. This is a document of the district military prosecutor's office,
21 and it is dated the 15th of October, 1993, and the KT number is 1033/93,
22 and it is entitled "Official Note."
23 In the first sentence of this document, it is stated that: "Upon
24 completing the investigation against Vedran Bijuk, the decision is made
25 not to pursue the matter further due to lack of evidence."
1 In the next two paragraphs, the reasons for this are stated; and
2 in the last sentence it is stated, I quote: "Because of the above, I
3 have decided not to proceed with criminal prosecution of the accused
4 Vedran Bijuk."
5 Can we agree that it is the same case, and the same proceedings,
6 the same names that we showed in the previous documents?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. There is a small
8 problem. This is a public document. The name of an individual is
9 mentioned therein. Maybe this person was a victim of a crime. I'm going
10 to ask the registrar to redact this part of the document.
11 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, yes, it's not been
13 broadcast outside this courtroom. That's fine.
14 Please proceed.
15 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. I repeat the question. Do you agree with me that it is one and
17 the same case in relation to the previous documents that we showed about
18 the investigation?
19 A. On the basis of the name of the person against whom this
20 investigation was initiated and also in respect of the injured parties'
21 names, obviously it's the same.
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 1957, please. Again,
23 this is an extract from the Mostar office. Let us just have this
24 enlarged. Here it is.
25 Q. The third one from the top, we see again it is the military
1 police administration. Bijuk Vedran, nickname Splico, that's the name of
2 the accused. Can we agree that it is precisely the records of the case
3 that we have just discussed?
4 A. Obviously, it's one and the same case.
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please now move
6 on to document 5D 0 --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. I have a technical
8 question. Regarding this case, Bijuk, I noted that in the original
9 document for the criminal report we have his name, it is indicated that
10 he is from the Republic of Croatia
11 unit is not mentioned; however, it is the military prosecutor that is now
12 here prosecuting. Normally he prosecutes somebody who is a military, a
13 serviceman; otherwise, it would be a civilian prosecutor.
14 Why is the military unit not mentioned? Do you have an
15 explanation for that in case you know?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Like here, the court or the
17 prosecutor, when initiating proceedings, takes personal details. And I
18 think that we saw from the previous documents that the name and surname
19 and date of birth are registered, as well as the address and nationality
20 of the persons involved. In everyday court practice, the name of the
21 unit was recorded as well. Since this is a military court and the
22 district military prosecutor, I think that the name of the unit should
23 have been referred to as well, the name of the unit that he belonged to.
24 However, I see that it is not designated. I cannot go into the reasons
25 for that. I would engage in speculation, or rather, guess-work which I
1 think would not -- would not be good.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we please call up
4 in e-court 5D 04248. This is a criminal report.
5 I do apologise, but I'm afraid that the honourable President of
6 the Trial Chamber hasn't switched off his microphone. Now it is fine. I
7 heard it in my headphones.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm so sorry. I had turned it
9 off. I'm not the culprit this time.
10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. We have a criminal report of the crime prevention department of
12 the military police administration Mostar section. The 19th of August,
13 1993, is the date. It was submitted to the military -- district military
14 prosecutor in Mostar. We have the delivery stamp that it was received;
15 that is, KT 1116/93 is there as the number. We also see the date. We
16 see that the criminal report was filed against a person by the name of
17 Milenko Kordic, a member of the HVO, and the crime involved is murder.
18 I would like us to look at page 3 of this document. This is an
19 attachment accompanying this criminal report, and it has to do with a
20 statement of a person in relation to this case. Could we please remember
21 this. I have a reason for showing this.
22 In the second paragraph, this person says that the suspect told
23 her that he took some Muslims out, killed them, and threw them into the
24 Neretva River
25 next document.
1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Now I'd like to call up
2 document 5D 04255.
3 Q. Again, this is a documents of the military police administration
4 sent to the district military court in Mostar. It's dated the 24th of
5 August, 1993, and we see the stamp showing that it was received and we
6 see that an official note is being enclosed with the document.
7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] We will see the official
8 note if we look at the next page, so could that be done, please.
9 Q. It says here that the military police officer in charge came to
10 realize that the suspect took out and killed a person of Muslim
11 ethnicity. We see that from the text.
12 Sir, am I right if I conclude that in this case the military
13 police, after having handed over the case to the military prosecutor,
14 since it obtained new knowledge, they provided this additional knowledge
15 in terms of the possible crimes that this person had committed?
16 A. From the text of this official note, it is obvious that this is
17 in addition to the already filed criminal report, after new knowledge was
18 gained after the criminal report had been filed.
19 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at
20 document 5D 04247.
21 Q. It is an indictment of the district prosecutor's office in
22 Mostar. The KT number is 1116/93. The date is the 27th of September,
23 1993. We see in the upper right-hand corner the stamp of the district
24 military court in Mostar, showing that the document had been received.
25 On the basis of the name and the date, can we conclude that it is
1 one and the same case and that it has to do with the documents that we
2 have seen previously?
3 A. Yes. The number of the file, both in the court and in the
4 prosecutor's office, and the names of the persons involved or charged.
5 It is obvious that it's the same case.
6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we now show 1965.
7 Here it is.
8 Q. We can see somewhere around the middle of the screen, the
9 military police administration is Milenko Kordic. Do you agree with me
10 that that is a record of this case?
11 A. I agree.
12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we move on to the
13 next document, 5D 04181.
14 Q. Again, it is a criminal report, this time of the Capljina
15 division; and the date is the 7th of September, 1993. The criminal
16 complaint is being filed against Veselko Kozina.
17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we all have a look
18 at the second page of this document.
19 Q. We see here that the criminal complaint is filed against Veselko
20 Kozina; and in the statement of reasons, we see that the crime involved
21 relates to Article 226 and that is overstepping authority. And we see
22 that in both cases it had to do with taking money away from detainees in
23 Dretelj, with the cooperation of a detainee named Trebinjac.
24 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I highlight the name
25 because we heard the name several times during the Prosecution case, and
1 I think that everyone in this courtroom is familiar with it.
2 Could we now look at document 5D 04182.
3 Q. This is a request to carry out an investigation, and the number
4 is KT 1556/93. The date is the 24th of September, 1993, and this is
5 being filed with the district military court in Mostar.
6 Sir, as we look at this document, can you agree with me that it
7 is one and the same case in terms of the previous document?
8 A. On the basis of the name of the person against whom the
9 investigation is required, we see that it is the same case and it has
10 reached the second stage; namely, this is a request for investigation.
11 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we now see 2010.
12 We see it now, the name. Can we scroll down a little because we need to
13 see that the filing party is the same. So we need to see who it was
14 filed by, the military police of Capljina.
15 Q. And when we look lower down, we see the name of the accused. Do
16 we agree that this is the record of the case at the prosecutor's office?
17 A. We see from the name of the person filing the report and the name
18 of the accused that it's the same case, and from the personal details.
19 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now move to
20 5D 04183.
21 Q. It's a document of the higher public prosecutor's office in
22 Mostar -- in fact, a document of the district military prosecutor's
23 office sent to the higher public prosecutor's office. Number is
24 KT 2789/93, and the date is 9 December 1993
25 which it was received, KT 57/93, received on the same day.
1 Let us clarify this. The higher public prosecutor's office is a
2 civilian prosecution office?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. The suspect -- in fact, the accused is Bozidar Skobic and the
5 crime is robbery. And in paragraph 2, we see the reason why this case is
6 deferred; namely, that the accused is relieved of compulsory military
7 duty in view of his sickness. Can you confirm that in this case the
8 civilian court is competent?
