1 Tuesday, 26 August 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, will you please
7 call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
10 the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar. On
12 this Tuesday I wish to greet the accused, the lady and gentlemen
13 attorneys and all the people in and around the courtroom assisting us.
14 We are going to continue the examination-in-chief of the witness. Before
15 that I would like to inform you that we can sit on Thursday morning,
16 which will allow the witness to leave in the afternoon. Therefore,
17 Mr. Registrar, the hearing will be held on Thursday morning and not in
18 the afternoon.
19 Another point. Yesterday, there were certain remarks by
20 Mr. Kovacic on document 1D 01410, and the best thing would be for the
21 translation service of the Tribunal to translate this document once
22 again, to give us a new translation. So, Mr. Registrar, will you ask the
23 CLSS to prepare a new translation.
24 As I said yesterday, it is my impression that Mr. Karnavas has
25 another one hour, 15 minutes, and I see that you're all ready and the
1 pulpit is ready for you to take over.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
3 Your Honours. I might have, I might have underestimated the time. I
4 might need a little extra time, of course, taken out of the overall
5 period. I don't think it will be much but we'll move as quickly as we
7 WITNESS: MARTIN RAGUZ [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 Examination by Mr. Karnavas: [Continued]
10 Q. Mr. Raguz, if I can direct your attention to document P 05051
11 [Realtime transcript read in error "P 0501"]. We have seen this document
12 in the past in this courtroom, but I just wish to point out one matter.
13 If we look to III, for instance, we see that based on this joint
14 declaration of September 14, 1993, that Dr. Franjo Tudjman has appointed
15 Dr. Mate Boban --
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. According to the record, you have
17 said document P 0501. Would it not rather be P 05051, because that's on
18 the list.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: I have 5051.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And it says 051. So, thank you.
21 MR. KARNAVAS:
22 Q. This document here, if we look at III, we see that
23 Dr. Franjo Tudjman appointed Dr. Mate Granic, the vice-premier,
24 prime minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia and
25 President Alija Izetbegovic appointed Dr. Haris Silajdzic, who was the
1 minister of foreign affairs, pursuant this joint declaration. I believe
2 that yesterday you had indicated that to some extent you were under the
3 understanding that these two individuals were engaged in matters in BiH;
4 is that correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. If we go to the next document, 1D 01590. 1D 01590. We see this
7 is a protocol from a meeting of the working group for solving
8 humanitarian status and so on. This is from a meeting held in Split
9 September 25, and we see that Mr. Zubak and Mr. Tadic were on one side
10 with Azra Krajsek, Musan Agovic, and Tarik Jasarevic on the other side,
11 and if we look at very briefly on page 2, items 2, 3 and 4, they talk
12 about working groups. They talk about the preparation for organised
13 voluntary return of relocated displaced persons, and they talk about
14 making progress in the negotiations for the return of refugees. Were you
15 aware of this particular protocol at the time?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Thank you. And again Mr. Zubak, you'd indicated, was the
18 president of the headquarters, as I understand it, and also he was the
19 vice-president of HVO HZ HB.
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Go to the next document, 1D 00928. 928, dated 13 October 1993
22 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry, Mr. Karnavas. I would only like to
23 ask one question for clarification. Here in the protocol, just in the
24 second part of it on page 1 we find the following paragraph: "Terms
25 defining the territory of the RBiH are," and then, "Territories under
1 control of HVO," and "Territories under control of the army of BiH." My
2 question is the following -- that I understand this definition. On the
3 other hand, I wonder if there were no persons who came from, were
4 expelled from the territory of the Republika Srpska, and I wonder if
5 those persons or those territories had -- should have been taken into
6 account in the work of the respective organs and organisations, so that
7 is why my question is why the territory under the -- in a way, the
8 competence of the Republika Srpska and the army of theirs were not
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Because they were not part of this
11 agreement, nor were they signatories. The war was at its worst at the
13 JUDGE PRANDLER: Yes, of course I agree with your explanation
14 that it was not under the control of either of HVO, nor of the BiH army.
15 My only question related to the fact that there might have been refugees
16 or displaced persons coming from that respective territory, but anyway,
17 thank you.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.
19 Q. If we go on to the next document, which is 1D 00928. We see that
20 this is a report that is directed to Dr. Jadranko Prlic. It's from the
21 Office of Refugees and Displaced Persons, dated 13 October 1993, and of
22 course if we look at the second paragraph it talks about -- it gives
23 numbers. 4.159 displaced persons in total.
24 If we go into the third paragraph we see that it says: "Namely
25 due to Muslim aggression, a large number of Croats were displaced
1 primarily from Travnik, Novi Travnik, Konjic, and Bugojno, and the result
2 of that is that municipalities in these territories organise the
3 reception of a large number of displaced persons." And then we see other
4 statistics as well. And if we go on to the second page, the second
5 paragraph in that page reads: "A convoy for Vares is being organised
6 which would evacuate 4.000 displaced persons from Kakanj and Zenica," and
7 so on.
8 And my question is, Mr. Raguz, were you aware of this report, and
9 if you were, can you please tell us how these numbers, these statistics,
10 came about? Very briefly.
11 A. Yes, I am familiar with it, but the second paragraph you quoted
12 from, when the reference is to 4.000 displaced persons, and they are just
13 those accommodated in collective centres. There were at the time more
14 than a hundred thousand refugees in the territory under the control of
15 the HVO. Therefore, these indicators were obtained on the basis of
16 reports and requests by people from Vares, Kakanj, and people who
17 represented them. And this situation is something we were familiar with
18 because this exodus of 5.000 Croats from Vares were on the move already
19 for some time. So it was common knowledge at the time.
20 Q. And I take it if it was common knowledge to you, it would have
21 been common knowledge to UNHCR and others in the international community.
22 MR. STRINGER: I object to the leading question, Mr. President.
23 He's asking the witness to make an assumption about what someone else
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, it's not leading. It calls for speculation
1 maybe if we're going to be technical about it.
2 MR. STRINGER: Well, then it's objectionable on both grounds,
3 Mr. President.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. I'll rephrase the question.
5 Q. Do you know whether the international community would have been
6 aware of -- that these people were on the move and, if so, how?
7 A. From the reports of their offices that they had in the area one
8 can see that they were aware of it.
9 Q. All right. Now -- and if we go on to the next document just
10 for -- it's 1D 02373. It's essentially the same document, is it not,
11 only it's addressed to Mr. Zubak? Okay.
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. We move on to the next document, 1D 02183, and we see that this
14 is -- this does not have a -- a date. We see your name at the bottom and
15 it's addressed to Dr. Jadranko Prlic, but perhaps you might be able to
16 assist us. You start by saying: "I wish to advise you that since the
17 joint meeting was held in Medjugorje on 17 October, when at your
18 initiative (at the meeting of the representatives of UNHCR, UNPROFOR,
19 IRC, and EC) the forming of a ... commission for humanitarian aid was
20 initiated ..." and then you end by saying: "Six sessions of the
21 commissions have been held at regular intervals every Tuesday at 1100
22 hours," and then you go on to talk about that the joint commission
23 establish a method of operation.
24 Could you briefly comment on this? What is this all about?
25 A. I was the coordinator of the joint commission, and I was
1 informing Dr. Jadranko Prlic in this way about the method of work of the
2 joint commission which was set up, among others, by his own initiative
3 pursuant to the Makarska protocol and in the presence of the
4 representatives of the leading international humanitarian organisations,
5 the UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross, UNPROFOR, and
6 the European Community.
7 As much as it was possible at the time, the flow of humanitarian
8 aid was improved, and you can see that over 120 convoys passed through
9 the area under the control of the HVO unhindered, and this was one of the
10 most effective instruments about which there are written and oral
11 testimony of representatives of all these international organisations.
12 And if I may add, Your Honours, just two more sentences why it is
13 important to note this. Because this area which the HVO has successfully
14 defended was an area through which most of the people had been saved and
15 through which most of the humanitarian aid was delivered. And we must
16 bear in mind that this was a legitimate defensive structure formed when
17 the socialist system was dissolved and the inability of those
18 institutions to protect the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
19 Each convoy was noted regularly, its destination, its location,
20 the amount of humanitarian aid it was carrying, and there were regular
21 records kept of all this.
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Raguz, and we'll see some of that in due course.
23 If we go on to the next document, 1D 02300, we see that you are
24 addressing Dr. Jadranko Prlic. And if we look at the second page, you
25 talk about -- this is dated 25 November 1993
1 enclosing an official assessment made by the chief of the UNHCR office in
2 Medjugorje, Jerry Hume, about the work of the joint commission.
3 Unfortunately, we don't have -- we don't have the official
4 assessment, so could you -- if you recall, could you please comment on
5 what that official assessment contained?
6 A. I remember it and it must exist in the documents. It is an
7 assessment of the official representative of the UNHCR for the area. He
8 gave a positive assessment, a favourable assessment, and he expressed
9 gratitude and readiness to continue this cooperation, and indeed we
10 established almost daily communication regarding these issues as of then.
11 Q. Thank you. The next document is 1D 02179. 1D 02179. I seem to
12 be hearing some whispering.
13 And we can see that this is from the minutes of 4 November 1993,
14 and on the agenda at the very top, discussion on the current situation in
15 Vares. And of course we note under A that there is a problem with
16 evacuation, reception and accommodation of 10.000, 10.000 refugees has to
17 be evenly distributed among all subjects including the municipal HVOs,
18 Croatian Defence Councils. And of course we don't need to go through the
19 entire document, but it would -- is it safe to assume that given that you
20 participated that in this -- in this particular discussion that you would
21 have been aware of the situation in Vares?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. All right.
24 A. Correct.
25 Q. Now again I ask that question because it has been repeatedly
1 argued by the Prosecution and to some extent by some of those in the
2 international community that the HVO HZ HB, along with others, were
3 engaged in a joint criminal enterprise in part to reverse ethnic cleanse
4 Croat communities in Central Bosnia
6 question fairly and squarely once again.
7 Were you and others such as Mr. Zubak, Dr. Prlic and others, were
8 you involved in reverse ethnic cleansing? Was this -- was this going on?
9 A. I said yesterday and I repeat, that was absolutely not the case,
10 and here before this Honourable Court I reject any such interpretation of
11 the assistance given to these people.
12 I have to say looking at the documents and preparing for today's
13 hearing I saw some reports not only from the UNHCR but also the
14 European Monitors who monitored the situation on the ground, and at this
15 period of time we had a joint meeting at which I was asked why a thousand
16 people who were accommodated in Kiseljak had not been moved towards
18 that we wanted these people to stay as long as possible, and they saw
19 this as political reasons, our wish for them to stay there. And they
20 confirmed that the humanitarian conditions did not exist for them to
21 stay. And now when we were acting along humanitarian lines and assisting
22 those people in the way that they were suggesting, then they -- some
23 people interpret this as reverse ethnic cleansing, or a situation when
24 people go to the Republic of Croatia
25 Croats, Serbs. Then we're accused of wishing to Croatise Istria, for
1 instance, together with the Republic of Croatia
2 bring them back, they say that we want to make Herzegovina more
4 Actually, we were dealing with human suffering and the need to
5 assist them, and that was the sole role of this office, and it was only
6 tasks of that kind that I accepted.
7 Q. All right. Thank you, Mr. Raguz. Now, just to pick up on that
8 to make sure we all understand, the example that you give about Istria
9 that's where Croats from Bosnia and Herzegovina, displaced refugees, were
10 put in Pineta; is that correct?
11 A. Yes, Pineta.
12 Q. If you go to P 07005 just very quickly. We can see even though I
13 believe that this hasn't been translated, but can you verify for us that
14 this tells us that you have been formally appointed as the head of
15 office, correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. [Microphone not activated] the date is for those of us who can't
18 read Croatian?
19 A. I was appointed as head of the Office for Refugees and Displaced
20 Persons of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna in Mostar on the 1st of
21 December, 1993.
22 Q. And if we look on the right-hand side of the -- of this page, we
23 see Darinko Tadic's name. Could you please tell us what is he being
24 appointed to?
25 A. According to this decision, he was appointed representative of
1 the office in the Republic of Croatia
2 Q. Okay. We look at the next document 1D 01432. 1D 01432. We see
3 a letter from Darinko Tadic, and of course you're copied, you're one of
4 the recipients as well as Dr. Jadranko Prlic and the subject is request
5 to register a representative office of the Office for Expelled Persons
6 and Refugees of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
7 reference that on 1 December 1993
8 appoint him as a representative to such an office in the Republic of
10 My question is: Why was it necessary to have a representative of
11 your office in Croatia
12 embassy in Zagreb
13 from Bosnia and Herzegovina whether they were Serb, Croat, Muslim, or
15 A. The reason for this appointment was the large number of refugees
16 in the Republic of Croatia
17 when talking of the documents that the office for refugees attached to
18 the embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina, they frequently had -- were unable
19 to cover the entire refugee population so that a -- a large number of
20 people, refugees, Croats, particularly those in Pineta for whom Croatia
21 renounced this kind of accommodation needed assistance.
22 Q. All right. Thank you. 1D 02170. That's the next document,
23 dated 6 January 1994
24 mentioned, and we see that it's -- that it's addressed to Dr. Prlic and
25 it makes reference -- it should be Granic as opposed to Gravanec, Granic
1 and Silajdzic. And we see that in the third paragraph it talks about a
2 joint commission of humanitarian issues will meet on 7 January 1994
4 know whether this meeting took place and if so what was the purpose of
5 this joint commission meeting?
6 A. [No interpretation]
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. There is no English
8 translation and accordingly no transcript of this answer.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: My Croatian is getting better.
