1 Wednesday, 24 September 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could 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.
12 This is Wednesday, September 24, 2008, and I would like to
13 welcome our witness, the accused, the counsel for Defence, Mr. Stringer
14 and all his -- and his team, as well as our court reporter and everyone
15 helping us around in the courtroom. We will continue with this
16 cross-examination, but first I need to give the floor to our registrar
17 because he has two IC numbers to give us.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. 1D has tendered its
19 objection to documents tendered by the Prosecution through witness Puljic
20 Borislav. This list shall be given Exhibit Number IC 00854. The Prlic
21 Defence team has also tendered its response to the Prosecution's
22 objections to its documents tendered through Witness Borislav Puljic.
23 This response shall be given Exhibit Number IC 00855. Thank you, Your
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
1 Mr. Scott, welcome, and you have the floor.
2 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, Your
3 Honours, and all those in and around the courtroom, counsel.
4 WITNESS: ILIJA KOZULJ [Resumed]
5 [Witness answered through interpreter]
6 Cross-examination by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
7 Q. Mr. Kozulj, good afternoon.
8 A. Good afternoon.
9 Q. Sir, once again our time is limited and I apologise to you if you
10 were offended in any way yesterday that I had to sometimes intervene to
11 move us along, but as you've come to understand possibly since Monday our
12 time is limited and we have to work quite quickly sometimes. So I hope
13 you'll just understand that, and in fact to pick up on that since we --
14 where we ended last night and to see perhaps where we need to start
15 today, we were looking at the end of the day at a binder of documents
16 concerning communications with Central Bosnia and Sarajevo
17 record was P 10633. And based on the testimony and some discussions
18 among counsel toward the end of the day, I want to see where we are at
19 this point.
20 Do I understand correctly that the topic of your testimony on
21 this point, it relates to what we might call -- I was thinking about this
22 and sometimes we call these land-line civilian telephone service, so
23 that's what we primarily we've been talking about. And in looking at the
24 documents in the binder, apart from issues concerning land-line civilian
25 telephone service between Herzegovina
1 that there were other means of communication between Herzegovina and
3 A. I'm sorry if I failed to make myself clear yesterday. I would
4 like to say that I'm an expert for civilian communications, and this is
5 what I have been doing for most of my life. Apart from my time at
6 school - and that was a long, long time ago and communications at that
7 time were a completely different thing - I never ever dealt with military
8 communications. So what I've been talking about before this Tribunal had
9 to do with civilian communications used by telecom operators, not only in
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina but throughout the world. Military communications
11 or any other special kind of communications -- well, I don't know enough
12 about that and I cannot testify about that and I cannot be clear about
13 technical details.
14 Surely during the war the situation regarding the civilian
15 telecommunications systems was the way I described them. As far as
16 military communications are concerned, I know really little about that.
17 Naturally, during the war, Mr. Prosecutor, it was possible to communicate
18 it in a variety of ways. It was possible for the international military
19 forces or international humanitarian organizations to secure special
20 telecommunications for some authorities if they wanted to do so because
21 they did have at their disposal the necessary equipment. I know that I
22 sometimes saw military vehicles and vehicles used by various humanitarian
23 international organizations that had radio communications equipment, and
24 they did have in place a network in Bosnia and Herzegovina that they
25 could use for their communications. Now, whether they placed any of that
1 at the disposal of certain persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina who at that
2 time were leading figures in the military or in politics, I don't know
3 that and I cannot say anything about it. If they wanted to do so, they
4 were in a position to do it.
5 Q. All right. Thank you, sir.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please, you just drew
7 my attention on an issue that had escaped me so far. You're talking
8 about communication among international organizations. To your
9 knowledge, all these international organizations, there were many of them
10 on the field, so to your knowledge were they able to communicate among
11 themselves using their own instruments, their own devices? I'm talking,
12 for example, about UNPROFOR. Or did they have to use the PTT lines at
13 one point in time?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, the international
15 forces used their own communications system. I know for a fact that the
16 relay station near Mostar, Planinica, that's its name, there's a radio-TV
17 transmitter there, it was used also to house the radio repeater equipment
18 used by the international forces because they had it under its control,
19 and they even maintained the road leading up to that station.
20 Of course, Mr. President, I don't know what kind of a network it
21 was, what its capacity or capabilities were, and so on, because even if I
22 had been interested in that nobody would have told me.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
24 MR. SCOTT:
25 Q. Sir, just on one point of what you've just said, you remind me
1 about something. The Planinica location which was discussed yesterday,
2 you've just said just now that the international forces during - to use
3 your term - during this time-period were able to install a station there.
4 Generally speaking, Planinica was a location that was under - we could
5 call it - HVO control; correct? I'm not saying the internationals
6 weren't allowed to go there, but generally speaking it was on territory
7 controlled by the HVO?
8 A. Planinica as the relay was under HVO control at all times, and I
9 don't know who made the arrangements, but I know that it was used also by
10 the international armed forces.
11 Q. All right. All right. Well, thank you for that. Let me go back
12 to my first question and your answer, and -- which was helpful. But let
13 me just focus on a couple of specific items just so we can be as clear as
14 possible. You in particular focused a great deal of your testimony
15 yesterday on the -- the disruption, if you will, of the coaxial cable
16 between Mostar and Sarajevo
17 when I was using the terminology what we might call a land-line
18 communication. Do you understand that?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. And so let me -- in light of that, in light of what you told us
21 just a moment ago, can we just be very clear again then that you do not
22 dispute that apart from such land-line PTT telephone service that
23 there -- you don't dispute that there were other means of communication
24 between Herzegovina
25 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Microphone not activated]
1 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, that's not appropriate. Mr. Praljak
2 should be cautioned. That's not appropriate behaviour in the courtroom.
3 Q. Sir --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Praljak, please do not
5 interrupt the Prosecutor while he's putting his questions. I don't know
6 what you wanted to say, I have no idea.
7 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, there's a -- unless it's an objection,
8 there is a question pending to the witness and I don't want the witness
9 to be told, with all due respect, influenced by Mr. Praljak's speech.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
11 Mr. Praljak, you are not supposed to intervene during a
12 question-and-answer session unless you notice that the question has not
13 been put correctly, but you suddenly interrupted the proceedings, we have
14 no idea why.
15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I do apologise. It's
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
18 Please proceed, Mr. Scott.
19 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]
20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
21 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Sir, can you please answer my question.