9 A. From the statement of reasons, we see that this person is
10 relieved of military duty, which means demobilised, and turned into a
11 civilian. So the military prosecutor's office and the district military
12 court are no longer in charge; it is the civilian courts and civilian
13 prosecutors who are in charge.
14 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at page 3
15 both in English and this Croatian.
16 Q. In the description of the offence, we see the name of one more
17 person. Do you agree it is a Bosniak person who is the injured party?
18 A. With a high degree of probability.
19 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at
20 image 1223. It is, again, the register of the district military
21 prosecutor's office, report filed by the military police, and the name of
22 the person is Bozidar Skobic.
23 Q. Can you identify this as the same case?
24 A. Obviously, yes. We can see that from the name of the person and
25 his personal details.
1 Q. We'll now deal with the last example regarding the register.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me.
3 Mr. Buntic, you have said that one of the persons mentioned on
4 page 3 of this document was of Muslim ethnicity, or religion, rather,
5 actually. Could you identify which name you meant?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said with a high degree of
7 probability. It's impossible to be 100 per cent sure. But judging by
8 the name of the person that I saw on the screen --
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Which name? Which name, please?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I no longer see it on the
11 screen. I can't remember.
12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we turn to the
13 previous page, 5D 04183. There are three names. You had the third page
14 a moment ago.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think the name was Sadi.
16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation].
17 Q. Is that the name in line 4?
18 A. Yes. I think what is written here as "Saji" is wrong; it's
19 probably "Sadi." I think Saji could be wrong possibly. But in both
20 cases, whichever it is, Saji, Sadi, I said with a high degree of
21 probability it's a Bosniak. It's not advisable to state something with a
22 hundred per cent certainty.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Would that also be deduced from the family name?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, not the family name.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Saji could be also Saja. The
2 family name does not sound Bosniak, but the first name could be.
3 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at
4 P 07846.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we proceed, let me tell
6 you that you've already used 30 additional minutes on top of the 45
7 minutes initially granted.
8 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 I'm aware of that. But I believe this is important, and I don't mind if
10 it is deducted from my time later. I think we are actually saving time
11 by dealing with this.
12 Let's move on to the next document regarding registers, P 07846.
13 We have it on the screen.
14 Q. It's a criminal report of the 1st Military Police Battalion,
15 crime prevention military police, sent to the military state prosecutor
16 in Mostar concerning a person named Zeljko Silic.
17 What is of interest to me in this document is on page 2. We have
18 the legal qualification of criminal acts charged at this person: The
19 crime of causing public danger. We see that the accused had entered the
20 apartment of the injured party, Tidza Hadrovic, and set certain items on
22 Do you agree that this is again a Bosniak injured party?
23 A. Again, I would have to state that it is so with a high degree of
24 probability, judging by both the first and last names.
25 Q. The second crime is racial and other discrimination. We see that
1 it is governed by Article 154 in the penal code of the former Socialist
2 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We see the name of the street, that the
3 used mistreated occupants of the residential building in that street,
4 driven them out from their apartments, addressed slurs to them, insulted
5 them, and threatened. When you spoke about this article of the penal
6 code of the SFRY, did you mean this crime as well?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. The third crime is security breach pursuant to Article 55 of the
9 law of -- of the penal code of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The same accused
10 threatening the life and limb of a Muslim citizen caused great and
11 serious unrest among the citizens. And the fourth crime is the violation
12 of the integrity of an apartment, Article 56, the name of the street is
13 the same, everything happened in the same street. The person -- the
14 accused kicked in doors and entered apartments.
15 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] And regarding this
16 document, can we look at image 1264.
17 Q. It's the same register. We see the name of the person. Report
18 filed by the 1st Military Police Battalion.
19 Can we agree that this is the record of this file?
20 A. Yes, I can confirm that.
21 Q. I'd like to ask you two or three questions in conclusion.
22 Sir, on the basis of the registers and the documents we've seen,
23 it is evident that the crimes, although committed during the war and
24 although they may have been qualified as crimes against humanity and a
25 war crime, were actually qualified as regular crimes, rape, robbery,
1 et cetera. Do you know the reason for that?
2 A. From the documents we've seen, each one of them specifies the
3 crime for which proceedings are instituted. It is clearly specified in
4 each case. Why proceedings were not instituted for war crimes, well
5 that's mostly up to the prosecutor because it is the prosecutor who
6 assigns a legal qualification to each offence. We see that in most cases
7 the criminal report was filed by the military police, describing the
8 reasons why the report is filed, and it is up to the prosecutor to
9 qualify the crime. It is within his powers.
10 In my opinion of the examples we've seen - and I repeat - we
11 should not even go into why the prosecutor chose the particular
12 qualifications that he did. It is his privilege. He has the right to
13 qualify the crime in such a way as to have all the elements necessary for
14 that conversation. I haven't commented and don't want to comment on why
15 the prosecutor selected the particular qualifications.
16 But as we've seen from the documents and as the penal code
17 stipulates, both the federal and the republic penal code, injured parties
18 had various options and legal remedies. In any case, a dissatisfied
19 party could take various legal recourse: Appeal or start their own
20 prosecution. All the legal recourse that existed in peacetime existed
21 also in wartime and in the state of immediate threat of war.
22 So nobody was derived of their legal recourse. Legal recourse
23 existed throughout the state of war and the state of immediate threat of
25 Q. Mr. Buntic, over the past few days, we've discussed this subject
1 and you presented us with a whole series of problems that the prosecution
2 and the judiciary faced in their work. I would like to ask you something
4 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] But, first, we should
5 look at 1D 02006 [Realtime transcript read in error "1D 02016"].
6 Q. I'd like to ask you some more about the judiciary and the
7 prosecution. It's a document that Branko Kvesic, the chief of the
8 department on internal affairs, sends to the Capljina municipal HVO, and
9 the subject is some important --
10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I asked for document
11 1D 02006.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. There was an error in the
14 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] 2006. There it is. It's
15 a report on the engagement of civilian police in carrying out combat
16 tasks and the possibility of troop rotation.
17 I'd like to see page 2 in both English and Croatian, the last
18 paragraph but one, the second sentence.
19 Q. "It is common knowledge that in our area, the state of public law
20 and order and the incidence of crime is very complex indeed," and then
21 various crimes are enumerated, and it says it all false within the
22 jurisdiction of the civilian police.
23 We can skip one sentence, and it says: "With this report, we
24 only wish to draw attention to the fact that so many of our policemen are
25 currently engaged on other tasks that we do not have enough strength to
1 undertake any serious work in the sphere of security."
2 And the last sentence says: "All the above observations
3 represent serious difficulties in our work, and we believe that they
4 should be considered more seriously so that solutions be found in the
5 most responsible manner."
6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I'd like to show one more
7 document and then ask my final question. P 05471.
8 Q. It's from the chief of the military police department of the
9 29th September 1993
10 document, and it says: "Request to reconsider the engagement of the
11 military police units on front lines."
12 The first paragraph states that due to the intensive and
13 continuous engagement of military police units on front lines, the
14 military police is unable to perform its regular work. And on page 2,
15 there is a reference to increased incidence of terror and crime, and it
16 is said that after being assigned the front lines, the military police
17 are no longer able to perform even their regular work, let alone more
18 complex interventions.
19 Tell me, sir, were you familiar with this problem of the military
20 and civilian police forces, that they were engaged on front lines and
21 that that prevented them from their regular law enforcement work?
22 A. I know that this was sometimes discussed even at the sessions of
23 the Croatian Defence Council. This burden and workload brought on by the
24 war in terms of assigning military and civilian policemen to the front
25 line caused fatigue, exhaustion. They were engaged first in the war with
1 the Yugoslav People's Army and, later, with the Bosniak Muslim side. All
2 this required the engagement of policemen on the battle-field, and it was
3 often discussed how justified it was. And how possible it was to spare
4 them from this, I don't know.