10 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter apologises. The microphone was
11 not switched on.
12 MR. KARNAVAS:
13 Q. Could you -- could you --
14 A. Do I need to repeat?
15 Q. Yes, please.
16 A. I was present at this meeting, and the meeting was held of the
17 commission for humanitarian affairs. The attendees were those indicated,
18 and this is the implementation of the agreement between Tudjman and
19 Izetbegovic that we saw today and of the meeting held between Granic and
20 Silajdzic two days previously in Vienna. And as a result of their
21 agreement, these joint commissions were formed, and I was a member of
22 this commission for humanitarian affairs. And there were also
23 representatives of the embassy of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the
24 Republic of Croatia
25 Q. Thank you. If we go on to the next document, 1D 02182. This is
1 a -- this is dated 31 January 1994
2 Mr. Valentin Coric, who is now the minister of interior. It's from you
3 and it makes reference to the Wagful-Wakifin Fund Mobile Hospital
4 you please, in one sentence or two, tell us what is this all about?
5 A. It concerned a hospital that was transferred or transported in 38
6 or 40 containers. It was the largest transport of that kind. And as you
7 can see, the destination was the eastern part of Mostar.
8 I signed this request or this authorisation allowing it to go
9 there unhindered.
10 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, I'm going to look at three documents
11 in succession because they almost -- they're a packet. Those are the
12 next three documents in your bundle. It's 1D 02024, and then we'll be
13 looking at 1D 02025 and 1D 01855. If we could start with the first
14 document, we see that this is a protocol dated 17 March 1994. Do you see
15 that, sir? In 1D 02024?
16 A. I can.
17 Q. And if we look at the third document that I made reference to,
18 which is -- the document -- I'm sorry. The next document which is
19 1D 02025. This is actually the third document. We see it's the same
20 protocol, only if we look at the back, the very last page, we see that
21 there are some signatures with some dates, and we see yours,
22 9 April 1994
23 A. My name hasn't been signed but it's as if it had been. That's
25 Q. Okay. And you've looked at these two documents, and essentially
1 these two protocols are the same, are they not? One is a draft, the
2 other one being the one that was actually signed?
3 A. Yes, they're basically identical.
4 Q. Okay. If we look now to a document -- to document 1D 01855,
5 which is in between the two periods. This is dated 24 March 1994. This
6 is addressed to sector for security, brigadier Marijan Biskic, and here
7 it says: "Enclosed please find the protocol on the passage of
8 humanitarian convoys for your information pursuant to the conclusion of
9 the commission for coordinating relations with UNPROFOR, the EC and the
10 international organisations of 23 March 1994, it is necessary to obtain
11 the opinion of the Ministry of Defence and the chief of the Main Staff of
12 the HVO ... so that the protocol could be finalised and immediately
14 And my question is: Why would it have been necessary for the
15 Ministry of Defence and the chief of the Main Staff to get involved in
16 this particular protocol?
17 A. If you follow the way the procedure is laid out, well, each new
18 procedure was more and more precise and increasingly broad because that
19 was necessary. As you have said yourself, as you can see, this was
20 forwarded to them since the war was still raging, and there were certain
21 obligations that military commanders had on the basis of the
22 Geneva Conventions or the Geneva
23 with the fact that they should ensure that humanitarian aid could pass
24 through unhindered.
25 Q. All right. And then later on we'll see some other documents
1 concerning the control of what's in the humanitarian -- each humanitarian
2 convoys, but if I could ask, if you could comment, did there come a time
3 when there appeared to be a problem with some of the contents in these
4 convoys? In other words, contents that were supposedly, you know, for
5 humanitarian purposes when in fact they might have been used or capable
6 of being used for other purposes?
7 A. Yes, that's correct. That was a time during which certain
8 reports appeared stating that so-called humanitarian convoys had been
9 abused. So there were twofold possibilities. Either there was an
10 attempt to use so-called humanitarian convoys to transport weapons, or
11 there was intent to transport commercial wares since they were very much
12 needed at the time in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
13 Q. All right. Thank you. If we go on to the next document,
14 1D 01954. We're moving in time, and this is 12 April 1994. This is a
15 protocol from a meeting that was held in Mostar. You've attended it, and
16 this is excerpts, I guess, that were signed by Kreso and Tomic, and of
17 course if we look at the very last paragraph in this -- on the first page
18 it talks about humanitarian organisations are subject to the customs
19 procedure for all types of goods and that such goods are entirely at the
20 free disposal of humanitarian organisations.
21 In any event, without going into detail, what was this meeting
22 about, if you could tell us, and what was happening at or around this
23 particular time?
24 A. This was a meeting of expert groups led by Dr. Sead Kreso on
25 behalf of the government and under the control of the ABiH. That was the
1 government of the republic. And also under Neven Tomic, Mr. Neven Tomic
2 on behalf of Herceg-Bosna.
3 So here you can see that there was cooperation when it came to
4 implementing previously signed agreements, and practical steps were taken
5 in order to solve humanitarian and other issues. Bodies of the HVO and
6 of the HZ HB were always prepared to reach such agreements.
7 Q. All right. And it talks about -- on the very first paragraph
8 under number 1, it says: "...in accordance with the adopted federal
9 constitution." Is this pre- or post-Washington Agreement that brought
10 the birth of the federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
11 A. I think that is later on. I can't exactly see the date. Yes,
13 Q. And if we look at the next document, 1D 01858, which is connected
14 to the one that we just covered, here we see your name, head of office at
15 the bottom. It makes reference to the protocol from the meeting held on
16 12 April 1994
17 as well. And then we see that there are following conclusions that were
18 adopted where various commissions -- where there's a commission -- a
19 joint commission is established harmonising legal regulations, commence
20 work on the programme, and so on and so forth.
21 And could you tell us a little bit about this? Was this
22 consistent with parts of the obligations for implementing the
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, would you be so kind as to repeat
25 the number of the document because it's not been recorded.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, 1D 01858.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: 1858. Thank you very much.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: 1858.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. This was an extremely
5 important meeting. Its purpose was to implement the
6 Washington Agreement, and as you can see, I and the minister
7 Mr. Arif Smajkic agreed on the establishment of a joint commission that
8 would continually work on the implementation on this sublaw. It says the
9 fundamental law has been respected, has been laid out on both sides, and
10 it has to be brought into line with the competence of the federation.
11 This is from the constitution of the federation. One should draft a
12 programme, prepare a programme for return. We immediately started
13 working in cooperation with the Bosnian side. We had to have a programme
14 for return and coordinate all humanitarian tasks. This was at the
15 beginning of April 1994.
16 Q. All right. Thank you. And I take it that cooperation continued
17 on up until the Dayton Accords?
18 A. Yes, and it continued when the joint federal ministry for such
19 issues was created. I was elected as the deputy of the minister in that
20 federal ministry that was before Dayton
21 Q. And where were you stationed? Where was your office then?
22 A. As was the case for the 18 years from Mostar to Sarajevo, we went
23 to Sarajevo
24 federal government, we passed through Mount Igman
25 established. We went beneath the airport in Sarajevo. I think we passed
1 through at least on 40 occasions under such conditions and on each
2 occasion it was at risk to life and limb, but we were trying to establish
3 a federation in a joint manner. In good faith.
4 Q. Thank you.
5 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry. Only one clarification for
6 Mr. Raguz. The -- your answer in its first sentence you said -- and I
7 believe that it was probably a translation problem, "As was the case for
8 the 18 years from Mostar to Sarajevo
9 cetera. So I believe that something is wrong with the translation there.
10 I wonder if you may repeat it again and then the translation will come.
11 That is the first sentence of your answer which in English text, "As was
12 the case for the 18 years from Mostar ..." It doesn't make sense to me
13 at least. Thank you.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I accept your suggestion that I
15 should be more precise. So up until the ministry was established we
16 travelled to Sarajevo
17 been established.
18 MR. KARNAVAS:
19 Q. Okay. Thank you.
20 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you.
21 MR. KARNAVAS:
22 Q. The very last document for this chapter is 1D 02733. And this
23 is -- now again we're moving ahead in time. This is in Vjesnik, 13 May
24 1995 and you're quoted -- you're quoted as having said, among other
25 things, that more than 15 per cent of Croats have been expelled and you
1 talk about -- that you warn that the census shows that 33 per cent of the
2 displaced persons did not wish to return to their homes even if necessary
3 conditions are created. First of all, have you had a chance to look at
4 this -- to look at this article, and can you give us an indication
5 whether you -- you can confirm what's in it? Maybe some explanations as
7 A. Yes, I can confirm this. It was a press conference at which I
8 presented the results of the census of those who had been expelled,
9 displaced, and we carried out this census jointly within the new
10 structure of the federal ministry. These are facts. It's common
11 knowledge in terms of the percentages of expelled and displaced Croats,
12 and this is a situation that we have to confront to this very day and
13 that we have to fight.
14 The statement that 33 per cent of those expelled don't want to
15 return to their homes can be interpreted in the following way: So that
16 means that 67 per cent want to return. That's over two-thirds of that
17 figure. So after the war when people were still very traumatised and
18 given that one knows that in other similar situations at least 40 per
19 cent don't return, well, we can say that these are very precise figures,
20 but we managed to perform the census. We wanted to have precise
21 information concerning the return of people and their desire to return
22 and we worked on the basis of this census.
23 Q. All right. Thank you. Now I'm going to switch to another topic
24 very quickly. This deals with municipalities. In light of your
25 testimony yesterday and we just wish to give somewhat of a sampling to
1 the Trial Chamber which would further support your testimony, if we look
2 at the first four documents, 1D 02541, 1D 02534, 1D 02532, and 1D 02531,
3 if we could just look at those. You have them in your bundle. They're
4 dated respectively November 25, 1992; 1 February 1993; 1 June 1993; and
5 29 June 1993
6 which I understand you even gave us -- you used as an example yesterday;
7 is that correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And have you reviewed these -- these documents, and did they more
10 or less comport with your understanding of what that particular
11 municipality was doing at the time?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. All right. If we look at the next set of documents, the three
14 documents 1D 00282, 1D 00300, 1D 0268, and we see that these deal with
15 the municipality of Livno
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, I think that I'm in agreement with
17 some of my colleagues at least that this is not clear. What are you
18 talking about? What -- what -- why Posusje? I don't see Posusje, for
19 instance, in -- mentioned in -- in document 1D 02141. Oh, that's not
20 even one. You go so fast and these documents are in an order which makes
21 it necessary for Judges to go constantly back and forth in this enormous
22 bundle, and we have to look for the documents twice because first we have
23 to look for the number and then we have to look for the English version,
24 which is somewhere unmarked. I really would urge you to do the extra
25 effort to give us the documents in the same order as the witness gets
1 them so that we can follow, because we simply get lost and that is not
2 your interest. You do not want that, and we do not want it.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: We're trying our very best. I'll slow down, but I
4 think this is a very good example, Judge Trechsel, of how frustrating it
5 must be on my end, because I'm -- I'm labouring under some extreme
6 difficulties with time pressures. I'm not blaming anyone, but this is
7 just --
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Even more preparations.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: I don't wish to belabour the point, Your Honours,
10 however, the electronic system was introduced to be more efficient. In
11 this courtroom we use both. I think it's very useful to use both, and we
12 don't have added resources, and I have lawyers with masters degrees
13 putting these things together. It's very difficult to find staff to do
14 these things. We are working day and night. I -- I wish that I could
15 invite the Trial Chamber to work with us for a week, just for a week to
16 see how it is. I mean, I understand your frustration. We will try to do
17 better next time. I will go slower. I apologise, but with that in mind
18 I'll lead up some extra time just so we can do this. I thought this was
19 a creative way of handling things in a more efficient manner; obviously,
20 I erred. I'll take the blame.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I wish you to be aware of and to agree --
22 MR. KARNAVAS: I did.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: -- that this is not our personal being offended
24 because we have difficult work. It's in our joint common interest, I'm
1 MR. KARNAVAS: I agree but my invitation still stands.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay.
4 Q. If we -- we can go back to those documents and we will do one by
5 one. 1D 02541. This is 25 November 1992
6 deals with consumption of oil for heating school occupied by pupils and a
7 wing of the school and the school gym occupied by refugees.
8 Now, you indicated that Posusje was a rather small municipality,
9 I believe you said 16.000, that was accommodating rather early on large
10 numbers of displaced persons and refugees; is that correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now if you look at the second document which is dated 1 February
13 1993, and that's 1D 02534, we see that it indicates on paragraph number
14 2: "Due to the factual situation we ask you to allocate 40.000 litres of
15 oil so as to ease the problem of heating the rooms where the displaced
16 persons and refugees are being accommodated." And this is being
17 addressed to the Office for Displaced Persons, to Darinko Tadic; correct?
18 A. That's correct. And here you have indicators for the
19 municipality of Posusje signed by the deputy president of the HVO for the
20 municipality of Posusje.
21 Q. If you look at the next document, 1D 02532, here we see again
22 municipality of Posusje at the very top. It's a social enterprise
23 catering in tourism dated 1 June 1993
24 accommodation and welfare of refugees and displaced persons since
25 9 April 1992
1 theft of towels and sheets, breakage or theft, and of course, the --
2 they're asking -- they're asking for this to be covered; is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. All right. And then if we look at the very last document,
5 1D 02531, we see again council of Posusje municipality adopted at this
6 particular session on 29 June 1993
7 accommodate displaced persons. And this was an example based -- you gave
8 us the example of Posusje, and would it be fair to say that this sort of
9 documentation comports with what you were trying to tell us yesterday?