23 A. Well, I've already said it, but now I'm forced to repeat it.
24 Mostar PTT, the Mostar telecom operator, was connected with Sarajevo
25 a coaxial cable. Mostar had two wireless radio relay stations linking it
1 with Split
2 systems located in Serbia
3 connected, it had alternative connections with Sarajevo. But the --
4 there were only three major systems that connected Mostar with the rest
5 of the world, so to speak, and if all three were down then Mostar was cut
6 off from Sarajevo
7 talking about the telecom operators, telecom operators do not deal with
8 radio stations, unlike the military units; that's just not done, it
9 doesn't exist. Radio units were introduced with mobile telephones, and
10 at that time there was no mobile telephony in our area apart from using
11 analog systems from Croatia
12 did not reach Sarajevo
14 that bordered to the north with Croatia
15 too far away for this signal to reach it and for people to be able to
16 receive it and use it. So as far as telecom operators are concerned, and
17 the only telecom operators in existence at that time were public
18 companies, there were no private telecom operators, it was not possible
19 at the time when the telecommunications centre in Mostar was destroyed
20 and when all those lines went down, it was impossible to get in touch
21 both with Sarajevo
22 Let me say this once again. In order for those lines to be
23 established, first of all you have to have the equipment; second, you
24 have to have the technical solutions, you also have to have personnel,
25 freedom of movement, and the willingness for those communications to be
1 established. So we had excellent personnel, but equipment and freedom of
2 movement, those were the areas where we encountered problems.
3 Q. All right. Let's move on, please, but on the same topic
4 generally. If you can find your way in the Prosecution binder again, and
5 I believe it is still in the first binder, binder number 1, Exhibit
6 P 04699, P 04699. And while you're doing that, sir, let me say for the
7 record that this is a report on the activities of the HVO HZ HB for the
8 period January to June 1993, so it's an HVO kind of six-month report.
9 And if you find that, please -- for the English speakers I'm particularly
10 interested in page 15, page 15 and I'll see if we can possibly help you.
11 If you find the section in the document -- there are subsections of the
12 document and this one is in a section called: "Military Police
13 Administration," and that's -- I'm just giving you that as a landmark.
14 If you find "Military Police Administration" and then go down several
15 pages until you finally -- you will find a paragraph that starts with:
16 "The situation with wire communications ..."
17 MR. SCOTT: And if anyone else in the courtroom can assist us in
18 finding the Serbo-Croatian page reference, that will be helpful, in
19 e-court or otherwise.
20 Q. Again, it's a paragraph that starts with the text: "The
21 situation with wire communications ..."
22 A. Excuse me, could you please direct me to the page that I should
23 be looking at.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Microphone not activated]
25 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I guess it's page 24.
2 MR. SCOTT:
3 Q. It appears to be page 20 -- perhaps page 24 of the Serbo-Croatian
4 document --
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The second paragraph.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I found it.
7 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Judge Trechsel, thank you.
8 Q. If you have that, sir, let me just -- and this is a general HVO
9 report and it says this: "The situation with wire communications is
10 mainly satisfactory. All units, stations, and communication centres are
11 connected to the automatic telephone system as end users of the telephone
12 exchange in Split
13 I note this in particular because of Judge Trechsel's question
15 "Telegraph communications are guaranteed at the level of military
16 police battalion administrations."
17 Now, looking at that information, sir, is that -- do you confirm
18 that information is consistent with what you knew of the status at that
19 time? And again, this is a report for the period January-June 1993.
20 A. This is in line with the situation as it was, it reflects the
21 situation as it was, but we're talking about territories under HVO
23 Q. All right. And over on the top of that -- well, in the English
24 carrying over to page 16 and in the following paragraph in your -- in any
25 event in either version I suppose, the following paragraph. I won't
1 again read the same -- whole thing, but I notice at the end of that
2 paragraph it mentions this same location, Planinica, and in general it
3 says this system was "... providing good-quality communications links on
4 70 per cent of the territory of the HZ HB."
5 Do you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And again, that would be consistent with your knowledge at the
9 A. For the most part, yes.
10 Q. All right. If you can then -- all right. I think we'll stop
11 with that for this document for purposes of the time-limits that we have.
12 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute.
14 Witness, I note that in this report on page 11 in the English
15 version there's a chapter on the CIS, the security and information
16 service. So I have the following question to ask you. The BiH -- I
17 mean, the ABiH, so in Mostar of the units who were under Arif Pasalic's
18 command, I'd like to know whether these units had to go through the
19 exchange, telephone exchange, controlled by the HVO when they wanted to
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time prior to the conflict
22 between the Croat and Muslim side, the communications went through the
23 Mostar PTT. They used the same lines that we did and that all the others
24 did, the same communications.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But after the conflict started,
1 what happened?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The lines went down.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So which network were they
4 using to communicate among themselves when they were using the telephone?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, before the
6 conflict Arif Pasalic was in the western part of the town and
7 communications with the units that were dispersed around the town for the
8 most part in the eastern part of the town were used -- were using PTT
9 cable network. When the conflict broke out, Arif, Arif Pasalic, crossed
10 over to the eastern side and he was able to use the cable installations
11 in the eastern part of the town. A certain number of people who worked
12 in the PTT went together with him, and they assisted in setting this up.
13 I assume that that's what they did because they certainly had the
14 capacity to do it.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I have another
16 question, a little question, but it's quite important for me. Maybe you
17 won't really see the point of this question; however, when telephones are
18 tapped, the tapping is done in the PTT exchange, isn't it? I'd like to
19 know whether you have the answer to this, yes or no; if you don't, it's
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The only thing I know is that in
22 the former state all cables led to a special room, and there it was
23 possible to tap into all the telephone lines. That's no longer the case,
24 but at any rate it was possible to do that. But you can wire-tap
25 wherever you want to from point A to point B. There are no limitations
1 to that. You can wire-tap in many places.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But when you were heading this
3 enterprise, did you -- were you aware of any tapping that would have been
4 done within the HVO?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't know that and I don't
6 think that PTT was used for that directly.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
8 Mr. Scott.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, I have a follow-up question to the
10 previous question. You have said, Mr. Kozulj, that Arif Pasalic after
11 the conflict broke out went to East Mostar and from there he could use
12 the cable communications. Now, I wonder whether I understand correctly.
13 You have told us that the two bridges where the coaxial cable passed had
14 been destroyed and the cable had, therefore, been interrupted. Are you
15 now saying that Mr. Pasalic on the east side had the possibility to hook
16 himself on the cable from there to anywhere and use it? Or have I
17 misunderstood this?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Coaxial cables are cables that are
19 used for long -- over long distances, and in a town or in an inhabited
20 area you set up a large network using other cables. Mostar, like any
21 other town, offers all kinds of possibilities in this respect, it is full
22 of cables. So although the bridges were down, it was possible to
23 re-connect the cables on the western side of the town and also on the
24 eastern side of the town and to use the cables that were already in
25 place. They could install an exchange and then use the cables. They
1 could also use --
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much. That's the answer to my
4 Excuse me, Mr. Scott, please continue.
5 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Sir, before we leave that document, I was able to find the
7 reference in the B/C/S version to the other portion I did want to briefly
8 mention to you. It's English page 21, and in the Serbo-Croatian it is
9 page 32, and I'm told that in e-court the B/C/S is on page 34. So 21 in
10 the English, 32 in the B/C/S, page 34 in e-court for B/C/S.