5 So I don't think it's a question that I could give you a
6 qualified or precise answer to, apart from saying that I know that the
7 military police, and a little less frequently the civilian police, were
8 assigned, indeed, to certain front lines.
9 Q. And my final question. We have seen all these documents that I
10 showed you, and I showed them to you just by way of illustration because
11 unfortunately we don't have enough time to show each and every case file
12 from the prosecutor's office, either civilian or the military.
13 And when we look at all the problems that you've been discussing
14 over the past few days and in terms of the knowledge you had at the time,
15 can you tell me whether there was an intention that you were aware of,
16 either among the prosecution offices or the judiciary organs, to evade
17 prosecution of crimes committed against ethnic Bosniaks and punishment of
18 such crimes?
19 A. On the basis of what I know, both the civilian and the military
20 police took measures to the best of their ability under the circumstances
21 that they were in then, in order to discover who the perpetrators of
22 crimes were and to file criminal complaints against them. We saw on the
23 basis of these illustrations presented in court today that efforts were
24 made to that end, and that ethnic Croats were charged for committing
25 crimes against Bosniak or Muslim persons.
1 It is, obvious on the basis of the examples shown. Also, in the
2 proceedings before the prosecutor's offices and the courts of the HZ HB,
3 it is obvious that there were proceedings of this kind with different
4 outcomes. There were different outcomes, and there were decisions taken
5 by courts.
6 I do not wish to make any comments here in that respect because
7 there is legal relief or legal recourse on the basis of the law, and no
8 one was denied this kind of relief during the state of imminent threat of
9 war or during the state of war. That is to say, there were no
10 restrictions involved in terms of restricting human rights and the
11 instruments safe-guarding these rights; rather, all the instruments for
12 protecting human rights that existed in peacetime existed during the
13 state of war as well.
14 I'm not aware of any one of the prosecutors or judges being
15 negligent in their duties or carrying them out unconscientiously or
16 irresponsibly to the detriment of one of the peoples in
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina. On the basis of the cases we saw today, we saw that
18 as prosecutors and as judges in these proceedings, prosecutors and judges
19 who were ethnic Croats and ethnic Bosniaks participated. This is
20 tellingly demonstrated in the cases we saw today.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Buntic.
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
23 This concludes my questions.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a follow-up question,
25 Witness, with respect to this last document, 5D 25006 [as interpreted],
1 from the 2nd of September, 1993. It gives us an overview of the
2 situation. And according to this document, the 1st Company of the
3 military police is made up of 120 men. Apparently, 60 of these men are
4 taking part in combat operations. There appear to be 120 soldiers on the
5 ground. Out of these 120 soldiers, some of them must be on leave, sick,
6 or others may be sleeping. In other words, there are very view military
7 police members on the ground, very few of them.
8 In this document, we have no information about the number of
9 civilian police members, but we find that they are in combat zone
10 operations as well. Considering the crime rate that was rising - and
11 this has been demonstrated by all the documents shown by the Defence - we
12 saw that crimes were committed in some cases by service men. As far as
13 you were concerned as part of your duties at your level, was this problem
14 considered, was it mentioned, and were measures taken; or was it
15 impossible to take any measures considering the circumstances,
16 considering the situation at the time?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the previous answer, perhaps I
18 did not say clearly enough that I did know that units of the military
19 police were used at war positions to a higher degree. I also know that
20 civilian police units were used at the front line to a lesser degree;
21 that is to say, that this was not something that was unknown. This was
22 frequently the case as far as the military police is concerned; and as I
23 already said, this question was discussed at HVO meetings several times
24 and requests were being made to use them as little as possible.
25 However, in view of the situation on the front line, or rather,
1 during the war, it was such, and I imagine that the Court here did hear
2 about the developments at the time. So, if I were to go back to that, I
3 can say that the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina in effect started in September
4 1991; so not in April 1992, but rather on the 19th of September, 1991.
5 So we had a situation in which individual municipalities would
6 oppose perhaps the third- or fourth-largest military force in the world
7 at the time. It is probably clear to the Court that that situation went
8 on sometime until the summer of 1992; that is to say, this period of
9 intensive conflict. Also, there was a lull from the summer of 1992 until
10 the spring of 1993, when the conflict broke out between the Croats and
11 the Bosniaks.
12 Throughout this time - I believe that the Court is aware of that
13 as well - the Croats in Central Bosnia were fully surrounded. There was
14 a war breaking out throughout Herzegovina, if I can put it that way. It
15 is certain that at that moment, it was more important - and I think
16 that's quite understandable to the Court and to the Prosecutor I hope as
17 well - to save human lives. Many people were being killed on a daily
19 As this administrative work was carried out - as I said, they
20 were under the jurisdiction of the civilian and military police - the
21 filing of criminal complaints was considered to be something that was not
22 the primary or the most important objective at hand. The rest was
23 considered to be more urgent and more important. The former could not be
24 postponed; whereas, there was sufficient time for the latter; namely,
25 that criminal complaints could be filed after some time had elapsed.
1 However, if the front line were to fall, then there would be no
2 possibility of filing any kind of criminal charges. So if the first
3 thing had happened then the second could never have happened.
4 Things were done the way they were done. However, as combat
5 intensity went down, as we can see here, the head of the military police,
6 or the head of the interior, submitted requests or proposals to the HVO
7 to have certain units or certain number of men withdrawn from the front
8 line and be given the duty to carry out their other tasks; that is to say
9 to find perpetrators of crimes, file criminal complaints, and collect all
10 possible information so that the prosecutor's offices could issue
11 indictments and investigating judges investigate.
12 At that point in time and now, I state that they carried out
13 their work conscientiously to the degree possible at the time. There was
14 never an intention or objective not to file criminal complaints against
15 Croats, or rather, there were no intentional efforts made to jeopardize
16 the members of the other ethnic group in any way.
17 We see here that charges were being brought against Croats and
18 terms of crimes that were committed against ethnic Bosniaks. There were
19 also examples of investigations carried out after that and indictments
20 issued. We see that prosecutors and judges were Bosniaks as well. I
21 would not comment on judgements. They are judgements after all, and
22 there was relieve for the protection of human rights as regulated by the
23 then-legislation of Bosnia-Herzegovina that was not reduced in any way by
24 the decision made by the HZ HB.
25 Your Honours, I don't know whether I've answered the question,
1 but that was my understanding of it. I don't know whether it was put in
2 this way, too.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We are now going to
4 move on to another Defence team. The Coric Defence has used 95 minutes
5 in total.
6 Next Defence team, Mr. Ibrisimovic.
7 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I
8 won't have too many questions for this witness, and we are going to move
9 within the time that you have granted to us.
10 Actually, I'd like to say hello to Mr. Buntic, and to say that
11 I'm going to deal with the subject that he dealt with Mr. Karnavas
12 yesterday; and Mr. Buntic and I discussed the same subject a few days
13 ago, if you remember, Mr. Buntic.
14 I would just like to use three documents that are already
15 exhibits. So with your leave, I would like to have these documents given
16 to the witness as well as to the Trial Chamber. I would kindly ask the
17 usher to assist me in this regard.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may use the time to put a question to you.
19 You said you've spoken about this with the witness. Did you - as the
20 jargon of the court is - proof him?
21 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, we can put it that way.
22 I informed Mr. Karnavas, Mr. Prlic's Defence, that I wished to see this
23 witness. I thought that was my legitimate right. I think that last
24 Thursday we had a brief meeting, about half an hour long, about some
25 topics that I was interested in. The witness can confirm that, it's no
1 secret, and this will be presented during the Defence case.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. This raises in me the question
3 whether your interrogation will not be direct then, rather than typically
4 cross-examination; would you agree?