10 Correct? You need --
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. And would it be fair to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, that
13 just as Posusje municipality was carrying out these activities, other
14 municipalities, as you've testified, were doing the same thing and
15 perhaps even generating the same sorts of documents reflecting their
16 contribution to the issue of refugees and displaced persons?
17 A. That's correct. There were such contributions and there were at
18 the same time requests for aid.
19 Q. Now, if we go on to the next set of documents I'm going to be
20 switching on to Livno, Livno municipality. Another example. First
21 document is 1D 00282, dated 29 July 1993
22 decision to establish a Municipal Staff for the organisation and
23 coordination of shelter and care for displaced persons and refugees in
24 the territory of the municipality. And were you aware at the time, given
25 your position, that Livno was indeed assisting in their -- in these
1 efforts through this particular Municipal Staff?
2 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
3 Q. Okay. You see on the next document, 1D 00300, the very next day,
4 30 July 1992
5 the organisation and coordination of work providing care and welfare to
6 expelled persons and refugees on the territories of the municipalities.
7 Again, this would confirm what you indicated to us earlier, that the
8 municipalities were in charge of carrying out these activities; correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Now if we go on to the very last document 1D 00268, which is
11 dated 10 October 1994
12 on the cancellation of displaced person status for the citizens of Livno
13 municipality, and it gives the reasons. And again this confirms what you
14 told us yesterday, that it was up to the municipalities to make those
15 sorts of decisions, not just in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna
16 but also this was based on the legislation carrying out for the
17 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
18 A. Yes. This is correct, but according to the opinion of the
19 municipality and of others, they no longer satisfied the conditions -- or
20 certain individuals no longer satisfied the conditions necessary to have
21 the status of displaced person.
22 Q. Right. Now --
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, we are of course all aware that
24 this is outside the time-frame covered by the indictment. Perhaps it
25 will be helpful if you let -- or if you made it understandable why it is
1 still relevant evidence in your opinion.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. Yeah. In my opinion it's relevant evidence
3 for a couple of reasons. First and foremost there is a continuation.
4 We're not just dealing 1991 to 1994 in the abstract. As you may recall,
5 the Prosecution began its case in the middle of -- I guess in the
6 Middle Ages talking about who was living where in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
7 they went all the way on to 1997 with I believe it was expert Miller,
8 someone I contest not being an expert but, nonetheless, was indicating
9 that this project, the joint criminal enterprise, continued all the way
10 on to 1997, 1998, because the Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina, primarily
11 those within the Croatian Community and within the Croatian republic of
12 Herceg-Bosna were against the Dayton Peace Accord and against the
13 constitution as it was framed by Dayton. And we're here -- so we're
14 trying to show a continuity of the events.
15 We've indicated that municipalities played a certain role. Now
16 we're showing it. And it's a role that is continuous. This whole issue
17 concerning displaced persons and refugees is very, very complex, and
18 we're trying to show through some sampling of how the municipalities were
19 dealing with this in conjunction with cooperating with the
20 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, HVO HZ HB, because we can see that
21 there is a coordinating effort but there is not a subordinating --
22 there's no subordination.
23 We also heard extensively from the internationals and from other
24 witness. The Prosecution's theory is there was this reverse ethnic
25 cleansing and so we're trying to give ample evidence to the Trial Chamber
1 to see the matters in the proper context. It's very difficult. You
2 can't just cut it off at one day. And so that's what the whole purpose
3 of this.
4 We're trying to be as streamline as we possibly can, and so
5 that's -- I don't know if I'm answering your question.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you, Mr. Karnavas. You have answered, and
7 I think in a helpful way. Thank you.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. Very well.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have an additional
10 question on the basis of this document regarding Livno. In paragraph 1,
11 there is reference to the citizens of Livno, and it is stated at the end
12 of the paragraph the right to temporary occupation of a flat and
13 financial assistance.
14 Reading this text I asked myself the following question, and I'd
15 like you to clarify it for me: It would appear on the basis of this
16 document that a refugee or displaced person may occupy an apartment and
17 may have financial assistance from the municipality, whichever it may be.
18 In that context, were there cases of people, displaced or refugees,
19 namely in Central Bosnia, who left their village or town, who went to
20 another town or village and without the municipal authority having the
21 time to do anything they occupy an apartment on their own, which may be
22 free or not, saying, "I'm entitled to an apartment because I am a
23 displaced person or a refugee"? Did you have any experience with this
24 type of situation when populations or individuals in large numbers, I'm
25 thinking of Vares, for instance, there were a hundred thousand people
1 leaving Vares and going somewhere else, and who on their own occupy
2 apartments while the municipal authority didn't have time to do anything?
3 Did you come across such situations?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President, there
5 were such situations, but they were in evidence throughout Bosnia
7 reacted to such instances. Yesterday, for instance, we saw a document
8 adopted by the Mostar Municipal Council on the removal of people who had
9 illegally moved into an apartment, because unless they had a decision
10 authorising him to move in temporarily, he was staying there illegally,
11 and the municipal authorities had the duty to deal with such situations.
12 Have I managed to answer your question?
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay.
15 Q. We're going to go on to another topic. This deals with convoys,
16 this set of documents. Just very briefly the first document is a
17 Prosecution document. We've seen it. We're familiar with it. We don't
18 need too much comment but this is P 10264. If you can just look at it.
19 And we see that this is an agreement on the passage of humanitarian
20 convoys, and my question is: Were you familiar with this particular
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay. And that's all that we need to cover at this point.
24 Now, the next document -- and I'm going to look at two documents
25 in succession, but the first one is 1D 01360. This is from the Office
1 for Expelled Persons and Refugees. It's dated 12 October 1993. It's
2 signed by Darinko Tadic, and we see that this -- the subject is approval
3 for unhindered passage. Could you please describe to us what is
4 contained in this document so we have an understanding.
5 A. This is a document which pursuant to the Makarska Agreement and
6 confirmed by the group for humanitarian issues establish the procedure
7 and whereby the Office for Expelled Persons and Refugees of Herceg-Bosna
8 was authorised to approve the passage of convoys upon the basis of
9 requests addressed by domestic and international humanitarian
11 In this request it was necessary for them to indicate the date
12 when the convoy would be leaving, its final destination where the
13 humanitarian aid was being taken, and the registration number of the
14 vehicles, the names of the drivers, and the quantities carried, as this
15 was humanitarian aid and the point was to let it pass unhindered. And on
16 the basis of such a procedure and method of work we managed to achieve
17 excellent results, and each convoy was registered and you can find it in
18 the documents.
19 Q. All right. If we go on to the next document which is 3D 00921.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a moment, please. My
21 colleague has a question, but I also have a question, and I don't know
22 whether the next document may resolve the question, but I give the floor
23 to my colleague. Yes.
24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, I see that the document
25 that we have in front of us, D 01360, comes from the Office for Displaced
1 Persons and Refugees authorising unhindered passage of convoys. The
2 question I have for you is whether this was your office that authorised
3 the passage of all humanitarian convoys and whether on the basis of this
4 authorisation your services, your staff members, first examined and
5 inspected all the convoys and to what extent the police or the army
6 intervened with respect to the authorisation of convoys and the security
7 of those convoys.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The office had the authority to
9 grant authorisation only to humanitarian convoys pursuant to the
10 agreements and protocols that we have already seen and analysed. That is
11 the role specified with the approval and agreement of international
12 humanitarian organisations. And this document is an example of the way
13 in which the office granted such authorisation. With this authorisation
14 a humanitarian organisation that is granted permission, and mostly these
15 left from logistic centres at Ploce in Croatia or Split, and there were
16 authorised inspectors envisaged by the protocol who were able to examine
17 the contents. And if the contents were in order, the convoys could set
18 off. And I can tell you that this procedure was respected to the
19 greatest possible degree.
20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Witness. My
21 last question on this subject. I think that you realised and we have
22 even seen in some documents that the parties suspected that there were
23 arms being transported within those humanitarian convoys. Do you have
24 any knowledge of the transportation of non-authorised goods by these
25 convoys on the part of either party?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is information and concrete
2 cases when individual smaller, mostly smaller humanitarian organisations
3 which were also active in those areas under those conditions at the time
4 did transport or tried to transport, under the guise of humanitarian aid,
5 other goods, sometimes weapons even.
6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A brief question, Witness. I
8 come back to the document that we saw a moment ago, 1D 1360. This
9 document dated the 12th of October refers to a convoy of the 15th of
10 October, and my attention was drawn to the destiny of this convoy. It is
11 Zenica, along the route Metkovici, Mali
12 is - and destination Zenica. Unless I'm mistaken, in 1993 Zenica was
13 under the control of the ABiH, which would mean that the authorities of
14 Herceg-Bosna are authorising humanitarian convoys with the destination
15 being an area under the control of the ABiH had. Is that right?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Absolutely so, yes. And you will
17 see in the overall review that more than two-thirds of the aid approved
18 by this office in the form of convoys went to areas under the control of
19 the Armija.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. And my last
21 question. To your knowledge, because we have been listening to a great
22 deal about humanitarian convoys, so the Judges are well aware of this
23 problem. I would like to know to the best of your knowledge, did you
24 have within the framework of the activities that you engaged in at the
25 time, did you have knowledge of a humanitarian convoy that you had not
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can say with full
3 responsibility that not a single convoy that fulfilled the conditions
4 envisaged by the protocol did not -- was not deprived of permission while
5 he was at the head of this office. So every convoy that fulfilled
6 conditions was allowed to pass.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may add a small question. What was the
9 importance of other convoys that were refused because some condition was
10 not met, according to your office's assessment?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Every request that reached the
12 office and was submitted by a humanitarian organisation engaged in these
13 activities was given approval. So we couldn't authorise any other
14 convoys than convoys carrying humanitarian aid. And each humanitarian
15 aid convoy, and I wish to underline in particular that the office never
16 determined where that humanitarian organisation would be taking the
17 convoy, what its destination would be. So we respected their programme
18 and their choice of destination. And there are written reports about
19 this by the head of the UNHCR office - unfortunately, we don't have that
20 document here - and in this document what I'm saying is confirmed.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I had understood all that. My question related
22 as it were to the dark side of the moon. Were there requests that had to
23 be rightly, I'm not suggesting anything improper, but were there many,
24 how many requests that for some reason or other had to be rejected?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think I shall be able to say more
1 about that when we look at the next document. So I said that there isn't
2 a single request by registered humanitarian organisations that was
3 rejected. There is no concrete evidence of any such case. By now it
4 would have emerged. It's another matter whether some convoys were
5 stopped and whether they had problems en route.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
7 MR. KARNAVAS:
8 Q. Just one point of clarification. You'd indicated that while you
9 were the head of the office, to your knowledge not a single convoy that
10 met the criteria of the protocol was ever denied permission. What about
11 while you were the deputy head of office? Can you recall of any instance
12 when a convoy met all the criteria but your predecessor denied giving
13 access or permission for the convoy?
14 A. I cannot remember any such cases.
15 Q. Now let's look at the next document, because this covers, I
16 believe, part of your earlier answer. This is 3D 00921. If you could
17 look at it very briefly and then tell us what it is.
18 A. This is a document containing a list of all the convoys
19 authorised by the Office for Refugees and Displaced Persons listed
20 according to the date when the approval was given to the humanitarian
21 organisation bringing the humanitarian aid, the destination where the aid
22 was delivered and the quantity of aid carried. And you can see from this
23 that in the period from the 1st of June until the 10th of December, you
24 can see how many convoys there were. Several hundred, I think. And that
25 a total of more than 30.000 tons of humanitarian aid was transported, of
1 which, in answer to your question, Mr. President, there is a summary of
2 how much went to Zenica, Tuzla
3 see 25.000 tons of humanitarian aid in total whereas to the area under
4 the HVO, half as much aid went, that is 12.000 tons. So there was no
5 interference with the destination of the aid. That was determined by the
6 humanitarian organisation in question. You can see which they were, the
7 UNHCR, the International Committee of the Red Cross, A.I.C.F., and all
8 the others who contributed to addressing the humanitarian disaster in
10 Q. All right, I have a couple of questions on this just to make sure
11 we have the record correct. If we look at the very first page, we see
12 that the period we're talking about is 1 June to 10 December, 1993
14 A. Yes, correct.
15 Q. And if we look at the bottom of the page, we see two different
16 signatures. Is one of those signatures yours?
17 A. The one on the right.
18 Q. All right. And the one on the left, can you recognise it? If
19 not, it doesn't matter.
20 A. I think I gave this document during my testimony, and I signed
21 it. MR, that's me. That's for certain.
22 Q. And you gave this to the Office of the Prosecution?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. That's when you were -- that's when you were questioned as -- in
25 this case as a suspect?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. Now, if we look at -- you mentioned some figures. If we
3 just look at the page where you will see the ERN number. There are some
4 numbers at the top right-hand, the one that says 03653938. This figure
5 here, which is 25,847.81, that's dealing with territory that's controlled
6 by the ABiH; correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. And then if we go to -- again just for the Court's convenience,
9 if we go to the page with the -- the last page of this document, or the
10 second last, I guess it would be, 03653942. We see a figure of 2.315,
11 and that would represent what went to the HVO-controlled territory;
13 A. 12.505.
14 Q. Very well. 12.000. My apologies. Very well. That's all I need
15 for this document. Unless there are other questions, I'm going to move
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a question for the
19 Looking at this document which we have already examined with
20 other witnesses, so the Chamber's familiar with this document, I am
21 struck by the following conclusion one can make: One has the impression
22 looking at the destination of all these convoys, on the one hand it's
23 Zenica and Sarajevo
24 but almost all of these convoys were actually destined to the area under
25 the control of the ABiH, which means intended for Muslims and not Croats.