11 And I will say for the record, this is in a part of the report
12 that comes under the section titled: "Health Sector." And on that
13 paragraph that I'd like you to look at, sir, it says: "In the recent
14 period -- in the recent period, the Computer Technology and
15 Communications Department set up a communications system throughout the
16 HZ HB wherever such a service existed," listing a number then -- a number
17 of locations starting with Busovaca, Vitez, Konjic, et cetera.
18 At the end of that paragraph the last two sentences are: "All
19 the problems of the medical services and hospitals were discussed through
20 this communication system. All reports containing data on the wounded
21 and killed were filed in the computer of our service."
22 Did you have any knowledge around this time - again, this is a
23 report for the first six months of 1993 - that there was a computer
24 communications network operating in this fashion?
25 A. Well, I'm not an expert in that field. These are military
1 communications that were installed wherever it was necessary to secure
2 communication for the requirements of the HVO. This is the system of
3 packet communication in order to protect the information used by -- and
4 they used the military radio communications network. There is nothing in
5 common that they have with the PTT communications. I don't know how that
6 network was built, what its capacity was, where its nodes were or
7 switchboards or -- I really don't know. I'm not trying to avoid
9 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may just
10 assist, if I may assist the witness and everyone in the courtroom. This
11 document, this part of the document that Mr. Scott quoted, in the
12 Croatian version it does say "package communication." In the English
13 it's translated as "the communications system," and perhaps this is where
14 the misunderstanding arises between the Prosecutor and the witness.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Tomanovic.
16 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
18 MR. SCOTT: Apologies.
19 Q. If I can next ask you to look -- you should have another binder,
20 I'm afraid, which is P 10630, which -- I'll wait for the moment. It
21 has -- it's communications related to Gornji Vakuf during the period
22 January 1993. It's a completely separate binder. If you look at the
23 beginning of the binder -- no, the whole binder is 10630. There you go.
24 Sir, this is a compilation of documents. I believe it's -- there
25 are about 72 communications for the period of January 1993, HVO
1 communications related to Gornji Vakuf. My intention is not to go
2 through all the individual documents with you. It's similar to the
3 binder that we looked at yesterday afternoon concerning Central Bosnia
4 and Sarajevo
5 represent to you that these records indicate at least 72 HVO
6 communications related to Gornji Vakuf during the period the 5th of
7 January, 1993
8 appears to indicate a pretty good level of communication?
9 A. All -- well, the thing is I don't know what sort of
10 communications they were, whether they were packet communications or -- I
11 don't see that from here.
12 Q. All right.
13 A. As far as I know, Gornji Vakuf always was a territory under the
14 control of the HVO.
15 Q. And by January of 1993 can you confirm that there was -- again,
16 the term I use today, there was land-line telephone communication between
17 the Mostar region and Gornji Vakuf as of January 1993?
18 A. They were not supposed to exist between Mostar and Gornji Vakuf.
19 They could have existed between Gornji Vakuf and Prozor, and then Prozor
20 was linked via radio or some other way with the other territories.
21 Different options were used in order to link up the regions in the
22 territory under the control of the HVO.
23 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Previous translation continues]...
1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Just very briefly, Your
2 Honour, when you look at these documents that are in this binder relating
3 to communications with Gornji Vakuf, just by looking at them, glancing at
4 them, you can see that this is not exclusively about communications with
5 Gornji Vakuf but also with communications about Gornji Vakuf. So then we
6 have documents of a communication at Ljubusko with a location within
7 Mostar but Gornji Vakuf is also referred to. So I guess that the
8 intention of the Prosecutor is to introduce this number of documents as
9 evidence that there was communication with Gornji Vakuf. However, these
10 documents do not show that, not all of them do at least. I don't have
11 the opportunity to look at all of them, but I already see from the chart
12 that some documents refer to internal office-to-office communications in
13 the building in Mostar, for example, or Ljubusko. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, quite --
15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. --
17 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] -- it would be a good idea
18 to get this in Croatian also so that we can follow this. I think this is
19 a duty of the Prosecutor.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It's all in both languages in the binder, the
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Praljak, does your
23 lawyer have the documents? Don't they have them?
24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with all due respect,
25 we received the binders yesterday from the Prosecutor, as is the habit
1 here in this courtroom, immediately or shortly before the cross began,
2 that is the practice. But there are documents in the binder which have
3 not been translated. So it is a question of how far the Prosecutor will
4 go with these documents. If we're only talking about the binder or the
5 list of documents that have been shown so far, there is no problem; but
6 if we're going to be dealing with documents that have not been translated
7 into B/C/S then we are going to put in an objection.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but I don't think that the
9 Prosecutor wants to go into detail or into contents. He just wants to
10 show that there were means of communication. You just need to look at
11 documents 1301, you can see a stamp on it showing that the document was
12 sent through the telegram number 501. I suppose that that's what the
13 Prosecutor wants to show; he doesn't want to go to the contents of the
14 documents. Only ask the witness based on these documents whether the
15 witness can confirm that there were various means of communication,
16 including telegrams, since we can see that this one was received by
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Scott, perhaps this is a bit premature, but
19 I think you should in particular establish or at least allege which way
20 of communication was used. One way that we have not yet mentioned here
21 but is used in -- or was until some time ago, at least by our army, are
22 pigeons, and they are not so vulnerable to shelling. But perhaps you
23 will go into this. Some seem Telex, some may be fax, but --
24 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honours, to both Mr. President and
25 Judge Trechsel. And let me start by saying that Judge Antonetti, the
1 President, is correct that it was not our intention to go through the
2 content of each of these documents. We're not arguing at this point what
3 a particular report says or doesn't say, except in one aspect which I'll
4 come back to in a moment. So it was not our intention to go through
5 these documents, and of course it would take us more time than we have,
6 to be perfectly transparent, if we were to try to go through all 72
8 To respond to counsel's observation, the documents -- all the
9 documents in this binder purport to be either one of two things or both,
10 they either are communications with, to or from, at one end or the other,
11 if you will, the communication line with Gornji Vakuf; or they make
12 reference to information coming from Gornji Vakuf. And the Prosecutor --
13 as to those particular documents, it's that kind of document the
14 Prosecutor would submit that if there are internal reports among the HVO
15 about what's happening in Gornji Vakuf on a day in January 1993, then
16 that information itself was communicated somehow, unless it was being
17 made up, which presumably was not the case.
18 So to answer those questions.
19 Judge Trechsel, I'm afraid that you're absolutely right, the
20 chart would be more helpful if we had indicated in each item the form of
21 communication. Obviously we didn't. Sorry for that. But if we went
22 through each document, again we would see a variety of whether it was by
23 a fax, whether it was -- many of them will be by packet. There are
24 different forms, Your Honour, but I do have to say in all honesty I
25 couldn't possibly go through each one now to put it on, but I understand
1 in the future it would be helpful to have it on the table.
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something?