5 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, I will agree in part
6 because I am going to move within the framework of Mr. Karnavas's direct
7 examination. I'm not going beyond what happened in this courtroom over
8 the past few days.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may, if I may, Your Honour, because I'm going
10 to be going after the -- after we finish, we're going to be
11 cross-examining. It's my understanding in our system, which is also
12 applied here, that neither party, neither party, is prevented from
13 meeting witnesses of the other party even prior to taking the stand.
14 Nothing prevented me from meeting with Prosecution witnesses. In fact,
15 on one occasion, I met with their expert. Of course, it was with their
16 knowledge. And that didn't mean when I stood up I was doing direct
17 examination. It has to go to the topic.
18 So I would not want to say we have a fast and hard rule that if
19 you meet with somebody else's witness, then that witness becomes your
20 witness, hence you must do direct examination. So I just think that we
21 need to clarify this point, and I would be more than happy to hear from
22 the Prosecution. But in the 25 years that I've been practicing, I've
23 often met with Prosecution witnesses and cross-examined them. It goes to
24 the topic.
25 And I'm sure Mr. Khan will put it more eloquently than I have, as
1 he normally does.
2 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, not at all, but, nevertheless, the
3 gracious remarks received with the sincerity that no doubt they were
5 Your Honour, there's no property, of course, in a witness.
6 That's the starting point in assessing this matter. It's quite often the
7 case that the -- it's quite often the case, as my learned friend
8 Mr. Karnavas stated, that the Prosecution facilitate the Defence in
9 various cases meeting with Prosecution witnesses prior to their
10 testimony. Similarly, there's nothing to stop the Prosecution putting
11 forward a request through Defence counsel to meet Defence witnesses.
12 Of course, the matter for the -- the witness on both sides is
13 whether or not they agree and consent to such an approach. But it
14 cannot -- the simple fact of meeting cannot be said to be definitive as
15 to whether or not questioning that follows is classed as
16 cross-examination or examination-in-chief. Of course, the substance and
17 content of the questioning will determine that.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I thank you very much.
19 MR. STEWART: Your Honours, that's exactly the
20 Petkovic Defence --
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I had already thanked for the answer,
22 Mr. Stewart; I think we've heard it.
23 MR. STEWART: But, Your Honour, all I wished to do was associate
24 the Petkovic Defence expressly with it, and we appreciate the thanks and
25 we will take those, then, as coming to us as well for associating
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, you may do so.
3 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. But sometimes for us it's a bit
5 trying on the patience when several counsel, more or less, practically
6 repeat one after the other the same points, and that's why I said we take
7 the point. Thank you.
8 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, I repeated nothing. When I do repeat
9 things, Your Honour can then rebuke me.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I go to the essential thing, so
11 the essential things are the questions that are going to be asked.
12 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Ibrisimovic:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Buntic, have you received the documents?
15 A. I have them.
16 Q. You know what they are about. First of all, it's the
17 46th Session of the government of 19 July 1993. At that session -
18 document P 03560 - we see you were there, and Mr. Tadic, Darinko Tadic
19 was there.
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. One of the issues at this cabinet session was initiated by this
22 HVO Capljina, item 7.
23 A. Correct, I see it.
24 Q. At that session, this working group was set up that was to visit
25 Capljina: You, Mr. Tadic, and Mr. Pusic?
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. At that session, based on the minutes, Mr. Pusic did not attend?
3 A. I don't think that he was not even supposed to in view of his
5 Q. We can see from the introduction who was there, and his name is
6 not included.
7 A. I can see that the attendees do not include Mr. Pusic.
8 Q. We also saw P 03565, the conclusions of the government about what
9 this working group was to do and where it was to go. They were supposed
10 to travel to Capljina?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now I believe this trip - this may be a leading question - was on
13 the same day, 19 July, because we see that the section session was on the
14 20th July, the morning; can you remember?
15 A. That's correct. After this conclusion was adopted, Mr. Tadic,
16 Mr. Pusic, and I visited Capljina municipality.
17 Q. I'd like to know when you reached Capljina, who did you meet?
18 Who did you talk to?
19 A. On that day, we went to Capljina at the request of Capljina
20 municipality that was addressed to the HVO. This group formed at this
21 government session, immediately visited Capljina municipality, and we
22 found there the deputy, I believe, of the president of Capljina
23 municipality, Mr. Kordic. And he met us with the members of his office,
24 and they familiarized us with the difficulties they were experiencing in
25 making arrangements and providing accommodation for the large number of
1 persons that found themselves in Capljina municipality, I believe from
2 Gabela and Dretelj, and the very hard conditions there. They asked for
4 So, in the municipality building, we talked to the chief of
5 Capljina municipality, Mr. Kordic, and his deputies and assistants. I
6 believe there were three or four deputies, each in charge of a specific
7 area. So they told us about the difficulties they had in these two
8 locations with accommodating the large number of persons in those
9 locations. We spent an hour or perhaps two with them, and the very next
10 day we submitted a report to the government which I suppose you can see
11 from the minutes of the next session held the next day. And we suggested
12 certain measures for that purpose; namely, that an urgent intervention is
13 required because as the situation in Capljina was described to us, it was
14 indeed very difficult.
15 Q. P 03573 is the 47th Session of the 20th July?
16 A. Yes. I see that you attached this document as well. It was
17 held, therefore, the next day, and we see that the very next day we
18 submitted a report. I can even read this part.
19 Q. No need. Let me just ask you: You attended that session, but I
20 don't see Mr. Pusic's name at the 47th Session?
21 A. From the minutes, it seems to Mr. Pusic was not there, and I
22 cannot recall him there. I believe he wasn't there; otherwise, he would
23 have been recorded as present.
24 Q. Now we came to the point you made a moment ago. This report, the
25 way you told it I understood that the source for your report was the
1 briefing you had in Capljina from Mr. Kordic and his people?
2 A. Correct. We did not go to Gabela or Dretelj ourselves because I
3 refused to go to Gabela and Dretelj. I did not believe myself competent
4 to go there because, as we saw from the evidence presented yesterday,
5 Dretelj was established as a municipal prison by virtue of a decision of
6 the municipal council of Capljina municipality.
7 And in keeping with the law on the enforcement of sentences, I as
8 a representative of the department for justice and general
9 administration, I had no powers or qualifications to enter such a
10 facility. And at the end of the day, even if we said that I did have
11 some authority, I did not have any powers in that sense. All that we
12 learned, therefore, was from Mr. Kordic and his assistants.
13 Q. This trip that you made together, was it your first contact with
14 Mr. Pusic?
15 A. Let me think for a moment. It's possible. It seems to me that I
16 met Mr. Pusic perhaps six months prior. That was the first time we met
17 when we discussed some technical issues like telephone lines and
18 premises, and this was the second time. I don't think there were any
19 more meetings between us in this period.
20 Q. Thank you, Mr. Buntic. I have no further questions.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Buntic, I confess, I'm not quite satisfied
22 with the explanations you have given for not looking at the
23 accommodations, but maybe there is a linguistic problem.