1 And on the basis of this conclusion, I wonder where are the convoys for
2 the Croats? Were there convoys for the Croats? And then I was looking
3 who was at the origin of these convoys. There's the UNHCR, of course,
4 UNICEF, and then I see certain French non-governmental organisations, how
5 the -- like the Medecins du Monde, the handicapped and so on, and these
6 NGOs were preparing humanitarian convoys not only for Croats but for
7 others as well. Now, as you were in this area of activity, out of 100
8 convoys, how many went for the Croats and how many for the Muslims?
9 Could you make a breakdown for us?
10 A. Mr. President, Your Honour, we have here a record of the convoys,
11 the organisations, and the quantities that went, as we have said, to the
12 area under the control of the ABiH and the area controlled by the HVO,
13 and we can see the concrete figures. 12.505 tons is half the amount that
14 was destined for the areas under control of the Armija, which means that
15 we have precise figures for these area. The area of Zenica also covered
16 Vitez and Novi
17 from that central warehouse they were distributed there. We couldn't
18 have precise records of how much of that aid went to the Croats from
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My last question. To the best
21 of your knowledge, did you have any information that the Croats had less
22 humanitarian aid than others or the same amount of humanitarian aid or
23 more? Was there discrimination among the final recipients, or is it
24 impossible to provide an answer to that question?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think both, Your Honour. So it
1 is a fact that individual areas, and these were mostly enclaves, that it
2 was more difficult to reach with the humanitarian aid, and there are
3 indicators that these deliveries of humanitarian aid were very rare
4 there, and this applied to the whole territory, and it's difficult to
5 give you concrete figures.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It is a quarter to
7 4.00. We should normally have a break, and according to the registrar,
8 Mr. Karnavas, you have another 12 minutes left.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, but, Your Honours, I'm willing to spend
10 a little bit more time on this -- with this particular witness. It will
11 not affect his departure. I'm told that at least three of my colleagues
12 have no questions, but in light of Judge Trechsel's suggestion, I think
13 that I'm going to need a little bit more time. Again it's going to
14 come -- we'll manage through some other witnesses to cut, but I think the
15 topics that I have for you, just to give you a preview, are reverse
16 ethnic cleansing, statistics, something dealing with the Ljubuski centre,
17 and then a couple of miscellaneous, and some of these documents will
18 indeed cover some of the questions that were asked by the Bench,
19 including the last question, Your Honour, that you have asked Mr. Raguz.
20 So ...
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has no
22 objections to this suggestion, but as you are well aware, the other
23 members of the Defence should as a rule have two hours. If some members
24 of the Defence have no questions, well, naturally there's no problem in
25 granting you additional time. I'll consult the other Defence teams.
1 There are three that have no questions. Who has questions? Ms. Nozica,
2 do you have questions?
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it's too early for me
4 to say since the examination-in-chief hasn't been completed yet. If the
5 Stojic Defence has any questions it won't take long, but it's premature
6 for me to decide now.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic or Mr. Kovacic.
8 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Since I'm on my feet, no,
9 Your Honours, we won't have any questions. It's not necessary. The
10 testimony has been very detailed.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic.
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have a few brief
13 and simple questions for this witness, but if Mr. Prlic's Defence needs
14 additional time, we will give up those questions.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tomasegovic.
16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Your Honours.
17 As in the case of the Stojic Defence, we'll wait for the completion of
18 the examination-in-chief and then we'll decide. But if we do have any
19 questions it won't take much time. It will be very brief. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ibrisimovic.
21 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as things stand,
22 at the moment we will have no questions for this witness.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. In that case, there
24 are no problems. We'll have a 20-minute break now.
25 --- Recess taken at 3.49 p.m.
1 --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll now resume.
3 MR. KARNAVAS:
4 Q. Mr. Raguz, if we could continue now with the next document. It's
5 1D 02282. And we're going to be discussion three documents in succession
6 concerning this issue, but with respect to this document, if you could
7 look at it. And we see that at the very top it's a note, subject,
8 humanitarian organisation. It's by Colonel Marijan Biskic, and he says:
9 "We enclose herewith intelligence obtained by the Intelligence
10 Administration of the HVO Main Staff about the activities of the serious
11 road trip HO, the humanitarian organisation."
12 Now, if I can look at the next document. I'm going to show you
13 three documents and then I'm going to ask you a question. 1D 02281.
14 1D 02281. This is from Colonel-General Ante Roso, and this is dated
15 14 December 1993
16 number. It says: "On the basis of intelligence and our experience so
17 far, some of the material declared as humanitarian has been used
18 exclusively for the needs of the military industry of the Muslim armed
19 forces." And then he goes on to say: "In keeping with the above, remove
20 from convoys the materials under ordinal numbers 1, 5, 6, 7, and 10 in
21 the list attached to this memo ..." and then we see a list. And of
22 course, we flip the page. This is a subject permission for passage of
23 humanitarian convoy, and we see your name at the bottom of it, and, of
24 course, the numbers that were mentioned by General Roso have been
1 And finally, if we look at the last document before I ask you a
2 question. It's 1D 01856. 1D 01856. This is by Marijan Biskic. He's a
3 brigadier at this point and it's regarding humanitarian convoys, and he
4 indicates here: "We have received information that a UNHCR humanitarian
5 convoy which is going into BH army zone of responsibility will besides 34
6 tons of humanitarian goods also contain 95.000 detonating fuses."
7 So you were asked a question by the Bench earlier whether you had
8 any specific information. Could you please comment on these three
9 documents? What are they about? What's going on?
10 A. Well, in light of what I have already said that there were, in
11 fact, such cases, these documents show that this occurred at a certain
12 point in time, and they show which specific humanitarian organisations
13 were concerned. So you have information here from intelligence services,
14 information that shows that humanitarian organisations used humanitarian
15 convoys in such a way. They abused the humanitarian convoys.
16 Q. All right. Now, if we -- we can move on to -- unless there are
17 any questions from the Bench, I'll move on to the next document.
18 1D 01854. This is a protocol from a meeting held in Posusje on
19 16 December 1993
20 to the 17 October 1993
21 Dr. Granic, was there, who was the prime minister of Croatia. And we see
22 that it was agreed, among other things, that a joint commission for
23 humanitarian issues would be formed. And of course, if we look into the
24 second page, we actually see duties and persons in charge of implementing
25 the protocol, and of course, we see that it's the Office of Displaced
1 Persons and Refugees.
2 If we look at the third page under item number 6, it says that
3 the Office of Displaced Persons and Refugees will call meetings of a
4 joint commission, and then under -- under 1, we see your name as a
5 coordinator of the joint commission. And if you could please just tell
6 us very briefly what is this about?
7 A. Well, what I can do is confirm once more that this joint
8 commission was in operation. It carried out its tasks adequately and at
9 the meetings of the joint commission all participants and signatories of
10 the protocol were present every week, and representatives of local and
11 international humanitarian organisations also attended. And as you can
12 see in the paragraphs or, rather, the articles of this protocol, there's
13 detailed information on the procedure one had to follow to ensure that
14 humanitarian aid was in fact transported and not other goods.
15 So this just shows how we continued to work in this field in a
16 serous manner, how we continued to coordinate all activities in order to
17 obtain the result that we referred to before the break. I'm referring to
18 the results that relate to the convoys and to the amount of humanitarian
19 aid that was transported.
20 Q. All right. Thank you. If we look on to the next document,
21 1D 01873. This is dated 20 -- this is a letter by Dr. Jadranko Prlic
22 addressed to General Cot, and it's dated 23 November 1993. Just if we
23 focus our attention on the second paragraph. Dr. Jadranko Prlic is
24 suggesting that Cot's organisation, he's with UNPROFOR at the time,
25 he's in fact, I believe, the head UNPROFOR, to organise an urgent meeting
1 between the highest representatives of the three warring sides in BH in
2 order to bring about peace immediately in all the areas through which the
3 humanitarian aid convoy needs to pass especially in war zones such as
4 Gornji Vakuf. And he talks about his readiness to cooperate in
5 protecting all convoys carrying humanitarian aid.
6 Were you aware at the time of Dr. Jadranko Prlic's efforts, and
7 could you please tell us specifically what, if anything, was happening in
8 the area around Gornji Vakuf around this time?
9 A. Yes. Here we have a specific initiative for the organisation of
10 a meeting of the highest representatives of the three warring sides. The
11 purpose is to establish peace for transport and make it possible for
12 humanitarian aid to pass through. The situation was very delicate, very
13 dangerous. Dr. Prlic referred to that, but unfortunately there were no
14 serious results at that point in time.
15 The period we're dealing with is the 23rd of January, 1993
16 don't think there was much of a reaction to this.
17 Q. Now, if we go -- if we go on to the next document, 1D 02142, we
18 see this is a letter dated December 7, 1993
19 Mate Boban, and it's by Dr. Mate Granic, and it makes reference to a
20 convoy called White Passage and another convoy which is to leave for
21 Maglaj, and it has the various routes that have been suggested and, I
22 guess, approved, at least the first one, by Mr. Silajdzic.
23 Were you aware of this -- this particular convoy?
24 A. Yes, I was aware of it.
25 Q. If we could look now to the next document 1D 02155, here we find
1 a letter dated December 23, 1993, by Dr. Jadranko Prlic addressed to a
2 Mr. Briquemont wherein Dr. Jadranko Prlic is complaining about the tragic
3 results of the humanitarian action of the White Passage, and he goes on
4 to say that: "The parading of your tanks and transport crews in front of
5 TV cameras only while the convoy was moving across the territory of the
6 Croatian Republic
7 could not stop into the territory under Muslim control misleads again the
8 public around the world that is really not familiar with the activities
9 performed by the UN peace forces in BiH."
10 Then he goes on, and I'll leave it up to the Judges to read the
11 rest. Perhaps they may have some questions on this. But could you -- do
12 you recall why Dr. Jadranko Prlic is complaining about the conduct and
13 behaviour and attitude of UNPROFOR?
14 A. The case here is a specific one. It was a specific convoy. It
15 was a joint convoy, in fact, a joint humanitarian convoy of a number of
16 humanitarian organisations of both Croatian organisations and Bosniak or
17 Muslim organisations. After a long period of time it was to deliver to
18 the -- to parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina this aid. They had been for
19 three months without any aid.
20 The Croatian government, on the basis of the Granic-Silajdzic
21 agreement, was also in favour of this convoy, and it was UNPROFOR's task
22 to escort the convoy. We can see that serious incidents broke out. I
23 think that there were fatalities, too, when the convoy left the territory
24 under HVO control, and this is what is stated in the letter.
25 The UNPROFOR battalion whose task it was to escort the convoy
1 wasn't appropriately engaged. One has referred to various standards in
2 regard to such issues, and it also mentions the fact that one is prepared
3 for correct relationships at all levels and for cooperation with regard
4 to future humanitarian actions.
5 Q. All right. And to your understanding of the events at the time,
6 was Dr. Jadranko Prlic correct in his assessment to Mr. Briquemont?
7 A. Absolutely. I think so.
8 Q. Now, if we go to the next document, and this is the last one in
9 this chapter. Unless there's questions from the Bench on the previous
10 one, I'll move on to the next.
11 If we go to the next document, P 07669, and it's dated 26 January
12 1994. If you go to the third page of this document, we see your name and
13 signature as head of the office, and of course, if you could please
14 describe what exactly is the document about, why you're addressing a
15 Dr. Miro Jakovljevic?
16 A. Yes, that's correct. I've signed this letter. It was forwarded
17 to the coordinator of these projects for Central Bosnia for the enclaves
18 that were most at risk. In one of those convoys there was the White Path
19 convoy that we have discussed in the previous document. These
20 individuals engaged in the action for Nova Bila and Bosna Srebrena broke
21 through that blockade. They expressed their gratitude. There was
22 support for future actions and we also say that we are in favour of
23 continuing with these joint convoys, Croatian and Bosniak convoys that
24 had as their destination that area that was most at risk.
25 Q. And in fact if we look at the second page, the last paragraph,
1 you indicate that the most urgent places are Vitez, Busovaca,
2 Novi Travnik, Usora, Zepce, and Kiseljak; is that correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. All right. And I take it since you authored this document, you
5 would have been aware of the situation in those particular locations
6 hence why you flagged them to this particular individual for urgent need
7 of aid; is that correct?
8 A. That's correct. This expresses our desire to continue with
9 activities such as the White Path activities. The places I have
10 mentioned here, Vitez, Busovaca, Novi Travnik, Usora, Zepce, Kiseljak,
11 these are the areas that were a matter of priority. They were under HVO
12 control. But there are also other areas that were under the control of
13 the ABiH at the time.
14 Q. All right. We've going to move on to another topic now. Yes?
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me. It would be interesting to know who
16 Dr. Jakovljevic actually was. He's referred to as president, but there
17 are many presidents in the world.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: There are indeed. There are indeed.
19 Q. If you could tell us who this particular individual is.
20 A. He was Dr. Miro Jakovljevic. He didn't occupy any political
21 positions and he led a humanitarian action -- project, humanitarian
22 project that was officially called the Humanitarian Paths of Peace and
23 Love for Assistance to Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was a lecturer, a senior
24 lecturer, and it was an extremely successful and humane action.
25 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, I'd like to follow up on
1 Judge Trechsel's question. Perhaps you could also explain the following
2 to me. In this first paragraph of your letter, at the end of that
3 paragraph you say: "[In English] ...to various parts of Bosnia
5 parity in relation to Dr. Jakovljevic?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, these were activities that
7 broke through the humanitarian blockade in force in Central Bosnia
8 was successful because it was jointly organised by Croatian and Bosniak
9 humanitarian organisations, and this is why one refers to joint action on
10 the basis of parity.