4 MR. SCOTT:
5 Q. Yes, please, go ahead.
6 A. It's not clear to me that what is being affirmed is that the HVO
7 units, or let's say territories under the control of the HVO, had
8 communications -- well, we tried with all our might to secure connections
9 for both civilian and military forces in the territories where they were.
10 I don't see what is controversial about that. The other thing is whether
11 they had connections with the others, with the Serb side, with the Muslim
12 side; this is another question altogether.
13 Q. Well, let me be clear --
14 MR. SCOTT: Sorry. Go ahead.
15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I really don't want
16 to take up any more time, but I must admit that I'm a little bit confused
17 with this position. My learned friend has explicitly just said that
18 these 72 documents were not -- well, that it was not the intention to go
19 through all 72 of them. If the documents were given to us yesterday or
20 the plan of documents that are going to be used at the cross, we could
21 have for decency's sake been told not to have to go through all these 72
22 documents. My team this morning invested about four or five hours -- I
23 mean, I didn't keep track of who did what, but four or five hours to go
24 through all of that. So I must object. This seems like a tactic to me.
25 We cannot be given a binder before the cross as the material to be used
1 at the cross, and then to be told during the cross that we did not have
2 the intention in the first place to go through all of these documents.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With all due respect,
4 Mr. Kovacic, I discovered only a few minutes ago this binder bearing the
5 number Exhibit 10630, and it took me only a few minutes to realize what
6 the Prosecutor was endeavouring to demonstrate. It didn't take me three
7 hours to understand; I understood in a matter of seconds and I understood
8 that the Prosecutor wanted to use these documents to try and demonstrate
9 that there were various systems of communication that were working with
10 regard to Gornji Vakuf. From what the Prosecutor says, there are 70
11 documents showing that. He said he was not going to go into each of the
12 72 documents, so based on that he was going to tell the witness, I have a
13 binder with 72 documents about Gornji Vakuf. These are military-type
14 documents. Since they are sent to operational zones and there are stamps
15 showing that the documents were recorded or sent by radio telegram or
16 Telex, et cetera, and he was going to ask whether the witness could
17 confirm that that was the way it was working at military level. And the
18 witness was to answer, and he answered already in that way, he said that
19 he was specialised in civil matters, not in military matters.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Let me add, Mr. Kovacic, I'm a bit surprised at
21 this intervention. Yesterday, we had a file thicker than this one,
22 Exhibit 10633, it looks exactly like this. The Prosecutor dealt with it
23 exactly the way he deals with this one, and I find it difficult to
24 understand that this could be misunderstood. I do not think that any
25 blame falls on the Prosecution in this respect.
1 Mr. Scott, you may continue.
2 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] With all due respect, Your Honours,
3 the problem lies in the fact that we were given one information and that
4 we, using the minimum standards of work required of us, had to go through
5 those documents. Of course we understood what the purpose was, but we
6 cannot foresee how far the Prosecutor will go with each of the examples.
7 We did understand that he was providing examples, but we cannot
8 anticipate how far he will take these examples. So we're automatically
9 trying to find other documents which confirm this, provide some detailed
10 information, explain things, because based on some documents you really
11 cannot see what it's all about -- I mean, you cannot even see what sort
12 of communication is being discussed. I don't want to take any more of
13 your time on this matter, but I still do believe that it is quite
14 unrealistic to provide the other parties in the courtroom, to the Defence
15 and to yourselves, after all, with 72 documents on the table and say,
16 Well, here are the examples. They could have taken out or extracted
17 those two or three examples and use them.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But I think that Mr. Scott
19 might take four or five examples, I'm not sure. He -- you took the floor
20 before he even started so -- or finished, so maybe that was -- maybe he
21 was planning -- what are you planning to do, Mr. Scott?
22 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. I must -- let me just say
23 this. I mean, I thought that the Prosecution frankly was going out of
24 its way to be as helpful as possible, albeit for the column on the manner
25 of communication which Judge Trechsel's rightly pointed out would be
1 helpful, I would be happy to supplement the charts and provide that
2 information in the future.
3 I could have stood up, I suppose, and put to the witness --
4 simply made the good-faith representation that the Prosecution had at
5 least 72 documented instances of communications with Gornji Vakuf in
6 January 1993, and as a person who's expert, at least generally in various
7 forms of communication, what that means -- what that says to him about
8 communications. I simply could have done that with that one single piece
9 of paper. I thought it might be more helpful to everyone in the
10 courtroom and to the witness to have not only the table, but, if you
11 will, the supporting material. And so we were trying to be helpful, not
12 unhelpful, in doing it this way.
13 Q. My original question to you, sir, was -- and I realize you may
14 not be an expert in every aspect of military communications, but you've
15 talked an awful lot about a lot of things since Monday. And let me go
16 back to my original question, sir. Doesn't this indicate to you in
17 general that there were, in fact, fairly extensive communications going
18 on between -- either to or about Gornji Vakuf in January 1993?
19 A. You're talking about information that you have information --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, if you want to
21 interrupt the witness in his answer, no; but if it's for something
22 else -- what do you want to say?
23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, regardless of
24 the anger of His Honour Judge Trechsel, what is being said in this court
25 is imprecise. The question says significant communication, important
1 communication, but three times it is repeated that 72 times there was
2 communication with Gornji Vakuf down. This document does not show that.
3 This is not a correct number, so I'm surprised that neither the lawyers
4 or Their Honours are reacting. This documentation shows or it enumerates
5 the communications in Mostar, Mostar and Ljubusko, and then the
6 elementary preciseness of each engineer is not to use the number 72. How
7 broad something is -- and if we're talking about numbers, we need to
8 quote the number, is it 13? Is it 500? But 72 is used three times after
9 Ms. Kuzmanovic [as interpreted] said that it's not 72. And if you're
10 insisting on preciseness or precision, let's stick to it then. Thank
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Praljak -- well, my
13 colleague doesn't want you to comment; I'm not of his view. So there is
14 some disagreement or total disagreement within the Trial Chamber.
15 As to this figure, the Prosecutor said that there were 72
16 documents, but of course throughout that period there must have been many
17 more communications with various zones. We see Kordic, Stojic, HVO Main
18 Staff, et cetera, Boban, there must be many more documents and I guess
19 the Prosecutor made a selection using his research engine or software and
20 found 70 documents bearing the name or with the name of Gornji Vakuf.
21 And based on the 72 documents, he's trying to demonstrate that there must
22 have been various ways of communication. Is this your purpose? So
23 there's not just 72 documents, there are many more, but your services
24 have selected these after doing some research. Is that right?
25 MR. SCOTT: That's correct, Your Honour. I would say it
1 wasn't -- just so the record is clear, it wasn't simply, of course, a
2 matter - and I'm sure the Chamber knows this - it wasn't simply a matter
3 of pushing a particular button on Gornji Vakuf, but also a substantial
4 amount of human -- if you will, human review and confirmation that all of
5 these documents did indicate -- have to do either constituting
6 communications themselves, which -- as will be indicated on the document,
7 or evidencing, being evidence of a fact of communications going on at
8 that time, one or the other, as I indicated earlier. And again, Your
9 Honour, I certainly don't want to debate with the witness the content of
10 any particular document, what was or was not happening on a particular
11 day. But the fact of the communications that were going on.