24 I read the task assigned to your group at the HVO meeting, the
25 decision, to visit Capljina municipality and assess the condition of
2 Now, this was a task assigned to this group, and I find it
3 difficult to accept an explanation which says "I was not competent to go
4 and look at the accommodations." Was this not a basis that would have
5 given you the task of looking at the accommodations in Dretelj and
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From the letter sent by Capljina
8 municipality, as I said earlier, the HVO made its decision based on the
9 letter from Capljina municipality. The conclusion, as you see, of the
10 HVO is adopted in relation to that letter from Capljina municipality. It
11 is true that from the conclusion adopted by the government, it could
12 arguably be understood what you understood. But I insist still that by
13 going to a prison set up by the municipal council of Capljina with its
14 own decision - and we saw that decision yesterday - the prison was set up
15 as a municipal prison of Capljina municipality. By entering that prison,
16 I would have perhaps led people to believe that I was in charge of what
17 was going on in there, and I wasn't in charge and none of the three of us
18 wanted to assume such responsibility. So we had no legal grounds, and I
19 didn't want to take any action that could be understood that way.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, far from me, the
22 thought of making it difficult for you, but I have in front of me
23 documents; and as a Judge, I am duty-bound to ask certain questions. So
24 there was a meeting on the 19th of July, 1993, at 10.00 in Mostar.
25 Mr. Prlic presided over the meeting, and there are several participants
1 including you. The agenda has several items, and the meeting will, of
2 course, is to discuss these various items on the agenda. We can see the
3 conclusions of the meeting. And in these conclusions under item 1 of the
4 conclusions, page 4 in English, straight away it is mentioned -- the
5 Geneva Conventions related to the treatment of prisoners of war are
6 mentioned and that they call for a scrutiny of the detention conditions,
7 which appear to be not satisfactory.
8 Then the head of the department of justice, you are the one in
9 charge, in coordination with the defence department and the department of
10 the interior is supposed to inspect the new site and possibly envision
11 transferring prisoners of war. A working group is set up. It's decided
12 there, with you, Mr. Darinko Tadic and Mr. Pusic. And it is said in
13 writing that you have to visit the Capljina municipality, and you have to
14 inspect the detention conditions in proposed measures; in other words, at
15 the 46th Session of the HVO of HZ HB, this problem was mentioned in
17 Furthermore, it is also indicated under item 7 of the document
18 that the minister for foreign affairs of the Republic of Croatia
19 have to be informed of all the problems, and that contacts will have to
20 be established with the UNHCR. That means that the meeting looked into
21 the issue of the prisoners of war.
22 Earlier, you told us that you thought that Gabela and Dretelj
23 were not within your field of competence. Would Gabela and Dretelj be
24 within the remit of the Capljina municipality?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
2 As far as you know, in Gabela and Dretelj, were there prisoners
3 of war?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I know what was said
5 that day when we visited Capljina municipality at a meeting attended by
6 the head of the municipality and his various deputies who acquainted us
7 with the difficulties they had. That also was contained in the letter
8 they had sent to the authorities of the Croatian Community of
9 Herceg-Bosna. They spoke about the overwhelming number of people. They
10 sought assistance in food and in kind to be able to provide adequate
11 conditions for the people held in those facilities.
12 You correctly read the conclusions of the government and the
13 reasons why the group was set up.
14 Also, the same day this conclusion was adopted, we went to
15 Capljina and completed all of our mission, except for the part which says
16 to inspect in order to identify the conditions. But I have already
17 stated my reasons for not going into those facilities, and I would do the
18 same today. But we did collect all information from the head of
19 municipality and the heads of his various services. We informed the
20 government the very next day and proposed that immediate measures be
21 taken so that at least half of the people in those facilities be
22 transferred [as interpreted].
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. If I understand
24 properly, you answered part of my question. So based on the information
25 you received on the spot, you thought it was not necessarily to go and
1 visit the facilities because there were problems; therefore, you informed
2 the government of the problems. Is that how to be understood? Is that
3 the way we have to understand why you did not go to see with -- for
4 yourself what you were told of the situation?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, that's one of the
6 explanations. Because from the head of the municipality and his various
7 deputies, we were able to get all the relevant information. That's one
8 of the reasons, and the other reason I've stated already. The second is
9 that I did not believe myself competent to enter those facilities.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry. Still on these conclusions, the second
11 paragraph on page 4 in the English translation says that: "If the
12 accommodation conditions are not satisfactory," which was actually your
13 conclusion, yourself, in coordination with the Ministry of the Interior
14 and the defence department, "shall designate new sites and transfer
15 prisoners of war."
16 Now, the first question is: Did you do anything of that kind?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You will see at this session that
18 was held on the very next day that -- well, the document is P 3573, the
19 last document.
20 Under A, Jadranko Prlic is for the municipality of Siroki Brijeg
21 B, Kresimir Zubak for the municipality of Grude and Posusje; C, Zoran
22 Buntic for the municipality of Citluk; and, D, Martin Raguz for the
23 municipality of Ljubuski.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, Your Honour --
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Just a point of clarification. On page 70,
3 line 24, the gentleman indicated, according to Ms. Tomanovic, that the
4 people in those facilities be let go, not transferred, as was translated.
5 We're about to lose it right now.
6 It's page 70, line 24, and perhaps we can pose the question again
7 to Mr. Buntic because there is a major difference between half the people
8 being let go versus them being transferred someplace else, which may have
9 given rise to your question.
10 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, by your leave, in
11 relation to what my colleague Mr. Karnavas said, when I rose a few
12 moments ago before Judge Trechsel put his question, I wanted to say
13 precisely the very same thing in relation to the interpretation on
14 line 24, page 70. So Mr. Karnavas's objection is fully correct.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Well, I do not take it as an objection in the
16 sense that I have quoted from the paper of course, but that doesn't mean
17 that I was right because I cannot verify the translation of course.
18 I think you have been now referring to what is stated on page 70,
19 line 24?
20 MR. KARNAVAS: That's correct. It was just a matter of correct
21 translation, Your Honour, because the gentleman has indicated that he was
22 suggesting that they let go; half of them he let go, not transferred.
23 And, of course, it does make a -- it's a big distinction, at least in my
24 mind. But we can pose the question to the gentleman, and he can answer
25 or he can verify.
1 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, my suggestion would be to allow the
2 witness to give his answer again and that we just take whatever
3 interpretation that comes from the booth, recognising that there can be
4 disagreements. But I think the witness should say it again so that we
5 can get it right.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Indeed.
7 Witness, can you please repeat your answer.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said that the proposal of the
9 group, this working group, was that due to the fact that there were too
10 many people at these localities, one half be released straight away, half
11 of these people, because there weren't proper conditions for keeping that
12 many people in that number of square metres; and that the other half be
13 moved to other localities, the remaining half, that is.
14 On the next day, the HVO gave this duty to other persons, as I
15 already mentioned a few moments ago, to have possibilities found in these
16 other localities or municipalities for accommodating the remaining half.
17 Your Honours, of course, I could not follow what the transcript
18 was recording, but I said what I said.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Of course, that's all fine.
20 The question, then, would be: Did you achieve anything in
21 Citluk? Did you make efforts to find accommodations in Citluk which was
22 assigned to you, as you have very correctly pointed out?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I made an effort, and
24 I believe that all the other persons in charge made an effort, to find
25 certain accommodation facilities in that sense that would be appropriate
1 for the stay of these persons and conditions that would be in line with
2 the conditions prescribed by the Geneva Conventions. However, none of
3 the heads of the municipalities did not express a willingness to help the
4 municipality of Capljina in that sense and to take a certain number of
5 people in.
6 It is correct, yes, I had these conversations and I believe that
7 the others also talked to the representatives of other municipalities.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: So you have perhaps already answered my last
9 question which went to the role of the municipalities. Do I understand
10 you correctly that you were saying implicitly that it was for the
11 municipalities to agree or not to agree to offer a facility to
12 accommodate prisoners, detained persons; and if a municipality would say,
13 "We're not interested," that was it and the government had no possibility
14 of acting?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the areas of municipalities, the
16 government, or rather, the HVO did not have any property that they owned.