11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Is there a question, Judge Trechsel? Very well.
13 Q. If we go on to the next topic, and this is -- deals with reverse
14 ethnic cleansing. I've broken it into several different areas. The
15 first one deals with Zenica and Kakanj.
16 If we could look at -- I'm going to have you look at four
17 particular documents first and then I'll ask you a question. I'll go
19 The first document is 1D 02303. This is 15 May 1993.
20 There's no translation I'm told.
21 All right. The next document is 1D 02168. This is 4 October
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me. Mr. Karnavas, you had announced
24 2303, and then one reads this is 15 May 1993, and then you go to the next
25 document. The previous one, I don't think that it is very informative
1 that this was 15 May 1993
2 document. If you don't, I'm not insisting. It's not my ...
3 MR. KARNAVAS: If I could get you to switch off your microphone.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Karnavas.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: All right. Thank you. Let's deal with this.
6 We'll have to spend more time on this. I'll try to thread the needle,
7 Your Honour.
8 Q. If we look at this document, it's addressed to the UNHCR, ECMM,
9 and the Red Cross, and here it's information on the war in Zenica since
10 April 15 of the year, 1993, and have you had a chance to look at this
11 particular document? Please tell us --
12 A. This is a report containing information on the casualties in the
13 war clash in Zenica, and here you have a record of the casualties, the
14 individuals killed, the facilities destroyed, and this was forwarded to
15 the international organisations. It shows what the situation was in
16 settlements with regard to individuals in certain places. You can see
17 what actually took place in Zenica at the time.
18 Q. All right. And on the recipient end of the looting and the other
19 sorts of activities that are described, who are they?
20 A. Well, here we can see on the first page that the Croatian Centre
21 was first attacked. That's where the HQ of the Napredak was located, the
22 Catholic Charity Association, the Croatian Central Cultural Association,
23 the Political Prisoners Association, the Croatian Democratic Union
24 town gallery. Then there's a list of people whose houses were torched
25 and looted. We have information on the settlements and the names of
1 people who were affected. Most of them were, in fact, Croats.
2 Q. And were you aware of this activity? Was this information coming
3 your way?
4 A. Yes, this information did come our way, although at this time I
5 had not yet been officially appointed, but this information did arrive
6 because, as a rule, I did get involved in such issues.
7 Q. Now, in -- Judge Trechsel, just for the relevancy of this, we're
8 going to go through history and we're going to see that things are
9 developing, which is why we believe there was no reverse ethnic
10 cleansing, hence the reason for going as early as this period.
11 If we go on to the next document, 1D 02168. This is 4 October
12 1993. Have you had a chance to look at this? This is addressed to
13 Dr. Prlic. It's from the vice-president of the HVO in Kakanj.
14 A. Yes. I've already seen this document which was alarming, and on
15 the basis of this document action was taken to assist these people. This
16 is a matter that we have already discussed. This just shows how
17 difficult the situation really was, because it is stated here there were
18 7.000 inhabitants who had been away from their homes for over three and a
19 half months. They weren't -- they were put up as refugees or other
20 expelled persons in Vares, and they had been fleeing for three and a half
21 months, in fact. The only way to assist this -- these people, since the
22 war was intense, the only way to help them was to move them from the area
23 affected by the war after all they had been through, and this was done
24 through a joint effort.
25 Q. All right. And the next document very briefly, 1D 01355. Again
1 this deals with Kakanj and Zenica. This is a report, the Office of
2 Expelled Persons and Refugees. Are you familiar with this particular
3 report, sir? It's dated 21 October 1993
4 A. Yes, I'm familiar with it. And it's a report on where these
5 people, several thousand people had been put up, where accommodation had
6 been found for them. We can't really refer to any plans. We got a
7 request for assistance in October and action had already been taken. You
8 can't really talk about a plan that was developed. We just tried to save
9 what could be saved.
10 Q. All right. Now, 1D 01799. This is dated 30 January 1994, and
11 this deals with an area that we haven't heard of, I believe, before,
12 Catici. Are you aware of the situation over there, first of all.
13 A. Yes. We're dealing with expelled individuals here. They'd been
14 put up in the Catici thermoelectric power plant. It's near Kakanj. They
15 stayed there after many people had been moved out of Kakanj, and as far
16 as I can see, it says that they didn't have any support here and that
17 they should be moved in some way and the critical situation should be
18 dealt with.
19 Q. All right. If we can go on to another area, and this deals with
20 Konjic. First 1D 02202. This is a -- a list of requests by the
21 Konjic HVO. It's dated 19 June 1993
22 paragraph, number 7, it even demands that Mr. Tadeusz Mazowiecki come and
23 conduct an investigation in accordance with the United Nations
24 Conventions on War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity. And this, of
25 course, is addressed to Dr. Jadranko Prlic and others.
1 Were you aware of the situation in Konjic?
2 A. Yes. We had a report yesterday as a document, a report of the
3 head of the office who toured the area, and we see that having toured the
4 area and gaining direct insight into the situation one could confirm that
5 the situation in Konjic was indeed grave.
6 JUDGE PRANDLER: I would like to make a correction in the text
7 that when Mr. Karnavas referred to the Conventions on War Crimes and
8 Crimes Against Humanity, I believe that he wanted to refer to the
10 not United Nations conventions. It is just for the sake of the record.
11 Thank you.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Judge Prandler. I would totally agree
13 with you. I was just reading the text. The individual who wrote this
14 obviously authored it as United Nations Conventions, but I take your
16 Q. If we look at the next document, 1D 01907. This again is
17 13 August 1993
18 Ljubuski, and of course, they're protesting in the strongest terms
19 concerning the non-performance of your duties in Konjic municipality.
20 This is -- this comes from the head of the public affairs office of
22 Again, can you please tell us had things improved by 13 August
24 A. I think not. The situation remained more or less the same until
25 the end of the year; that is, during September and October most of the
1 Croats there Konjic had to leave Konjic and seek refuge elsewhere.
2 Q. All right. If we look at 1D 01829. This is a report on the
3 expulsion of Croats. It's dated 4 January 1994. We see various figures.
4 And this is by the head of the department Zovko, Dragica Zovko. Can you
5 tell us whether you're familiar with this report and the numbers and
6 whether in your opinion, based on your experience and being in situ, the
7 numbers accurately and fairly reflect the situation as it was at the
9 A. Yes, they do provide information how many people were taken over
10 and where they were accommodated. This is the very beginning of 1994,
11 and we can see from what areas they are coming, Kakanj, Bugojno,
12 Gornji Vakuf, Doljani, Novi
13 surrounded and in where the humanitarian situation was extremely serious
14 and had been for many months.
15 Q. Finally, regarding Konjic, if we look at P 07582. P 07582, dated
16 14 January 1994
17 and testified extensively, and this is authored by you. Could you please
18 tell us, having looked at this document and having authored it, what
19 exactly -- why are you communicating with Dr. Rebic?
20 A. This is a direct request for support in taking in these refugees,
21 and you saw what the situation was like on the basis of the previous
22 document that we just reviewed. So this is a request for support and aid
23 in providing accommodation for a certain number of refugees which we
24 could no longer take care of.
25 Q. Now, you were asked a question about whether humanitarian aid was
1 distributed fairly and evenly, and so, if we could look to the next
2 document 1D 02299, 1D 02299. That question came from the Bench. We
3 welcomed it. If we look at this, this is dated 24 September 1993. The
4 letter is authored by Dr. Jadranko Prlic addressed to UNHCR. And if we
5 look at the very first paragraph, Dr. Jadranko Prlic is noting that:
6 "...we have demonstrated our readiness to facilitate unimpeded transit
7 and distribution of aid, but at the same time we advise you of the need
8 to distribute aid equally to all who need it, irrespective of which
9 peoples, ethnic or religious group they belong to."
10 And then in the second paragraph under item 1 he says: "However,
11 the information that we have been receiving (attached) shows that
12 recently aid in fuel, clothes, et cetera, has been going to the areas,
13 towns and places under the control of Muslim authorities, and not even
14 one convoy was sent to Busovaca, Novi Travnik or Vitez in the last 25
16 And again under paragraph number 2 -- or item number 2, he says:
17 "We were informed today that Muslim authorities in Konjic have been
18 expelling the local Croats so that there are about 800 civilian refugees
19 (women, children, the elderly) who are seeking urgent evacuation to the
20 free regions of Herzegovina
21 Now, were you familiar with the situation at the time enough to
22 comment on whether Dr. Jadranko Prlic is accurate in reflecting the
23 situation to UNHCR, Mr. Jerry Hume concerning the disproportionate
24 distribution of humanitarian aid?
25 A. At this time records were kept on the flow of humanitarian aid
1 that we have referred to, and this was the most difficult period for
2 Busovaca, Novi Travnik, and Vitez, that is, the Croatian enclaves in
3 Central Bosnia
4 addressed to the right people.
5 Q. All right. If we go on to the next document, 1D 01523. This is
6 a letter, appeal for rescue. It's by doctors from Bugojno. It's signed
7 by Dr. Mihajlovic Zvonko. It's 20th of August, 1993. Can you please
8 tell us what the situation was in Bugojno and whether, having looked at
9 this document, this accurately and fairly reflects the situation as it
10 was at the time.
11 A. The situation was extremely grave in Bugojno because a certain
12 number of people, I think it was several thousand, more than 10.000, had
13 to leave Bugojno, and a certain number were detained there. These
14 people, doctors, physicians who are drawing the attention to
15 international humanitarian organisations and institutions to the alarming
16 situation by addressing an appeal for salvation, and there were such
17 appeals not only from Bugojno. And this also is an illustration of the
18 seriousness of the situation and how those people really needed
19 assistance. And on the basis these activities taken by
20 Dr. Jadranko Prlic, the office for refugees and other institutions in
21 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, one can see that everything was done
22 that they could do to assist those people.
23 Q. If you we go to the next document, 1D 01354. This deals with
24 Vares. It's dated 3 November 1993
25 Persons and Refugees. It's signed by Darinko Tadic, and here we see that
1 there is a realistic -- it is realistic to anticipate the arrival of a
2 large new wave of expelled Croats from the newly occupied enclave of
3 Vares to the free and safe area of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
4 And he's appealing for assistance.
5 Having been there and knowing the situation, can you please tell
6 us what was happening in Vares and whether these folks, these expelled
7 Croats were being expelled by the Croats in order to ethnically cleanse
8 themselves of that area?
9 A. We're talking about almost 15.000 civilians, Croats, who were
10 fleeing in the area from Kakanj to Vares. They had to leave their homes
11 because of attacks by the army of BiH in the area, and for several months
12 they were in this area as refugees outside their homes.
13 Q. All right. If we go on to the next document. This is the last
14 document on this topic. It's 1D 02343, 1D 02343. This is dated -- this
15 is a report dated 16 November 1993
16 Rights and Humanitarian Affairs of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna,
17 and if you could look at this. And of course, we don't have much time,
18 but if you look at the last two paragraphs on the first page and the very
19 last paragraph on the second page of this report, we see various figures.
20 And I'm wondering whether you can assist us on how these statistics were
21 compiled, these figures of expelled persons?
22 A. We've already discussed this, that these figures were collected
23 on the basis of reports from the municipalities which took in these
24 people, that is, from representatives of the refugees and displaced
25 persons, where they were in Vares, Kiseljak, Novi Travnik, Busovaca,
1 Zenica, Konjic, so that on the 16th of November we have an overview of
2 the overall situation giving the figures for Croats before the war, the
3 total number expelled and the locations where they are now in
4 Central Bosnia
5 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, we're going to go into another topic
6 and this deals with statistics. There are actually two bundles of
7 documents. The first one, I'm going to read the number slowly. We'll go
8 one by one. Obviously you've had a chance to look at these, but I'm
9 going to ask you to just basically give one comment, and then there maybe
10 some questions from the Bench. I will start with 1D 01868. This is from
11 the Office of Expelled Persons and Refugees, and this is dated
12 9 June 1993
13 one and I'll just go through the other ones briefly.
14 Do you recognise this and what is it, if you do so?
15 A. I do recognise it. This is a letter addressed to the
16 international humanitarian organisation A.I.C.F., which provided aid to
17 refugees in collective facilities, and this is a review of the facilities
18 where people were put up collectively in municipalities throughout the
19 area. These were either trucks or kindergartens, primary schools, in
20 some cases sports halls, gyms. And we can see that it was Croats who
21 were put up here in the area of the Croatian Republic
22 Q. All right. I'm now going to go through these rather rapidly. We
23 don't need any comment. I'm just going to ask you at the end whether you
24 recognise these reports and can you vouch for the authenticity and the
25 reliability of the statistics in the reports.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I just put one question? On line 17,
2 reference is made to trucks. It's a bit surprising. It's possible, but
3 I want to make sure that this was actually what the witness said. "These
4 were either trucks or kindergartens."
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There is reference to Vagon [phoen]
6 neighbourhood in the translation there. Train carriages, which were not
7 being used at the time.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much. That is more likely.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. KARNAVAS:
11 Q. Okay. If we go on, I will just go through the documents in
12 number. 1D 01800. If you could just look at it, sir. This is from the
13 Office of Displaced Persons. Next document is 1D 01845. Next document,
14 1D 00936. Next document is 1D 01844. 1D 01802, 1D 01828, 1D 01846,
15 1D 01827, 1D 01843, 1D 01801, 1D 02021, 1D 02022, 1D 022 -- 2020,
16 1D 02462, 1D 01842, 1D 01840, 1D 01841, 1D 01839.