12 MR. STEWART: Yes, Your Honour, may we just make an observation
14 Mr. Scott at page 22, line 13, said: "I realize you may not be
15 an expert in every aspect of military communications, but you've talked
16 an awful lot about a lot of things since Monday ..."
17 Not quite sure where the second half of that sentence gets
18 anybody. We all talk about a lot of things. It doesn't make us an
19 expert on anything. But this witness has said, and I can't claim to be
20 giving the precise words, but this witness has said in the course -- just
21 of today, and he's said it previously in his evidence, first of all, he's
22 had very little dealings with military communications. He's also said
23 something very close, he really doesn't know very much at all about it.
24 So the question still arises: On what basis is all this stuff being put
25 to this witness anyway? Because if the witness does not have the
1 knowledge to speak directly to these matters, then what's being done?
2 And this is objectionable, Your Honour. What's being done is a whole lot
3 of material is being artificially fed through this witness -- no
4 disrespect to the witness, he's just some sort of channel, some sort of
5 conveyer belt, and that's not the right way of doing it -- because if the
6 witness is being asked -- and I'm not absolutely sure, because it's not
7 clear precisely what the Prosecution are doing here and what they intend,
8 but if the Prosecution are saying to him: Do you draw the conclusion
9 from these documents that, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, given that he
10 doesn't have the expertise, then the witness has no role here at all
11 because those are conclusions which Your Honours should be being invited
12 to draw if the Prosecution say you can draw them, but then that leads us
13 back to a basic point which is: On what basis are the Prosecution
14 permitted to be putting this material before the Court anyway so far as
15 it's not already been admitted into evidence? There are quite a lot of
16 questions there, Your Honour, but they are all pertinent questions and
17 they are all linked. And they're all very much at the heart of the way
18 in which cross-examination should be properly conducted in relation to a
19 witness of this type.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, Mr. Stewart reminds
21 us, but I'd say that already. The witness said on several occasions that
22 he was not competent in military matters. All the documents submitted to
23 him are military documents. He may have some limited competence, I don't
24 know, but this is what Mr. Stewart was pointing out to you.
25 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. I won't go into all the -- I
1 won't respond to all of Mr. Stewart's comments. I think it is -- at
2 least in what we think we're trying to accomplish. Maybe it's -- others
3 think differently, but what we thought we were trying to accomplish, we
4 thought we were going about it properly and in a way that was, as I said
5 earlier, as helpful as possible with the exception of the additional bit
6 of information mentioned by Judge Trechsel. Here's the -- let's go right
7 to the root of this the way this has evolved, and actually this ties
8 together a number of interesting issues. The Prosecution has raised on a
9 number of occasions the importance of the information in the disclosure
10 and the summary provided for this witness. It's all that the Prosecution
11 has to prepare. We're not provided any prior statements in most
12 instances or at all.
13 So let me remind the Chamber, this is the summary, this is the
14 Rule 65 ter summary that we are provided by the Defence for this witness
15 and what it says in the middle of the -- page 21: "He will testify in
16 general about the telecommunications set-up in BiH and how because of the
17 war conditions all," and I emphasize the word all, "communications,"
18 without qualification as to type, sort, et cetera, "all communications
19 with Central Bosnia were cut off."
20 Now, that is the evidence -- that is the information the
21 Prosecution was given to prepare to meet the evidence of this witness.
22 Now, if the Prosecution was misled on the scope of this witness's
23 testimony, then, you know, that's -- does -- that does not lie at the
24 feet of the Prosecution. If what we're being told is -- and -- and I
25 must say, not only was it in the summary but on the first day of the
1 testimony the witness himself also made such broad statements. At page
2 20, 21 of the first day of his testimony when talking about the
3 disruption of communication between Sarajevo
4 "all communications." It was cut off. There was no way of
5 communicating. Now we're finding as the days go by and as we get to
6 Wednesday, well that's not really so much the case, and that really isn't
7 the scope of this witness's knowledge or expertise.
8 So the Prosecution has prepared on the basis of the information
9 provided to it, including the 65 ter summary, and now it's a little bit
10 like, Well, now the situation has been changed. So, Your Honour,
11 that's -- that's what brings us here and I just wanted to make it very --
12 this is the reason -- this is one of the reasons why the Prosecution has
13 said since April the importance of receiving fair summaries of what a
14 witness is going to come and say because it says "all communications"
15 with Central Bosnia were cut off and that's what we're preparing --
16 that's what we're responding.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This challenges the Prlic
19 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
20 continues]... too much of your time, but I have to respond to what the
21 Prosecutor has said since we prepared those summaries for them together,
22 Mr. Karnavas and myself. The witness is saying the same thing that he
23 told us at the proofing sessions earlier this year, and that is that all
24 communications with Sarajevo
25 witness did not recant this. He is still saying that. He has said this
1 ten times today.
2 Likewise, on Tuesday, yesterday, the witness said at least 20
3 times to the Prosecutor that he had no knowledge of military
4 communications. If that was not sufficient for the Prosecutor to prompt
5 him not to pursue this line of questioning, then I don't know what is
7 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may, I'm very
8 unhappy that we still have to discuss whether a locality is in Central
10 that Gornji Vakuf is not in Central Bosnia. We have seen a number of
11 documents indicating quite clearly that Gornji Vakuf is in north-western
13 Prlic Defence indicated in their summary for this witness is not
14 corrected by the contents of his testimony.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, it seems that there is a
16 misunderstanding. In the Defence's summary it said all communications,
17 and the Prosecution interpreted this as being all military and civilian
18 communications. This is why he is submitting documents to show that at
19 least military communications were up and running. I think we've all
20 understood the point now. Let's not waste any time on this.
21 Mr. Scott, you might be -- move to something else -- unless Judge
22 Prandler would like to say something.
23 JUDGE PRANDLER: I do not want to use too much time on this
24 matter. I believe that it is probably due to the issue that the
25 summaries should be really more carefully drafted and prepared. It was
1 mentioned by the Defence that the summaries are relating only to Central
3 Mr. Kozulj, "will also testify in general about the telecommunications
4 set up in BiH, telecommunications set up in BiH," in this case it is not
5 only Central Bosnia
6 communications with Central Bosnia were cut off."
7 And it continues that "Mostar had been an important
8 communications centre before the war and when Mostar was cut off the
9 whole system collapsed, that is, Montenegro
10 et cetera. So therefore -- it is end of quotation.