17 So if there was any property, it was owned by the municipalities. We
18 have already said that in the territory of the other municipalities,
19 apart from Mostar and Capljina, there was not a single facility that had
20 earlier been owned by the SFRY or the Yugoslav Army so that the
21 government or the HVO could have it at its disposal afterwards.
22 The only facility of this nature -- or rather, the only
23 facilities of such nature existed in Mostar barracks, two or three; and
24 in Capljina where there were two barracks, one in Gabela and the other
25 one was Dretelj. Well, you know, sometimes, sometimes, my mind seems to
1 be blocked. So this was in the territory of Capljina
2 and they had previously been owned by the JNA. In the territory of the
3 other municipalities, there was no such facility under that kind of a
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. I have also personal experience of
6 blocking of the mind now and then.
7 A last question: Did the government have no possibility at all
8 to expropriate property when it was needed for purposes of the whole of
9 the HVO?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We discussed that issue as well,
11 but probably had we done that we would have been prosecuted even more
12 fiercely by the prosecutor.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are going to have a
14 20-minute break.
15 --- Recess taken at 12.40 p.m.
16 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are back in session. I
18 don't know who's the next counsel.
19 Ms. Nozica.
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good
21 afternoon to all in the courtroom.
22 Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:
23 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Buntic.
24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor is showing that
25 little binder of mine for this cross-examination. I asked the court
1 deputy for it to be distributed to the Judges as soon as possible;
2 however, I promise that I will finish with these documents within the
3 time allotted to me. I will just explain that this document contain --
4 these binders contain documents that we will deal with today.
5 There's also a big report that did not fit into the binder and
6 another thing that will be useful to the Trial Chamber and to everyone in
7 the courtroom is the Law on Criminal Procedure as a separate document,
8 and I will be putting some questions to the witness about that.
9 This Law on Criminal Procedure will be used by Ms. Alaburic after
10 me. And I just wish to say that at the end of these subjects that are
11 dealt with in the binder, at the very end I'm going to put some questions
12 to the witness about some provisions of the Law on Criminal Procedure
13 that were referred to today in terms of the rights of injured parties, so
14 that we could see that, indeed, the Law on Criminal Procedure does say
15 all the things that the witness has told us; that is to say, the law that
16 was then applied at the HZ HB. That is what I wish to say by way of
18 Q. Mr. Buntic, Witness, on the first day of your testimony, you
19 spoke about the situation in the area where you lived in 1991. You
20 talked about the organization of the people to defend themselves from the
21 aggression started by the JNA against Bosnia-Herzegovina and that part of
22 the territory where you lived. You said that you did not have any
23 weapons. You said -- you, rather, spoke about the Territorial Defence,
24 and you said the JNA had taken away the weaponry of the Territorial
25 Defence. And you mentioned that as for your first weapons for organizing
1 the defence, that is to say, Croats and Muslims together in this area,
2 you received these weapons from the Ministry of the Interior of the
3 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. To be more specific, you mentioned
4 Mr. Bruno Stojic and Mr. Alija Delimustafic.
5 For the record, can we first say specifically what position was
6 held at that time, to the best of your recollection, in the Ministry of
7 the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina by Mr. Stojic?
8 A. As far as I can remember, Mr. Alija Delimustafic was minister of
9 defence and his deputy was Mr. Bruno Stojic. What is stated is correct.
10 I can only confirm that I said on the first day; namely, that
11 from the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
12 we received 400 semiautomatic rifles that were new and unpacked.
13 However, I remember that I did not say on the first day that later on,
14 upon instructions of the same two persons, Delimustafic and Stojic, that
15 is, we gave some of these weapons to the Bosniaks, the Muslims, for their
16 needs, specifically for the area of Podvelezje. I think it involved 100
17 rifles. Perhaps ten or 15 days after we received them we handed them
18 over. I cannot remember the name, but I know that this person introduced
19 himself as the commander of the Crisis Staff for the area of Podvelezje.
20 That is to the north-east of Mostar on the border between the
21 municipalities of Mostar and Nevesinje.
22 Q. I have to make short pauses between your answers and my
23 questions. But, first of all, I would like us to correct two
24 imprecisions that you provided in your answer, and they're recorded on
25 page 77, lines 2, 3, and 4 -- or rather, 5 and 6.
1 You said that Alija Delimustafic was minister of defence. That's
2 a mistake. It's a slip of the tongue, isn't it?
3 A. Purely a slip of the tongue.
4 Q. Tell us, please, for the record, he was minister of what? I
5 don't want to speak in your name.
6 A. From the entire remainder of the text that I uttered, and on the
7 basis of everything I said by way of testimony until now, it is obvious
8 that, to the best of my recollection, Mr. Alija Delimustafic was minister
9 of the interior and his deputy was Mr. Bruno Stojic. Probably fatigue is
10 taking its toll so I do apologise.
11 Q. I'm going to put a leading question to you, but I have the right
12 to do that. If I tell you that Bruno Stojic was assistant minister for
13 material technical affairs, rather than deputy minister, would you agree
14 with me? This is also stated in the indictment. This is nothing new.
15 A. Possibly. As I've already said, to the best of my recollection,
16 but I do allow for that possibility.
17 Q. Thank you. Very briefly, we are going to go through some
18 documents that confirm what you said -- rather, it is the first document
19 in that black binder of mine, 2D 0033. And these are goods that were
20 brought in and taken out.
21 Would you briefly have a look at this, and I'm just going to
22 refer to what is important. The date can be seen, the 20th of August,
23 1991. The first document you can see that it is incoming/outgoing of the
24 republican secretariat of the interior. The number of this outgoing
25 document states that this has to do with Hecklers, 15.000 of them.
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I have been instructed that it is
2 15 Hecklers, actually, and that these zeros are something that has to do
3 with bookkeeping.
4 Q. So it is not 15.000, but it is 15 Hecklers. However, we are
5 going to call a witness who dealt with these matters from a technical
6 point of view, so he can explain.
7 A. I think that it is obvious on the basis of the second item,
8 because it would involve 400.000, but it was actually 400 semiautomatic
9 rifles. So as you said it was probably 15 Hecklers and 400 semiautomatic
10 rifles, as I've already said. So as regards both items, these three
11 zeros are something that is a technical matter.
12 Q. I would like to emphasize one more detail; namely, it's sent to
13 the centre of security services Mostar. It was an organizational unit of
14 the Ministry of the Interior in Mostar; correct?
15 A. Yes, that's correct. We requested these rifles to arm the
16 reserve force of the police. There was no other way to gets hold of
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me. I'm not an arms dealer. I do not
19 know what Heckler & Koch actually is. I suppose it's a pistol, but I may
20 be wrong.
21 Are they pistols, revolvers, the 9-millimetre weapon? Heckler &
22 Koch 9-millimetre is the first item here. Is it a pistol, a handgun?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This second abbreviation, "PAP,"
24 means semiautomatic rifle, so exactly what I said. Heckler & Koch is a
25 sawn-off automatic rifle. It's not a revolver, it's not a pistol.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Judge Trechsel. I was
3 just about to ask the same question, but I was almost certain that all of
4 us in the courtroom know that, because during the war, I, too, was in
6 Q. Would you look at the following document, please. The following
7 document is an instruction or order for P 400. It's very precisely
8 stated, 15 automatic rifles HK. And can you confirm that this is the
9 signature of Bruno Stojic?
10 A. I believe it is Mr. Stojic's signature, and all the information
11 that we received tells us with a great degree of certainty that this is
13 Q. We have one more document after that, and it's a new outgoing
14 record, another 15 Hecklers; and the fourth document also sent to the
15 security services centre Mostar. The following document speaks of 200
16 semiautomatic rifles; rounds, 31.500 rounds; four semiautomatic rifles;
17 20 Scorpion pistols; and 2.000 rounds 7.65-millimetres also sent to the
18 security services centre Mostar.