17 JUDGE PRANDLER: Mr. Karnavas, really I do not wish to make your
18 task more difficult --
19 MR. KARNAVAS: [Overlapping speakers] ...more miserable than it
20 already is. I understand.
21 JUDGE PRANDLER: -- but so many documents. What can I do with
22 those if you just enumerate the numbers?
23 MR. KARNAVAS: If you could wait for one moment. Here's the
24 purpose of this, Judge Prandler. We obviously can't go through all of
25 these. If I try to submit them by way of motion, then they may be -- I
1 may be accused of not having laid a foundation, so I can't get them in.
2 I went through the first document. These are all from the Office of
3 Expelled Persons and Refugees. The gentleman knows these documents, has
4 seen them and will authenticate them. It's the best I can do under the
5 circumstances. Otherwise, I have to move to way of motion.
6 Frankly, in light of, with all due respect, past decisions, I
7 have little confidence that the Trial Chamber will accept these documents
8 without some sort of foundation, and so this is what I'm trying to do.
9 I'm trying to be as creative as I possibly can under the circumstances,
10 having practised for 25 years, and this I must say is the most unusual
11 trial I'm conducting because of all these documents, time constraints,
12 complexity of issues. So I'm trying to find magical ways to present
13 evidence in ways that would somehow assist you in getting to the truth at
14 the end of the trial, and that's what I'm trying to do.
15 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, Mr. President. I regret intervening,
16 but I would like to just make one point which is this: Some months ago
17 the Prosecution has also tried to summon the creativity to tender
18 documents into evidence in this very same way. The one witness who comes
19 to mind is Mr. Christopher Beese who through him the Prosecution
20 attempted to tender a number of the ECMM reports which he had looked at
21 and was prepared to testify as to their authenticity. The Trial Chamber
22 declined to accept the documents under that procedure, and the
23 Prosecution was then forced to look to other ways to get the documents
24 into evidence.
25 So I understand the difficulties that counsel's facing. However,
1 I think on behalf the Prosecution, we have to insist that the procedures
2 be equal as between both parties.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may address the issue. I do recall being
4 here. Ms. Skye is the only one from the Prosecution that was here at the
5 time. We don't have Mr. -- I believe, if I'm not mistaken, it was
6 Daryl Mundis who did the direct on that particular case -- individual.
7 Many of those documents had not been generated by the individual and had
8 been sent on, and of course they had various offices throughout the
10 Now, here lies the difference, and perhaps Mr. Stringer may set
11 his concerns at ease with this: This is from the Office of Expelled
12 Persons. The gentleman was the deputy and then later on the head. It is
13 a rather small office. It deals with certain issues. All of these
14 reports come out of that particular office. He was in the -- he was in
15 situ at the time. He was aware of the facts, hence why I'm asking him
16 questions such as do these comport and relatively reflect the situation
17 as it occurred at the time, and consistently the witness has said yes.
18 So this is why we're doing this.
19 The other way, I guess, I could put a motion in. Frankly, I
20 don't see the problem with this -- I'm willing to go one by one. I don't
21 have a problem with that. However, on the one hand, I can't be given a
22 certain amount of time to work with and then, on the other hand, be
23 expected to do things the old fashioned way. So something has to give.
24 And when the Trial Chamber denied our request for approximately 160
25 hours, we tried to find creative ways to manage our time, recognising
1 that life is short and we can only -- you know, there's only so much we
2 can spend on this case. So I'm trying to find ways.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The difference between the
4 documents of Mr. Beese were documents consisting of hundreds of pages,
5 and your documents here there's about ten or so documents with
6 statistical figures coming from the office of which the witness was one
7 of the officials. And therefore, in my opinion, there's no problem if
8 you proceed in the following way, and that is to say, these are the
9 documents, numbers so-and-so, and during the proofing we have reviewed
10 those documents. Do you confirm that those documents were issued by your
11 office and you are aware of them, and the witness says yes, I confirm
12 them. We've seen them one by one, and then you put your question to
13 them. Such-and-such an element emerges from all of these documents. Do
14 you confirm that or not?
15 As far as I'm concerned, this is evidence of creativity of
16 international justice, dane of the name [as interpreted], and we can
17 avoid all problems. That is my view. My colleagues may not be of that
18 opinion, but I wish this to be recorded in the transcript. And if there
19 is no opposition on the part of my colleagues, please continue.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.
21 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, Counsel. If I could just get an
22 objection on the record and then I won't intervene any more, because I
23 don't think we need to take more court time on this while the witness is
25 The evidence will be tendered next week after the witness has
1 completed his testimony. I can inform the Trial Chamber that the
2 Prosecution will object on the basis that I've already indicated. It's
3 our view that, in fact, there is to real operative distance between this
4 witness's ability to authenticate these documents and Mr. Beese's
5 ability, based on his position at the time, to authenticate the ECMM
6 documents. So again we don't need to argue about this here, but
7 Prosecution will be objecting.
8 And we're, I think, concerned, Mr. President, based on the
9 comments that you've just made, about the possibility now of opening the
10 door to a means of tendering documents into evidence that was more closed
11 to the Prosecution during its case in chief. But that's all I'll say on
12 that at this point and we'll make our objections next week when the
13 documents are tendered.
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I just would like to declare also for the record
15 that while I have not opposed the President's votum a few moments ago, I
16 reserve my position and will take it when we will deliberate properly
17 within the Chamber. Thank you.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Continue, Mr. Karnavas.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. Thank you. 1D 013 -- 1D 01836, again
21 from the Office of Expelled Persons And Refugees. 1D 01837, 1D 01832,
22 1D 01833. And then we have 1D 01834, 1D 01835, and 1D 01831.
23 Q. Now, Mr. Raguz, during the course of the prepping session
24 preparing to come here, did you have an opportunity to look at these
25 documents which were generated by the office where you were the deputy
1 head and then head of office?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Could you please explain to the Trial Chamber how these documents
4 were generally prepared? What was the methodology?
5 A. In these documents -- may I also be creative? There are -- there
6 is an overall review of the refugees. Then there's a review of their
7 places of origin where they have fled from, then how many of them were
8 taken in by which municipality. There's a record of the actual places
9 that they came from, not just the municipalities, in Central Bosnia,
10 Konjic, Vares, and so on. Then there are lists of collective reception
11 centres, the total number of refugees in relation to the local
12 population, and in that way, one can get a complete insight into the
13 situation until there was an official record of the total number of
14 refugees as agreed at the level of the ministry.
15 Q. What was the -- I understand that you indicated that official
16 census as opposed to official record. An official census of the total
17 number of refugees, is that what you meant?
18 A. Yes, yes. Yes, exactly.
19 Q. All right. Now, what was the -- you told us why there were --
20 why these records were being kept. Did the legislation, the legal
21 instrument that set up the office for this particular office, did it
22 require you to document the sort of information that is documented here?
23 A. It was our obligation to provide information to the institution
24 that established us; first of all, to the HVO and subsequently to the
25 government. We had to tell them about the situation with expelled
1 persons throughout the territory under the HVO, and we had to inform them
2 about the overall humanitarian situation. We could only do this if we
3 were well informed, if we had a certain amount of data. We did this to
4 the best of our ability, but I can tell you that it's very correct
5 information. It was compiled on the basis of specific reports and of
6 people who lived in these various places.
7 Q. All right. Was this information also provided to the
8 international organisations that were at the time working there?
9 A. We were in permanent contact with them and on the whole, these
10 humanitarian organisations were aware of this information.
11 Q. All right. And were these records made in the normal course of
12 business? In other words, did you make them as part of standard
13 procedure or were they made on an ad hoc basis depending on how somebody
14 felt on a particular day?
15 A. This information was compiled in the analysis department. It was
16 brought up-to-date every day on the basis of the information that we
17 obtained from the various places concerned.
18 Q. Now, the information that you're receiving that is being put onto
19 these reports, where is it coming from?
20 A. The information would arrive from municipalities, from places
21 that people had been expelled from, from information about the number of
22 people at risk, from municipalities that accepted such people,
23 municipalities that would eventually give them the status of displaced
24 individuals or expelled individuals and would then provide them with
25 accommodation. So we have data on the basis of municipalities, and we
1 have collective data for all the municipalities. This can be seen in the
2 documents that you have presented.
3 This is very important because these documents provide you with
4 an overview of the actual situation with regard to the number of expelled
5 persons or other refugees. You could see which areas they had come from,
6 under what circumstances and when they arrived.
7 These documents are the best proof of the suffering of the
8 population, of the extent to which they were victims.
9 You asked me about this by referring to the term of reverse
10 ethnic cleansing. This suffering is on a historical scale and can
11 determine relationships in Bosnia-Herzegovina in a completely new way.
12 The main task, therefore, is to know what the real truth is and make it
13 possible for all those who want to return to return to their homes.
14 Q. All right. Now, part of your position being the deputy head and
15 later on the head, were you required in any way to be kept abreast of the
16 sort of information that is compiled in these particular reports? I'm
17 told that the translation is incorrect. Let me go back again. I don't
18 understand Croatian. I can't hear the translation. No disrespect to the
20 A. The question wasn't clear to me. Please repeat it.
21 Q. Let me go back. Based on your position being the deputy head and
22 then later on the head of office, was part of your function, part of your
23 day-to-day job to be aware of and to keep current with the sort of
24 information that we see in these particular reports?
25 A. If you perform your duties correctly to the extent that you have
1 information, if you act to prevent situations, well, yes, you can then
2 act appropriately, but you can't act appropriately if you don't have
3 adequate information.
4 Q. That was my next question. Was the information in these reports
5 then being used by you or Mr. Tadic in order to make certain decisions on
6 a number of -- host of issues that were occurring and unraveling moment
7 to moment, day by day, week by week, month to month?
8 A. Yes, the information was used for the purposes of the office's
9 operations and in order to satisfy these people's needs when it came to
10 accommodation, transport and other forms of support and assistance. At
11 the beginning of October, as you have seen, we were told that there been
12 7.000 individuals who would arrive in Vares. They had been expelled from
13 Kakanj. And in 15 days' time, we received information about where
14 accommodation had been provided for them, where they had been received.
15 So we had to have access to information on an independent basis in order
16 to assist people and we continually used such information.
17 If you're talking about my office, my role in the office, we had
18 information on humanitarian convoys, on the passage of humanitarian
19 convoys, and we tried to perform our duties -- duties to the best of our
20 abilities and in responsible manner under the circumstances that
21 prevailed at the time.
22 Q. Fine. Two more questions. One, you had -- we see that you were
23 on some commissions. You had contact with international -- with
24 individuals that were representing international organisations such as
25 UNHCR. Did you use information contained in these very reports in your
1 dealings with those particular individuals, in your meetings, in your
3 A. I did.
4 Q. Finally, over the course of two days, you were questioned as a
5 suspect by the Office the Prosecution where they had at their disposal
6 various documents, and of course, you provided them with documentation as
7 well. Did questions concerning your activities and in particular
8 activities that are related and described and analysed in the documents
9 that we have seen, were questions posed to you concerning these -- these
11 A. Yes, such questions were posed to me.
12 Q. Let's move to the next document, P 09851?
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, if --
14 MR. KARNAVAS: If it will assist on the foundation, go for it.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If we had had these documents in a bundle, we
16 could have looked at them and maybe found more issues to ask, but I have
17 just one question. We see that there was a flow of refugees, displaced
18 persons, and then they end up in different municipalities.
19 What is the explanation why a specific refugee, displaced person,
20 ends up in one municipality rather than another? Is that sheer accident,
21 or was there some way of coordination?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This was coordinated, and I have
23 already told you how, that there was an office that coordinated such
24 matters, because had there been no coordination, it wouldn't have been
25 possible to receive this enormous number of individuals in a -- in an
1 appropriate manner.
2 You'll see that all municipalities had expelled persons, received
3 expelled persons. It's not as if we tried to direct them to one
4 municipality rather than another. It depended on the situation at the
6 They didn't only end up in municipalities. Almost 200.000 ended
7 up in Croatia
8 thousand of them ended up in Croatia
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And the office you're speaking about was your
10 office, ODPR?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And could municipalities refuse to accept
13 refugees that you had assigned to a municipality?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, look, we never took decisions
15 or allocated individuals without having the agreement or proposal from a
16 municipality. If there was no solidarity -- had there been no solidarity
17 we wouldn't have been able to act in the manner that we did. The
18 situation cannot be clearly explained in a few paragraphs. The
19 solidarity that was manifested will be permanently on record.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Your answer is quite plausible. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a very brief
22 question for you. While Mr. Karnavas was putting questions to you and
23 you were answering the answers, I listened to you, and I also examined
24 the scores of documents that make it possible for a Judge to scan the
25 contents of the documents very quickly, and when going through the
1 documents, 1D 0100835 was the document that I focused on. It concerns
2 the Vares. We know that refugees from Kakanj came to Vares, and then
3 given the ABiH attack and events in Stupni Do, the Croatian population of
4 Vares left Vares.
5 According to this document 1D 01835, it says that 15.000
6 inhabitants left Vares. It's an enormous number. But in other documents
7 that we saw in the course of the day, I noted that sometimes there are
8 documents that say that there were 5.000 individuals that left Vares and
9 other documents say 3.000 individuals left Vares, so the figures are
10 varied in these various documents. Mr. Karnavas has put some technical
11 questions to you in order to find out how these documents were compiled
12 and an investigative judge in a civil law country would have acted in a
13 similar manner, and you answered those questions. In this document 1835,
14 the figure referred to is 15.000. Is this a rough figure or is this
15 figure supported by very precise records on the various places?