11 So therefore, I believe it is a kind of lesson for every one of
12 us here that the summaries are to be prepared and submitted as -- in a
13 way as broadly and as punctually as possible. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
15 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 I would like to make it clear -- well, a couple of things. I'm
17 not sure that -- in fairness to the Prosecution and to the Chamber, I'm
18 not sure that the impression that would not have been left with the
19 Chamber on Monday, at the end of the day on Monday, would not have been
20 that the scope of Mr. Kozulj's testimony was in fact a much broader --
21 and if the testimony had ended on that day, the Chamber might well have
22 been led to believe and might have been -- the Defence might well have
23 been expected to argue in the future, that this witness had, in fact,
24 indicated or confirmed that there was no communication, that all
25 communications had been cut off. With the greatest respect, I submit
1 that that was the impression that the Chamber was left with.
2 Now, I want the record now to be very, very clear as to what the
3 evidence of this witness is and is not, and I think it's clear now that
4 what we're saying is that this witness has only talked about what we
5 might call and can establish that as of June 199 -- May 1992 through
6 April of 1994, is what he's told us, that there were no land-line PTT
7 civilian communications between Mostar and Sarajevo. That is his core
8 position. And beyond that, the witness has told us nothing else about
9 the scope of the communications available and used by the HVO during that
10 period. And the Chamber should understand that and there should be no
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I don't really agree
13 with you. Monday I myself put the question to the witness. I asked him
14 about military communications. It was my own question, because another
15 question had been put and I decided to ask a question on military issues,
16 and the witness -- you can look at the transcript, but the witness -- on
17 Monday, as of Monday already the witness told us that he was not
18 competent when it came to military communications, but I mentioned the
19 issue on Monday. So I couldn't be led -- misled at any moment because I
20 did -- I knew that there were communication -- that communications were
21 both civilian and military so I put the question to him. Of course
22 answered, but he did tell us that there were some elements of regarding
23 military communications that he had no idea about. And then yesterday
24 early in the afternoon I went back at it to talk about wire-tapping and
25 telephone tapping, and there again he limited his answer, saying that he
1 didn't know much about it.
2 So the Trial Chamber could not be misled here. I don't agree
3 with this. And as of now we know that as far as civilian communications
4 is concerned, this witness is well-versed in that; but when it comes to
5 military communications, he's much less competent. That's what he said.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Scott, I think we should come to an end with
7 this discussion, and I'm afraid that it has perhaps gone a bit astray.
8 What is the issue? We have a bunch of documents that indicate there was
9 a communication between Gornji Vakuf and other towns, Mostar, or which
10 indicate that there had been such communications. Most of them, it is
11 true, are military and that is not something where technically the
12 witness can say much about. But that, I don't think, is not really so
13 essential. Not all of them are military. If you look at number 13, for
14 instance, or at number 31, these are communications which I think it's
15 difficult to classify as military. Number 13 is a decision of Mr. Prlic
16 and Article -- number 31 is a letter of Mr. Boban to Mr. Izetbegovic.
17 There are others. I think that the document itself speaks for itself to
18 a large extent, that at least marginally I think that the witness is
19 capable to saying that he does not -- he does not see anything here which
20 would invalidate the conclusions the document leads to. So I think the
21 Prosecution could go on.
22 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Judge Trechsel. And again, that brings
23 us -- you're absolutely right, that brings us back to the original
24 purpose and intention of the Prosecution proceeding this way.
25 Q. Sir, the question that I've put to you several times -- and I'm
1 not asking you to comment on any particular military means, whether a
2 particular communication may have been encrypted, whether a military code
3 might have been used. I'm just simply indicating to you that on the
4 basis of at least 72 documents, and we're talking about a specific period
5 of time, about 20 days in January or 25 days in January 1993 - which the
6 Chamber will understand as a time relevant to the indictment - that there
7 was this extent of communications. And as someone who at least generally
8 knows about communications systems, does that not indicate to you, sir,
9 that there was substantial what we might call real-time communication
10 going on about Gornji Vakuf in the HVO?
11 A. Well, I would like to be allowed to answer. First of all, Gornji
12 Vakuf, as far as I know, is linked with Herzegovina the way that Madam
13 Defence Counsel explained. It was always linked with the free territory,
14 HVO-controlled territory, in Herzegovina
15 the HVO units had the capability of communicating with each other, either
16 using civilian PTT lines or military lines. But this number, 82, over a
17 certain period, well that's -- wouldn't be too much even if it were over
18 an hour. It's a small number. If we're talking about any kind of
19 communications, a one-page message takes a minute to be transmitted. So
20 we're not talking about a huge volume that would be -- that I would find
21 impressive. That's certainly not impressive from my point of view. It's
22 a very low volume of communications, if that's what you're driving at.
23 Secondly, at the beginning of my testimony I said that all the
24 lines were down and I described the lines that were down. Nobody asked
25 me then: What about military communications? I indicated what lines I
1 meant when I said that lines of communication with Sarajevo were down.
2 Q. All right. Sir, if we can -- in the spirit of all this that
3 we've hopefully clarified in the past 15 or 20 minutes, if I can ask you
4 to next go to Exhibit P 10632, which should be in binder number 2 of the
5 general -- what you might call the general Prosecution -- no, I'm
6 sorry -- it may be separate. It may indeed be separate, my apologies,
7 but it's Exhibit 10632, it's sort of the identical format and type of
8 document as the one we were just looking at. These happen to relate to
9 another -- the courtroom will know an important time-period and an
10 important location, mid-April 1993, I believe Vitez and Ahmici are indeed
11 in Central Bosnia. And by these records, sir, I will explain further in
12 a moment, this document would indicate that there were at least 38 HVO
13 communications related to these locations between the days, the 13th of
14 April and the 25th of April, 1993, and in particular in this instance --
15 the reason I say there's only -- I think there's only -- I think there's
16 only 12 documents but I say there's 38 communications, if I can direct
17 your attention and the courtroom's attention in particular to item number
18 4 which is tabbed in that set of materials as 00463 is the third document
19 in the binder -- no, excuse me, it's the fourth overall document in the
20 binder -- well, use the tab numbers. I'm sorry. It may be -- P 00463.
21 Sir, this is a -- these are two pages out of the HVO headquarters
22 communication log. This was the log kept at the HVO headquarters in
23 Mostar. And if you look down the page, on the 16th of April, 1993, you
24 will see the time and a description of the communication. For example,
25 if you look at -- if you look at, for example, at 16th of April, 1993, at
1 0145 hours, it refers to a cable number 2028 from the Vitez Vitezovi
2 special-purposes unit sent to Bruno Stojic, Milivoj Petkovic, Ivan
3 Primorac. Do you see that as one example?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And can you see -- if you just scan down the page and the
6 references, in particular the ones that refer to Vitez, for example --
7 another example, 2032, number 2032, 16 April, 1993, at 0230 hours, cable
8 number 2032, sent by Vitez to Mate Boban, Franjo Tudjman, Bruno Stojic,
9 and Milivoj Petkovic. Now, do you see the nature -- you see the way this
10 log-book is laid out; correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And my question to you about this binder, sir, is: Again, does
13 that not indicate to you a significant amount of real-time communication
14 among the HVO about the Vitez-Ahmici area in mid-April 1993?