19 And the last document, 23rd September 1991, 20 semiautomatic
20 rifles and 4.000 rounds.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, the Chamber's Legal
22 Officer is telling me that, yes, you are showing us some documents, but
23 you need to give us the reference numbers. I suppose you're going to ask
24 for document 2D 00033 to be tendered into evidence. But as for the
25 individual documents, you need to give us their reference numbers.
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this document on these
2 four pages has been exhibited under the same number, 2D 0033 [as
3 interpreted]. If you need page numbers, I see that apparently not. The
4 Legal Officer seems to shake her head.
5 Q. Mr. Buntic, can you confirm that in this period when both the
6 Bosniak and Croat ethnic communities in the area where you lived in
8 the very outset, you were assisted specifically by Mr. Stojic, who was
9 then-assistant minister in the Government of the Republic of Bosnia
11 A. Correct. These documents attached here confirm all that I said
12 on the first day of my evidence, and this seems to be material proof of
13 what I said. I had only forgotten to mention that we also got ammunition
14 together with these rifles. Perhaps I omitted it as a minor detail, but
15 we did receive ammunition, 7.65. And I also know that out of all these
16 weapons mentioned here, including the Scorpion pistol, five of these were
17 sent also to Citluk municipality.
18 Q. So, according to your testimony, all this was done in cooperation
19 with the minister of the interior, Mr. Alija Delimustafic, who was a
20 Bosniak; and all this was distributed and given to both Croats and
21 Bosniaks; that is, to units including Bosniaks?
22 A. Yes. It was all done in cooperation with the Ministry of the
23 Interior of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I mentioned what was
24 done in Citluk, but it's obvious that from the documents that part of
25 what Mr. Delimustafic and what Mr. Stojic agreed to and sent to the
1 centre for security services was sent both to Citluk and to Mostar. It
2 transpires from the document that the other 200 rifles probably ended up
3 in Mostar, I suppose, for the requirements of the reserve force of the
5 Q. You also mentioned Podvelezje. As far as that is concerned, you
6 know for certain that one part of the weaponry was distributed in
8 A. Yes, I know that for a fact.
9 Q. We will now broach a subject that was skimmed through in direct
10 examination, and that is the establishment of the central military prison
11 in Heliodrom, your participation and your knowledge about it.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I put the documents in sequence as
13 how I shall call them, and I hope there will be no problems with that.
14 The first document is P 2 -- P 00292. I see it.
15 Q. Mr. Buntic, have you found the documents?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. This is a decree by Mr. Mate Boban, and I'll remind you in para 2
18 it governs the treatment of persons taken prisoner during armed conflict
19 in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. The decree was adopted on the
20 3rd of July, 1992, and para 2 says: "The Head of the Justice and
21 Administration Department..."
22 That is you; you occupied the position at the time?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So: "The Head of the Justice and Administration Department, in
25 cooperation with the Head of the Defence Department and the Head of the
1 Department of the Interior, shall designate the locations where prisoners
2 shall be kept, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned
3 Convention," meaning the Geneva Convention.
4 And in Article 3, we read: "The Defence Department shall
5 administrate the facilities stipulated in Article 2 of this decree."
6 So it follows from this decree that when following the procedure
7 prescribed the location is determined, this location is run by the
8 defence department?
9 A. Yes. But I believe that in asking your question, you confused
10 Article 2 and 3. That is Article 3, in fact.
11 Q. Thank you very much for this correction.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Let us now look at P 00452.
13 Q. This has been shown to you before. This is from 3rd of
14 September, 1992, signed by Mr. Stojic. And in the preamble, he invokes
15 the previous decree. In Article 1, it says: "The central military
16 prison is hereby established in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna at
17 the Mostar-Jesenica location within the compound of the Heliodrom
19 Mr. Mile Pusic is appointed warden; Mile Pusic from Krusevo,
20 Mostar. I would like you to now tell us what you know about this.
21 "At the proposal of the head of department for justice and
22 administration of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, and in relation
23 to the demonstrated need to separate the military prison from the
24 district prison in Mostar, it having been established that the premises
25 mentioned in para 1 of the decision meet all the prescribed requirements,
1 I decided as stated above."
2 In the course of your testimony, you also -- you already started
3 to tell us something about the reasons why this decision was made. I'll
4 just ask you to repeat this and expand, including those things that you
5 did not have time to say.
6 A. Correct. Towards the end of the first day, I did give some of
7 the reasons. A bit more was said on the subject yesterday; and as we can
8 see from the statement of reasons, the statement of reasons confirms all
9 that I said before. So after my conversation with the president of the
10 higher court in Mostar about the state of affairs in the -- and the
11 condition of the district prison in Mostar, the only facility of its kind
12 in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, the president of the court
13 informed me that in the district investigating prison -- investigative
14 prison in Mostar, in addition to convicted persons there are also
15 prisoners of war.
16 Immediately after, as we can see from the statement of reasons in
17 this decision, I addressed a letter to the head of the defence department
18 proposing a separation of prisoners of war from the convicts, so these
19 two categories that were held together at the time in what was then the
20 district investigative prison in Mostar.
21 Immediately after that letter, the activities in this affair were
22 managed by myself and - whether he was deputy of Mr. Stojic or an
23 assistant for civilian affairs - Mr. Slobodan Bozic. Anyway, we
24 established contact, and the only possibility we saw at that time was the
25 Heliodrom barracks in Mostar. Mr. Lovric informed me of that; and as far
1 as I know, work immediately started to adapt one building within the
2 compound of the Heliodrom to adjust it to the requirements that a prison
3 must meet. I'm not sure when the works were finished, but as you know
4 they take time. And I believe that this prison was phased into operation
5 with the proviso that at the initial stage, it held persons who were only
6 subjected to disciplinary measures. After the building was fully
7 adapted, already on the 3rd of December, this decision was passed.
8 I'm saying maybe the body of the decision and the preamble are
9 not entirely consistent. Maybe you can raise the issue of discrepancy.
10 It is true that Mr. Bozic asked me concerning the warden whether I knew
11 Mr. Pusic and whether I would object to appointing Mr. Pusic. I said I,
12 indeed, knew Mr. Pusic, and I do not object. As far as I'm concerned,
13 after this decision was passed, the matter was closed, because before the
14 decision, the separation actually took place. So, after this decision in
15 the district prison of Mostar, there remained only persons who were
16 there pursuant to final court decisions..
17 Q. Let's deal with this more specifically now. At that time when
18 you talked about this separation, who were the prisoners of war, of what
19 ethnicity and from what war and from what conflict, what part of the
20 conflict? And whose prisoners of war were they?
21 A. It mainly had to do with prisoners of war who were members of the
22 Yugoslav People's Army, for the most part.
23 Q. Tell me, were they taken prisoner in the conflict with the JNA
24 that the HVO and the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina took part in
25 together? Can we conclude that these are prisoners that you had taken
1 together, because that was the only location that you had in Mostar where
2 they could be kept?
3 A. That is correct. That is correct. At that time, there was no
4 other facility, no other possibility. It is correct, and now I have to
5 make a correction. At that point in time, in Mostar, there was no Army
6 of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, it is certain that, at the time, all
7 the Muslims of Mostar operated within the HVO, or rather -- well, now,
8 what was its name at the time? Later on, it was called the 5th Corps,
9 but I think -- I beg your pardon, the 4th Corps.
10 And, at that time, it was now -- was it a special independent
11 battalion or company? I think it was called an independent battalion,
12 and it operated within the HVO; but I'm saying this conditionally, these
13 names. As far as my memory serves me, it was an independent battalion or
14 something like that that operated within the HVO.