16 My colleague Judge Trechsel asked you a minute ago how these
17 refugees were allocated to various municipalities. So this figure of
18 15.000, is based on the records from municipalities, Kiseljak, Kresevo,
19 which is where they were placed later, or is it a global assessment? Is
20 it an empirical assessment, based on experience?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. You have
22 put a very good question to me, because in this document that you are
23 referring to the figure is 15.000 of Croats who were expelled from the
24 area of the Kakanj municipality, but it was at various periods of time
25 that they left. They weren't all moved out or expelled at the same time,
1 but that is the total figure. There were two big convoys, one of 5.000,
2 one of 4.000, and then there were several smaller convoys. Some stayed
3 on and that accounts for the total figure.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for that answer.
5 MR. KARNAVAS:
6 Q. Very well. Okay. Now, Mr. Raguz, if we can look at just one
7 last document on this topic, and that's P 09851. P 09851.
8 MR. STRINGER: This is a document that's under seal, I believe,
9 Mr. President.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: If it's under seal then I guess the public
11 shouldn't see it, but nonetheless I think it's important to be commented
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we won't show the document
14 to the outside world, but you can pose questions to the witness with
15 regard to this document.
16 MR. STRINGER: Well, if I could suggest that it maybe necessary
17 to go into private session, because the witness that led the evidence is
18 also a closed-session witness.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: I won't mention the name of the witness, but I
20 don't think we should be depriving the public of the truth. I mean,
21 that's the problem. I think it's important for the public to know what
22 is being reported --
23 MR. STRINGER: No.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: -- because there's great deal of misinformation
25 and disinformation and propaganda --
1 MR. STRINGER: No.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: -- and this is why.
3 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, counsel. This is a Rule 70 document
4 that is under seal, Mr. President. There's no permission to talk about
5 the document in any public form. We have to be in private session.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges would prefer this
7 document to be discussed in private session. Naturally, the public has
8 to be taken into account, but the Judges also need to have a precise idea
9 of what actually happened so we will very briefly go into private
11 Mr. Registrar.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 31395-31397 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 MR. KARNAVAS:
16 Q. If we look at document 1D 00669, this is a decision on utilising
17 or using immovable property by physical persons. It's dated 2 December
18 1992. It's from the Mostar municipality signed by Jadran Topic who was
19 the president at the time. If we look at that document, and then if we
20 look at another document, 1D 01892. This is dated 22 December 1993, and
21 this is a decree prohibiting property transactions in wartime under
22 direct threat of war signed by Dr. Jadranko Prlic.
23 Were these the legal instruments that you were thinking of at the
24 time that you answered that signing over property deeds was prohibited by
1 A. Yes. And the regulations prevent the use of immovable property
2 and their exchange among physical persons during the state of war.
3 That's the first document. And the second is in the territory of the
4 Croatian Republic
5 Q. Okay. Thank you. Now, if we go on to one other -- we're going
6 to switch topics a little bit. There are two small topics left.
7 1D 02631, 1D 02631. If you look at that you will see that this is a
8 form. It's a request for assistance in obtaining a transit visa through
9 the Republic of Croatia
10 feel sufficiently qualified to tell us a little bit about this sort of
11 form and what transit visas were used based on your activities and your
12 function at the time?
13 A. I do know that in a certain number of cases the head -- the
14 office for refugees of the government of the Republic of Croatia
15 issue transit visas. This was a measure of the government of the
16 Republic of Croatia
17 of a vast number of refugees which were overflowing, and they wanted to
18 have insight into the possibility of accommodating them and also having
19 to have guarantees that the persons going through Croatia would indeed
20 move on to third countries as indicated in the transit visas.
21 The municipalities or the social welfare centres and Red Cross
22 offices in municipalities were a kind of service assisting people who
23 wanted to go to third countries in this way, and this is one such request
24 which is signed by this particular individual with this first and last
25 name. For the execution of this request a guarantee was needed from the
1 country he was leaving, a letter of guarantee saying that the person --
2 I'm sorry, the country he was going to, that the person would have full
3 accommodation and care. And these were in most cases individual
4 requests, as far as I know. That's as much as I can say about this.
5 May I also add that after these requests were collected, the
6 office in Zagreb
7 letter of guarantee and security in the country he was going to, and the
8 response was usually a favourable one.
9 Q. All right. One last question concerning these -- these transit
10 visas. Was there some kind of a collusion between the Croatian Community
11 of Herceg-Bosna and the Republic of Croatia
12 visas in order to ethnically cleanse parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina
13 its Muslim population?
14 A. The very fact that a very small number of people as a proportion
15 of the total number of refugees went in this way, so this instrument
16 cannot be in any way described as serving the purpose of ethnic
17 cleansing. Secondly, the procedure itself confirmed that the people were
18 going to places where they would be better off or to link up with their
19 families or to find safety, and I think that was the fundamental role of
20 this service.
21 Q. If we go on now to the very last document --
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I just ask a question. You said a very
23 small number. Do you have an idea what that number amounts to?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my assessment, there may have
25 been several thousand, that's all, on the outside, compared to a million
1 people who went to a hundred countries in the world. I don't think there
2 were more than 1 or 2.000 such transit visas issued, and the office in
4 JUDGE PRANDLER: May I ask a question here. Mr. Raguz you said
5 in your latest answer that: "...on the outside, compared to a million
6 people who went to a hundred countries in the world." As far as I
7 remember, but in a way I stand to be corrected, from -- from the census
8 in Herceg-Bosna there were about between 800 and 900.000 of Croats.
9 Again I say that I read it somewhere, but I cannot now cite the exact
10 figure. So then the million should be quite a kind of exaggeration, so I
11 wonder what is your figure about that. Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm referring to the total number
13 of refugees from Bosnia and Herzegovina, not just from the area under HVO
14 control. And these are official data, not mine. Including Bosniaks,
15 Croats and Serbs, all of those who sought shelter outside of Bosnia
17 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you. That is clear then that it is not
18 only relating to Croats from Herceg-Bosna but to the -- in comparison
19 with the whole population of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
21 MR. KARNAVAS:
22 Q. And while we're on the topic, prior to the clashes between the
23 Croats and the Muslims, given your experiences and your positions that
24 you were holding, do you know whether Muslims and Croats who had been
25 turned into displaced persons and refugees had gone to third countries?
1 In other words, not just gone to Croatia
2 is before the clashes between the Croats and the Muslims. We do have
3 evidence that there were large waves of displaced persons as a result of
4 the aggression caused by --
5 A. Absolutely so.
6 Q. We're talking prior to April 1993; correct?
7 A. Absolutely, yes. Almost from the very beginning and not from --
8 only from 1992. The attack on Ravno was in September 1991. So from that
9 moment on until the period we're talking about; that is, for more than a
10 year, several hundred thousand people had to leave their homes.
11 Q. All right. Now, if we could go to the very last document, and
12 it's P 06324. P 06324. And I should note for the record that this is an
13 excerpt that comes from P 06323, so there's no dilemma and it's a report
14 on the work of the government of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
15 for the period November 1993 to March 1994. And this is just a discrete
16 section of that report dealing primarily with the Office for Expelled
17 Persons and Refugees.
18 Sir, have you had an opportunity to look at this -- this
20 A. Yes, I have.
21 Q. And do you recognise it?
22 A. I do.
23 Q. And this segment -- this segment of the report, can you please
24 tell us, since it refers to your particular office, who would have been
25 responsible for compiling it?
1 A. As you can see, this contains a report of the work of each of the
2 departments in the office. There's the department for caring for
3 refugees and displaced persons, the analytical department, the department
4 for humanitarian aid, the department for reconstruction.
5 Q. Exactly. And those were the departments that --
6 A. So this is a collective report for all the departments indicating
7 what they had done in the period.
8 Q. All right. Now, I want to focus your attention to the Department
9 for Expelled Persons and Refugees, and in particular if we look at -- it
10 would be page 3, Your Honours, of this particular document. Bless you.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
12 MR. KARNAVAS:
13 Q. The very top paragraph. It says: "Fortunately, in October 1993
14 Hotel Bigeste in Ljubuski which had been and was being restored by
15 international humanitarian organisations was functioning as a reception
16 centre where several thousands of displayed persons stayed for shorter or
17 longer periods."
18 And this in the original reports, Your Honours, would be on page
19 128. Yeah, I'm sorry, 128 in the original report.
20 Do you have that section, sir? Have you been able to find that
22 A. Yes, I have.
23 Q. Now, concerning Ljubuski, if you could please describe to us or
24 tell us exactly about this particular reception centre.
25 A. I can. Ljubuski was one of the municipalities which were exposed
1 to the influx of the largest number of refugees throughout the war, not
2 just at this stage. And in this report there's reference to
3 October 1993, saying that Hotel Bigeste, which existed in Ljubuski though
4 it didn't have the necessary conditions for accommodation, with the
5 assistance of international humanitarian organisations it was refurbished
6 and developed into a reception centre. And this was of great assistance
7 because in that period of time there was a daily influx of a large number
8 of refugees, and accommodation in this hotel provided good quality
9 accommodation for those people.
10 Q. All right. And this reception centre --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Mike please.
12 MR. KARNAVAS:
13 Q. This reception centre, just to make sure we're absolutely clear,
14 when it was established, was it established in order to ethnically
15 cleanse Muslims? Was that the purpose of it? Was it intended to reverse
16 ethnic cleanse the Croats, or was it established in order to deal with
17 the humanitarian crisis and, if so, who were the first occupants of
18 this -- or, yes, occupants of this reception centre?
19 A. Its purpose was exclusively humanitarian. That is why the
20 facility was reconstructed. And it could not have been done without the
21 assistance of the international humanitarian organisations. So there was
22 absolutely no discrimination. Both Croats and Bosniaks were accommodated
23 here, and a large number of Croats were received here.
24 Q. And one last question now, and perhaps it's self-evident, but we
25 see it's a reception centre. By its very nature what is a reception
1 centre, and are there any distinctions between a reception centre and,
2 say, another sort of centre?
3 A. There is a difference, because this is collective accommodation,
4 which means that a certain number of refugees or displaced persons are
5 accommodated in a single facility. And collective centres we have seen,
6 which there were in various municipalities, they accommodated a certain
7 number of refugees who stayed there until their status was resolved,
8 whereas the reception centre was a place where people could come to on a
9 daily basis. Because of the events and the suffering that people were
10 exposed to, they had to have somewhere they could go, be it in the middle
11 of the night, and that is what these reception centres were. And this is
12 nothing new. We have seen that such reception centres existed in other
13 places in Bosnia-Herzegovina as well.
14 Q. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Raguz. I apologise for taking a
15 little bit longer than I had anticipated. I would ask you to be as open
16 and as frank in your answers to any questions posed to you by anyone else
17 in and around this courtroom. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The other lawyers.
19 Madam Nozica.
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. The Defence
21 counsel for Mr. Stojic has no questions for this witness.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is a day of good news,
24 Mr. Kovacic.
25 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as I said earlier on,
1 the Defence for General Praljak will not have any questions for this
2 witness. Thank you.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Defence counsel for
5 General Petkovic would like to give you good news, but unfortunately, we
6 do have a few questions because we feel that this witness may be able to
7 help us in clarifying certain points.
8 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good evening, Your Honours. Good evening,
10 Mr. Raguz. On behalf of the Defence of General Petkovic, I should like
11 to ask you one, maybe several questions connected to your answer to
12 questions by colleague Karnavas when he mentioned Lord Owen's book and
13 the conversation between Lord Owen and Alija Izetbegovic whether women
14 and children should leave areas exposed to attacks, and your answer was
15 that you didn't wish to enter into any speculation whether
16 Alija Izetbegovic and his government had intentionally kept children and
17 their mothers in war-stricken areas or not.
18 It is clear that the Sarajevo
19 attention of the international public focused on the suffering of women
20 and children, and this was used for the achievement of certain political
21 aims. You will remember that answer that you gave, and it appears in
22 yesterday's transcript.
23 A. I'd like to see it. You don't think you quoted me with
25 Q. I will read it to you in English. The question was whether it
1 was politically necessary to keep women and children in Sarajevo, and
2 your answer was, and I quote in English: "[In English] Whether this was
3 politically necessary, well, I wouldn't want to go into that issue. But
4 it is a fact that the government in Sarajevo wanted the local and
5 international public to focus on such matters for their own political
7 A. That is correct, yes, but it differs from what you've said
8 significantly. I didn't say that they had sacrificed women. I said that
9 women and children did suffer. That's a fact. So we need to clear that
11 Q. [Interpretation] My question did not contain the word
12 "sacrifice," nor did I wish to insinuate that. I would like to know,
13 though you didn't live in Mostar for long, nor did you stay there for any
14 length of time, do you have any knowledge about the situation in
15 Eastern Mostar in the second half of 1993, or is your knowledge
16 insufficient for you to be able to comment on the situation there?
17 A. I can comment. In those days there were fierce conflicts in
18 Mostar, and the humanitarian situation was complicated.
19 Q. I shall put to you some concrete questions on the basis of
20 documents that have already been adopted as evidence and on the basis of
21 the testimony of certain representatives of international organisations.
22 My first question has to do with the possible -- the possibility that
23 inhabitants of Eastern Mostar, in the second half of 1993 and later,
24 wanted to leave Mostar, whereas the local authorities did not allow them
25 to do that.