15 A. If this document is accurate, then there was some kind of
16 communication. I don't know how it proceeded, what equipment was used.
17 It would appear from this that it was packet radio communication, but I'm
18 not familiar with this protocol, with this type of record.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this is a military
20 document, obviously it's extremely accurate, and it's just an excerpt.
21 It would have been maybe useful to have the entire register or log-book.
22 But we note that on April 16, 1993
23 document is sent. I also note, and I'm sure everyone noted also, that
24 all these messages have a number, an order number. On April 16 the
25 document in the log-book is number 2024, which means probably that from
1 January 1st, 1993
2 sent or 2.000 documents or messages sent and recorded in this log-book.
3 And if we have 2.000 of them, that means that there was quite some
4 communications going on.
5 What can you say about this, Witness?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, you can see from this
7 overview, first of all, that this is packet communications that used a
8 radio system used by the HVO. That's what I think. I can't be certain.
9 And secondly, that this would be a normal flow of information at a normal
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
12 Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 MR. SCOTT: My apology.
16 Q. Sir, if we can deal with the final bundle of a similar nature,
17 which is -- again it will be a separate -- I believe it will be a
18 separate binder next to you P 01 -- my apology, P 10631, P 10631, and
19 this is a series of documents about communications related to Vares and
20 Stupni Do during the time-period the 19th through the 27th of October of
21 1993. And in this particular instance I believe there's documentation
22 here reflecting a total of -- well, there's 56 documents here.
23 MR. SCOTT: I have to clarify to the Chamber that there was an
24 error. When the -- if you look at the last a page of the document you'll
25 see that it's been numbered 55 so one would -- one would think that
1 there's 55 items. Unfortunately, if you look back at the first page, the
2 last two items on the first page for whatever reason didn't get numbered.
3 So the real number is 55 plus two, which is 57. And the reason I said
4 "56," is because item 55 is actually out of the time-period I just
5 indicated but was included because it was a report prepared by Ivica
6 Rajic on Stupni Do, specifically in response to one of the earlier
7 communications. So we did add that one document outside the time-period
8 because it was directly responsive to one of the documents that were
10 So there were 56 documents related to communications related to
11 Stupni Do during the period 19 to the 27th of October, 1993.
12 Q. Sir, my question to you is the same. Does that not indicate to
13 you, once again, a substantial amount of effective or real-time
14 communication in the HVO about events happening in Vares and Stupni Do in
15 the latter part of October 1993?
16 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to object to
17 the form of this question. The Prosecutor mentions events that happened
18 in Vares and Stupni Do. The witness does not have time to read through
19 all those documents and he doesn't have to know about the events that are
20 discussed here, and we have to go back to the same issue, communications.
21 Again, we have 50 or 50-odd military communications and the witness is
22 going to give us the same answer. I don't know where this leads and I
23 don't know why we're wasting our time with it.
24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I have to say that I fully support
25 my colleague's objection. It appears to me that this is yet another
1 tactical attempt on the part of the Prosecution to reach -- to get to the
2 topic of Stupni Do through cross-examination regardless of the fact that
3 this was not discussed in direct examination. In other words, to bypass
4 your decision regarding whether in the cross-examination they can or
5 cannot deal with topics that were not dealt in direct during the
6 cross-examination. And the same thing happened a little while ago with
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, I don't think that
9 Mr. Scott intends to deal with this topic of Vares and Stupni Do. We've
10 spent hundreds of hours on it already. I believe that what he intends to
11 do, what he wants to do, is to demonstrate that during this period, from
12 October 19 to 27, there were some -- so much -- so many communications
13 going on, that were exchanged.
14 Am I right, Mr. Scott, is that what you want to demonstrate I
16 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, I don't know how I can be more
17 transparent than this. Again, we received a summary from the witness
18 that said no communications with Central Bosnia. I met with my people
19 that I work with and we said what are some of the key events that the
20 Chamber might be interested in, and we can look at the communications
21 around those time-periods and those locations. I'm not going to talk
22 about what happened at Stupni Do on the 23rd and 24th of October, but
23 these are communications on that topic at that time. I thought the
24 Chamber might be interested to know that in the scope of this witness
25 given the representations made about testimony.
1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you'll allow me
2 just a few sentences. As far as I was able to see, those documents are
3 either fully or for the most part already admitted into evidence as
4 exhibits in this trial, and we've discussed them with witnesses who were
5 either in Vares or in Kiseljak. None of the Defence teams ever contested
6 the claim that the communications that are described in those documents
7 actually occurred, and we had witnesses who explained to us how package
8 radio system works and how some notifications were sent from Kiseljak to
9 Mostar and the other way around, and I really think that it is
10 superfluous to keep asking this witness, who has told us so many times
11 he's not familiar with military communications, about things that we
12 heard in this courtroom -- we heard that it was distributed over military
13 package radio communications.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, let's not start from
15 scratch again. Please put your question to the witness and go to the
16 heart of the matter.
17 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. My question is the same one that I did put I believe a few
19 moments ago before counsels' interventions. Sir, the question I'm
20 putting to you now is the same question I put to you about the earlier
21 bundles or binders and that is: Does this not indicate, sir, a - what
22 word do I use? - a significant amount, a significant number -- volume of
23 communications among the HVO about a particular location, Stupni Do and
24 Vares, at a particular time-period, the 27th of October -- excuse me, I'm
25 sorry, the 19th -- I lost my note on that -- during this time in October
1 1993. Does it not indicate that to you, sir?
2 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, objection to the
3 imprecision in the question because of the use of the term "significant."
4 We really don't know what the term "significant" actually means.
5 MR. SCOTT: I'll let the witness -- if the witness wants to give
6 an answer, Your Honour, I'll accept for these purposes his interpretation
7 of what's "significant" as opposed to "insignificant" or "trivial."
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please answer, Witness.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, leaving aside the documents,
10 because to tell you the truth I didn't have any time to look at them,
11 I've just received them. Let me first of all say this: We're talking
12 about the time-period from the 19th until the 27th October, 1993
13 was saying that in Mostar the communication lines were down in mid-May
14 1992 and that from that time on we started with our effort to
15 re-establish and repair the communications. So this is more than a year.
16 We were not just sitting there idle. We were working, we were setting up
17 communication lines. So at that time there were enough sufficient
18 civilian lines in place and I assume also military lines.