15 Q. It's better for you to say that than me; although, it was
16 established that it was the 1st Independent Battalion that was
17 established beyond any doubt during the proceedings. However, I just
18 wanted to set the record straight, and I think it is very important.
19 So these prisoners of war, as you say, predominantly members of
20 the JNA, were taken prisoner during the course of this conflict with the
21 JNA in which you and the Bosniaks participated together, regardless of
22 under whose command; is that right?
23 A. That is correct, and, yes, regardless of the name under which
24 they operated.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I have just been cautioned that Mile
1 Pusic was the head. Probably some other name was registered. It says
2 Pusic in the document. I don't know. There was this intervention. I
3 don't know what it pertains to, but at any rate I repeated it.
4 Q. Further on, now we defined who the prisoners of war were. You
5 said that it was necessary and that this was due to the need to separate
6 the military prison in the district prison in Mostar.
7 I'm interested in the following: Who were these prisoners? Were
8 there civilians among them who were under the district prison, or rather,
9 the regular courts and members of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina -- or
10 rather, I beg your pardon, members of the HVO who were under the military
11 judiciary? And was everybody together at the time? Was that separation
12 supposed to be carried out, too?
13 A. That is correct. Everything that -- or rather, everyone that had
14 been detained at that point in time was in that facility, as I already
15 mentioned. I don't know whether it matters and whether it's relevant.
16 The director of this -- or rather, the warden of this prison was
17 appointed by the municipal HVO of Mostar. The person remained in that
18 position for a considerable amount of time afterwards as well.
19 Q. Could you just tell me what warden you're talking about of that
21 A. Ricina Celovina.
22 Q. Let's be specific, Ricina Celovina, because later on we're going
23 to be using it further. So it's that prison, right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. So, in your view, or rather, to the best of your knowledge
1 because you participated, this decision was made in order to have a
2 separation between civilian and military detainees and prisoners because
3 at that time they were all in one location?
4 A. Yes.
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Now I would like to ask you to look
6 at a document. We'll probably move faster, P 00352. The Court is aware
7 of this document. I'm not going to mention the name of this witness. I
8 know that it's a protected witness.
9 Q. But we started talking about when work on the reconstruction of
10 the facility had started. Please look at this document -- or rather,
11 look at page 2 in the Croatian version and in the English version.
12 This is a diary. I will tell you what is written there, the 1st
13 of July, 1992, page 2. The notes pertain to the 1st of July, 1992. Have
14 you found it?
15 A. Yes. Is it the handwritten document that I have?
16 Q. Yes. I'm going to read it out to you. It says here: "The
17 district prison in Mostar, Ricina number 27." That is the prison that we
18 just talked about, right, that was supposed to be disburdened, or rather,
19 a separation was supposed to be carried out, right?
20 A. That's right. I mean, I see from the address that it pertains to
22 Q. It says: "Morning briefing with the warden Pero Nikolic." Was
23 Mr. Pero Nikolic the warden appointed by the municipal council that you
24 referred to?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Very well. Now we are going to look at bullet point 4.
2 "The warden informed those present that before the war, I was in
3 charge, or rather, I was head of Radobolja business units, and he is a
4 construction engineer otherwise, so he will spend most of his time at
5 Heliodrom and oversee construction work to build or adapt a building that
6 will be used as a military afterwards."
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] We're going to look at the next page
8 briefly, where we see a sketch of what is supposed to be the central
9 military prison later on. We're going to look at the page after that
10 too. I'm going to say for the record that I'm talking about ERN number
11 0354-0173 and page 0354-0174.
12 Q. Mr. Buntic, do you remember whether on the 1st of July, as it
13 says here when the adaptation of this building was being discussed, so we
14 are talking about the 1st of July, 1993 [sic], Mr. Stojic was appointed
15 head of the justice [sic] department?
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Microphone not activated]
17 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] The year is 1992, yes. Sorry, slip
18 of the tongue. There is a mistake in the transcript. I said 1992.
19 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The speaker said "1993."
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I see the Judge is intervening.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You also said justice department, which is
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I am going to start all over again.
24 I do apologise. I'll start all over again.
25 Q. Mr. Buntic, do you know whether Mr. Bruno Stojic on the 1st of
1 July, 1992, became head of the defence department of the HVO, or did that
2 happen later?
3 A. On the basis of what I know, it happened after this day.
4 Q. All right. So we can conclude that the work on the
5 reconstruction of this building that would later become the central
6 military prison started before Mr. Bruno Stojic became head of the
7 defence department?
8 A. I think we can say that.
9 Q. Mr. Buntic, do you know at the time when this construction was
10 taking place, did you know at all what the capacity of this area that was
11 supposed to be the central military prison?
12 A. I can only talk about what I discussed at that point in time with
13 other people. However, as far as I know, it had been envisaged, it was
14 being said at that time, that the capacity would be between 500 to a
15 maximum of 800 persons. That is what I had been told. I did not take
16 part in the design of this facility. I'm not aware of any of that, and
17 these sketches are unfamiliar to me. However, what was discussed was
18 that the capacity would involve 500 to 800 persons.
19 Q. As far as you can remember from that period of time, was that
20 actually the approximate number of prisoners of war, the persons who were
21 supposed to be relocated at the time to that prison in Ricina, they were
22 supposed to be relocated?
23 A. Well, I know that not all of them were in Ricina; but according
24 to some of the information that the HVO had at the time, at that point
25 there were about 500 prisoners of war.
1 Q. Very well. Thank you.
2 I would now like to ask you to look at the next document.
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm going to finish
4 with this document, so then I'm going to continue dealing with the topic
5 on Monday because I see the hour.
6 P 00420 is the number of the document.
7 Q. I will explain what this is about because it starts with page 29,
8 this document. This is a Prosecution document on the 65 -- or rather, I
9 beg your pardon. The bulletin of the military police numbers 2 and 3 for
10 July and August, that's what it's called on the Prosecution list, 1992.
11 The date is the 31st of August, 1992.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I will only deal with page 59 in the
13 Croatian and English versions, and I'm going to ask only what I show to
14 the witness to be admitted into evidence. I'm saying this, lest there be
15 any objections in relation to this.
16 Q. On page 59, Mr. Buntic, we see exactly what we have been
17 discussing; that is to say, on the basis of this bulletin dated the 31st
18 of August, 1992, it says: "Military investigative detention facilities
19 were formed out of necessity on premises unsuitable for taking in the
20 necessary number of prisoners of war, or rather, prisoners. Also,
21 arrangements in the prison are such that it's very difficult to ensure a
22 continuous, professional, and high-quality investigative procedure. For
23 that reason, the necessity of establishing a central military prison was
24 unavoidable, and this was done at the barracks in the Mostar Heliodrom.
25 "We believe that it must be made operational as soon as possible
1 so that military and civilian prisons in Mostar would be separated and in
2 order to redress the weaknesses mentioned. In keeping with this, the
3 military police administration and the management team of the Mostar
4 prison are carrying out all necessary preparations for the central
5 military prison to begin functioning. It will be able to take in up to
6 800 prisoners of war or military prisoners."
7 Finally, Mr. Buntic, this document confirms what you said;
8 namely, that the original intention was that the capacity should be up to
9 800 persons at maximum and that the building was being adapted with that
10 in mind; is that right?
11 A. On the basis of this document, what I stated earlier on is shown;
12 namely, that the planned capacity was between 500 and 800 persons.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have to end. It's quarter
14 to 2.00. There's another sitting. I'm sitting also in another case. As
15 you know, we shall re-convene on Monday. You will start at 2.15.
16 Thank you.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.
18 to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of
19 July, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.