1 Do you have any knowledge about such developments in
2 Eastern Mostar?
3 A. You're referring to the authorities in Eastern Mostar?
4 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm very sorry. It is my perennial problem and
5 concern. Please let me ask both of you to make a break, a pause between
6 your question and your answer for the sake of the interpreters. Thank
8 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me, counsel. Mr. President, just while
9 we're at this point I'd like to make an objection for the record that
10 this line of questioning is beyond the scope of the direct examination,
11 and so, in our view, it's not proper cross-examination.
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that the
13 theme is the humanitarian situation and that includes Mostar. I thought
14 that was the subject of the examination-in-chief. Such a question -- if
15 such a question -- such a question perhaps concerned another town in
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina, but if you assess that -- the situation as
17 different, you can decide that the time I use should be taken away from
18 the Petkovic Defence, I believe. I can continue then you can decide
19 whether it's cross-examination or not.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, you laid the
22 foundation of the question because in the course of the
23 examination-in-chief Mr. Karnavas put questions to the witness concerning
1 situation in Sarajevo
2 Mr. Karnavas addressed this matter incidentally. It wasn't the main
3 object of his examination.
4 The Judges have conferred. At this point in time we believe we
5 should deduct all the time that you will spend on this matter from the
6 time you have, so please go ahead.
7 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I suggest that you
8 take your final decision on the matter once I have gone through all the
9 documents I intend to go through. I'll take this in a different order
11 Your Honours, could we go into private session, please, because
12 I'll be dealing with a document that we have already discussed in private
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Registrar.
15 [Private session]
11 Page 31410 redacted. Private session.
9 [Open session]
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Let's have a look at the following document perhaps your familiar
13 with this book, Mr. Raguz, it's a book by Esad Sejtanovic, Herzegovina
14 the Fiery Gateway of Bosnia, document 4D 00545. We have only translated
15 one passage for the needs of this case, a passage that is important to
16 us, and I'll quote it: "The situation in the town and the environment
17 was increasingly difficult. There was hunger that was widespread and the
18 little food that came from Jablanica through Glogova to Mostar was
19 distributed in parts, and a large number of inhabitants wanted to leave
20 for Jablanica and further on for Bosnia
21 and fortunately, we managed to prevent or reduce people from moving and
22 we limited movement to a minimum."
23 But, Mr. Raguz, have you perhaps read this book?
24 A. I'm familiar with this book. I haven't read it, but what is
25 stated here is clear to me.
1 Q. But that would correspond to what you have been telling us so
2 far, that that is quite possible.
3 A. Yes. That is quite possible.
4 Q. In the documents we have been through there's reference to
5 inhabitants leaving Eastern Mostar and heading off in the direction of
6 Jablanica. Are you aware of the fact that there was a corridor through
7 which there was contact between Eastern Mostar and Jablanica, and it was
8 possible to pass from one location to the other unhindered, more or less,
9 for that entire period of time.
10 A. I'm familiar with the existence of that corridor.
11 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the corridor was used by the ABiH
12 to receive weapons and ammunition on a regular basis?
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, please slow down,
14 because the interpreters are having a little difficulty.
15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm not Ms. Nozica,
16 although I'd gladly be Ms. Nozica, but I will take what you said into
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was thinking about her
19 because she's right in front of my eyes. I apologise, Ms. Alaburic, but
20 could you slow down.
21 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I will, Your Honour.
22 Q. So my question was as follows, Mr. Raguz: Have you ever heard
23 about the fact that the ABiH used that corridor throughout the entire
24 period of the conflict in order to receive weapons and ammunition and it
25 also received reinforcements, specific military units from other parts of
2 A. Yes, I think that's right.
3 Q. Mr. Raguz, Witness Thornberry appeared here. Cedric Thornberry.
4 You do know who the person is; isn't that correct? Could you answer that
6 A. I'm familiar with the name, yes.
7 Q. He told us that towards the end of August and in September there
8 was a media campaign that was being conducted so that the population of
9 Western countries would become aware of the difficult humanitarian
10 situation in Eastern Mostar. Those who were behind the campaign believed
11 that the population of those countries would exert pressure on their
12 governments in order to ensure that they took energetic steps in order to
13 assist Mostar. If you want to check what Mr. Thornberry said, you can
14 find this in the transcript on page 26275 to 26276, and 26277.
15 Mr. Raguz, do you have any information according to which the
16 foreign media, in fact, conducted a campaign and presented the situation
17 in a biased way, the situation in Eastern Mostar was presented in a
18 biased way, they exaggerated certain difficulties in order to ensure a
19 reversal in the policies pursued by certain Western countries in relation
20 to Mostar. Do you have any information about that?
21 A. All I can confirm is that there was a very intense media campaign
22 that was being conducted. It would be necessary to analyse all the
23 components of that campaign, but what you have referred to is certainly
24 one of the components of that campaign.
25 Q. In the -- given your answer could I draw the conclusion that you
1 in fact do not remember the individual elements of that campaign and you
2 could not tell us what the main ideas of the campaign were?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. In that case, I have no further questions and I would like to
5 thank the Chamber for the time allocated to me.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Alaburic. I
7 didn't make a mistake this time.
8 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
9 The Coric Defence team has no questions for this witness.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Ibrisimovic.
11 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, we have no
12 questions for this witness.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We have 25 minutes
14 before we adjourn. Does the Prosecution feel that they can commence now?
15 It's 20 to 7.00, so you have 20 minutes.
16 MR. STRINGER: Very well, Mr. President. We can begin.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, commence then.
18 MR. STRINGER: I have to get set up with the podium and my papers
19 but I will ask my colleague with the assistance of the usher to
20 distribute the documents.
21 Mr. Raguz, if you'd give me a minute to arrange myself.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Stringer:
23 Q. Okay. Mr. Raguz, as the documents are passed out I will take
24 this opportunity to introduce myself to you. My name is
25 Douglas Stringer. I will be asking you questions on behalf of the
1 Prosecution, and I'm going to take you first to a document that is in one
2 of the Prosecution binders. It's at tab number P 07500.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, if possible could
4 you tell us whether we can find this in binder 1 or 2?
5 MR. STRINGER: It's in binder 1, Mr. President.
6 Q. Mr. Raguz, while we're getting oriented with that document, I
7 just want to recall a bit of your testimony from earlier today on the
8 issue of statistics and reporting. And if I recall correctly, it's your
9 testimony, sir, that in fact the statistical data that ODPR was receiving
10 on the numbers and the composition and the other characteristics of the
11 various refugee and displaced person populations is data that was coming
12 in from the various municipalities themselves which was housing or
13 accommodating those refugees; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And would it be fair to say, sir, that given the numbers that
16 you've been testifying about and the various difficulties that were
17 confronting all of these individuals that you and your office viewed it
18 as very important to keep, to maintain as accurate statistics as
19 possible, understanding, of course, that the circumstances that prevailed
20 at the time were difficult in terms of obtaining precise or -- or exact
22 A. That was the intention.
23 Q. And then -- well, just looking at this document which you have in
24 front of you, this one, if you go to the very end of it, it's dated the
25 6th of January, 1994. It appears to be a report prepared by the Office
1 of Displaced Persons and Refugees, by two gentlemen named Mirko Alilovic
2 and Ante Aleksic. Do you see that?
3 A. I see it now. It's the first time.
4 Q. Did Mr. Alilovic and Mr. Aleksic work for the ODPR in January of
6 A. They worked for the centre for social care in Mostar, but apart
7 from that, as far as I know, Mr. Alilovic at the time had already
8 retired. I knew him personally.
9 Q. Well, do you see his signature on the bottom of this document?
10 A. Yes, I can see his signature.
11 Q. Okay. Then, of course, I'm working off the English version, but
12 the third page of the document, which is the page that comes after the
13 map, the city plan of Mostar, appears to be -- well, it indicates that
14 this is a report of the Office for the Displaced Persons and Refugees
15 Mostar. Do you see that?
16 A. I can see that, but what I can't say is that this is not an
17 official document. It was never examined as an official document of the
18 office, and no one ever acted on the basis of this document, because
19 otherwise I would have been familiar with the document. These might be
20 the personal reminiscences of Mr. Alilovic and his -- his views.
21 Q. All right. I want to ask you some questions about this document
22 nonetheless, sir, given these two gentlemen at least purporting to be
23 writing a report on behalf of the Office of Displaced Persons and
24 Refugees. Can we agree, sir, that based on the name of this report this
25 appears to be related exclusively to the Mostar municipality?
1 A. Well, look, you don't have a protocol here in this document, so
2 such a document wasn't a document of the Office for Refugees and
3 Displaced Persons in which I work. This is the first time I've seen this
4 document, and that's all I can say about this document. I would need
5 time to go through it and analyse it, but given the role of the office
6 this document is irrelevant because it wasn't a document that originated
7 in the office.
8 You can see that this is an essay, a book. These are opinions.
9 You saw that in other documents we didn't work in this manner. Our
10 office didn't work in this manner.
11 Q. Let me then just ask you a few questions about the opinions of
12 these gentlemen that are expressed in the document. I'm not going to ask
13 you about the statistics or the numbers that are contained in the tables,
14 at least not the tables 3, 4, and 5. Well, let me ask you this first
15 since you know these gentlemen, Mr. Alilovic and Mr. Aleksic. Tell me
16 again, what were their positions then, as far as you can recall? What --
17 what was their job in respect of refugees?
18 A. As I have told you, these people were over 70 years of age, and
19 they -- well, as far as Mr. Alilovic is concerned, I said that I could
20 remember him personally. He was over 70. I think he used to be in the
21 Centre for Social Care in Mostar. These centres dealt with these tasks,
22 with communications, distribution, record-keeping. But I can say for
23 certain that he didn't play a role or didn't hold a position of
24 responsibility in the Office for Expelled Persons and Refugees.
25 Q. And then also Mr. Aleksic. Tell us who was he and what was his
2 A. I was thinking of Mr. Aleksic, yes.
3 Q. Okay. Then tell us about --
4 A. I apologise.
5 Q. Then what about Mr. Alilovic?
6 A. I think the situation was the same. They were linked to the
8 Q. Tell me, then, you're talking about the Centre for Social Care in
9 Mostar. Is that a separate office or body which dealt with issues
10 regarding displaced persons and refugees?
11 A. The Centre for Social Care -- well, the centres were bodies in
12 municipalities that dealt with the displaced persons, but it also dealt
13 with the social issues. Such institutions existed in these
14 municipalities before the war, during the war and after the war. So
15 these institutions exist in general in all municipalities.
16 Q. Okay. So that in addition to the Office for Displaced Persons
17 and Refugees that you were associated with, there were other bodies at
18 other levels, the municipality level, for instance, which also dealt with
19 issues concerning displaced persons and refugees; is that correct?
20 A. I have already said in my testimony that municipal centres for
21 social work dealt with such issues, or municipal Red Cross offices. They
22 dealt with such issues.
23 Q. All right. Did those municipal-level organisations such as this,
24 did they in general coordinate or communicate with ODPR in the
25 coordination of activities in order to care for and to accommodate the
1 refugees and displaced persons?
2 A. Yes. As I have already said, there was such coordination.
3 Q. All right. So in any event, there were other bodies comprised of
4 other individuals who may or may not have been sharing your own views or
5 the official policies of ODPR in respect of refugees and displaced
6 persons; is that correct?
7 A. I can't say that it is correct, because with regard to the issues
8 that the office dealt with, the positions were quite clear when it comes
9 to coordinating issues concerning refugees and displaced persons. So
10 everything had to be in agreement with the policies of the office.
11 Q. All right. I'll be asking you more about the policies of the
12 office tomorrow. Just in the few minutes that we have left to us this
13 evening, I want to -- I recognise you're not -- you're not keen to adopt
14 or to associate yourself with this report, but you did say something, I
15 think, that is relevant to this report in your testimony earlier today.
16 A. Absolutely not.
17 Q. Okay. Because this report in that it relates to areas under the
18 control of the HVO, you mention this in your commentary on the -- one the
19 earlier reports that you testified about in private session, and that is
20 the fact that there was joint statistics prior to the 9th of May, 1993
21 And then as I understood it, after the 9th of May, 1993, the
22 record-keeping or the statistics in respect of refugees and displaced
23 persons was no longer joint, which I take to mean that from that point
24 forward the Croats, the Bosnian Croats, in this region kept their own
25 statistics, and the Bosnian Muslims for their part kept their own
1 statistics, and the statistics were not then all put together
2 collectively. Is that correct?
3 A. On the whole, but we also had the opportunity to see that we had
4 differing information about the number of refugees in the eastern part of
5 Mostar. It was different from, for example, an organisation such as the
7 Q. I guess my question is a bit different. In all of these
8 statistics and the numbers of the ODPR concerning the numbers of refugees
9 and displaced persons and all the numbers in the documents of ODPR that
10 you've talked about already, those ODPR reports do not include the
11 numbers of refugees and displaced persons who were in ABiH territory, for
12 example, East Mostar; is that correct?
13 A. I have told you the period that they covered, and this is the
14 opinion of the UNHCR, it covered the period up to the beginning the war
15 in Mostar, but there is also data, analytic data that we have already
16 discussed that show the situation in Eastern Mostar, and this can be
17 found in the office data.
18 Q. And I'll try to ask -- it's a simple question and it will be my
19 last one for tonight. After the 9th of May, is it true, sir, that none
20 of the ODPR data on refugees and displaced persons included the numbers
21 of the people in East Mostar? That was excluded from the ODPR numbers
22 after the 9th of May; correct?
23 A. I have just said that in certain reports from the report -- even
24 after the 9th of May there was such information on the number of refugees
25 in the eastern part of Mostar.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's time to
4 adjourn. Tomorrow we will be sitting at 2.15, and I wish you a good
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.
7 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 27th day
8 of August, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.