19 Secondly, let us look at document number 10315, if that's the
20 number. I'm looking at the text in Croatian. It's a letter that is
21 signed. This could have been sent by post, by courier, by helicopter, I
22 don't know. So it doesn't follow -- well, of course it could have been
23 faxed. I can't see the markings that are usual on fax transmissions, but
24 we don't know what this is. It's a time-period that is substantially
25 after the time-period when the telecommunications centre in Mostar was
1 destroyed, and we did a lot of work to establish those communications. I
2 don't know what was done at what point in time, but quite a lot of those
3 lines were up. So you can't say that I said that lines were down in May
4 1992 and then say -- if you're talking about October 1993, Well, you said
5 that the lines were down. That's really quite incomprehensible. I can't
6 accept it, no matter who is trying to put it to me.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
8 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]
9 THE ACCUSED PETKOVIC: [Interpretation] Can I ask for one moment
10 how the communication was actually affected?
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we're going to have to
12 have a break soon. Let's break for 20 minutes.
13 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.
14 --- On resuming at 4.12 p.m.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Court is back in session.
16 According to our calculation, you have 22 minutes left, Mr. Scott. I
17 thought you had less than that, but I was told 22 minutes.
18 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Just before we begin so I don't forget at the end of the day,
20 please, we owe -- the Prosecution owes a response to the 1D objection --
21 I guess the Prlic Defence objections concerning Mr. Puljic, which I think
22 is otherwise due today. I would be most grateful if the Chamber would
23 allow us to file that tomorrow instead of today.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me consult.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber grants you
2 your motion.
3 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. Sir, staying on the topic of Stupni Do, and again my purpose is
5 not to go into the substance of what did or did not happen at Stupni Do
6 but as a matter of -- related to the topic of communications, can I ask
7 you to next look, please, at P 10620 in binder 2 of the general, so to
8 speak, Prosecution binder, binder number 2, 10620.
9 And, sir, while you're looking at that I'll say for the record
10 this is a compilation of, I believe, nine media articles either from
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina media or Croatian, Zagreb, media concerning the events
12 that occurred in Stupni Do. The first is from Oslobodjenje, the 25th of
13 October; the second one is from Vjesnik, which is a Zagreb newspaper; the
14 third is from Slobodna Dalmacija, a Croatian newspaper, 27 October. And
15 I'm not going to go through them all, but they are a series of news
16 articles starting on the 25th of October and the last one being I believe
17 the 31st -- yes, the 31st of October, again in Vjesnik titled: "Republic
18 of Croatia
19 And my point again, sir, in showing this to you is: Did you
20 consider or would you consider in terms of the topic of communication
21 that in Croatia
22 media reporting was another means of communication of information?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. And if we have the time again to go through all these articles,
25 they -- you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that these all indicate --
1 these all involve reports or flows of information from somewhere, since
2 some of these reporters are in Mostar, some of them are in other places,
4 Dalmacija being published from Zagreb
5 of information or a communication of information concerning the events in
6 Stupni Do at that time; correct?
7 A. Correct. Journalists of newspaper publishing companies and the
8 television and radio stations have their teams that follow the domestic
9 and international media, and that is where they get their information
10 from. That's how I understood it, or they have journalists at the scene.
11 Q. All right. And following on the topic of media coverage, could I
12 ask you next, please, to go to -- it should be close by, I hope, in the
13 same binder, P 10627, P 10627. Sir, this appears to be a report dated
14 the 27th of September, 1993, titled: "Information about the performance
15 of work and tasks regarding the establishment and functioning of the
16 Croatian Radio of Herceg-Bosna."
17 Did you have any knowledge at the time that during 1993 at least
18 efforts were being made by Herceg-Bosna to establish something called
19 Croatian Radio of Herceg-Bosna?
20 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to correct the
21 Prosecutor in his version of the name of the name of this company, and in
22 the upper right-hand corner we have the public company of the Croatian
23 Republic of Herceg-Bosna. This radio is not called Herceg-Bosna.
24 MR. SCOTT: I'm referring -- well --
25 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, the translation was
1 incorrect. I apologise. The translation's not correct. I'm going to
2 repeat. In the upper left-hand corner there is the name of the radio,
3 public company - radio of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.
4 MR. SCOTT: All right. Thank you, counsel. I accept that
6 Q. Sir, were you generally aware of this -- around this time when an
7 effort was being made to establish a radio station or radio network of
8 the sort that is described in this document?
9 A. Yes, I was.
10 Q. And if I can direct your attention in particular to item number 4
11 in the actual body of the report, item number 4, which does indicate, it
12 appears, it says: "The radio's own professional organizational unit for
13 the transmission equipment" et cetera "has been established ..."
14 And continuing to the end of that number, paragraph 4: "... to
15 the extent that it has achieved a stable signal, a wide aware of service,
16 and corresponding technical stability of the system (consistent with the
17 war-time conditions)."
18 Can you confirm, sir, that as of mid-1993 that radio station or
19 network was in fact up and running?
20 A. I can confirm that the network was functioning and it is
21 functioning still today.
22 Q. And if I can ask you to go a little -- it's not a numbered
23 paragraph, I don't believe, but if you go past number 6 --
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry.
25 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Perhaps in fairness it would be justified to
2 point out the name of the radio station.
3 Witness, could you read in this number 4 the name of that radio
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The name is Croatian Radio of
6 Herceg-Bosna. It is a public company, radio of the Croatian Republic
7 Herceg-Bosna, and it was called Radio Herceg-Bosna or Croatian Radio
8 Herceg-Bosna. But the official name is what is written at the beginning
9 of the document.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, I'm a bit surprised. Why do you say
11 that in this official document the name in number 4 is not the official
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to repeat. When you
14 establish a public company it receives its official name and it is being
15 registered under that name in the register of companies at the
16 appropriate court. In practice you could use different abbreviations, or
17 usually nobody talked about that whole story public company and so on and
18 so forth, they would just shorten it in their own way.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, I just
22 wanted to immediately warn about a mistake in the translation I don't --
23 or in the transcript, I don't know where it is, page 43, line 8, the
24 witness as recorded in the transcript said literally: [In English] "...
25 that the network was functioning and it is functioning still today."
1 [Interpretation] In the original Croatian I heard that the
2 witness said that the measure -- the radio network mostly functioned and
3 functions to this day. In the transcript the word "mostly" is not
4 recorded and from what the witness -- and from that one can conclude that
5 it functioned all the time.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, did you add that it
7 was working most of the time? Because Mr. Kovacic heard that, that it
8 was working most of the time.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that is what I said because
10 for stations like this you would need electricity, an electricity supply,
11 it was in the hills. Often they would be without power or there would be
12 some kind of malfunction that needed to be repaired. It was hard to get
13 parts, so it did not continuously function but it did mostly.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
15 Mr. Scott.
16 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
17 Q. Before we move on to another part of the document could we just
18 go back for information's sake to the first page under the first full
19 paragraph -- well, it would be the second paragraph of the document under
20 the first heading. Since I'm always one for dates, sir, do you see in
21 the second paragraph that this indicates that the broadcast of this radio
22 began on the 14th of May, 1993?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. All right. Now, if I can ask you, please, where we were a moment
25 ago that -- if you can go beyond item 6 you will come to a point where
1 there is a paragraph that starts as follows, and I'll just read slowly
2 and hopefully you'll see it.
3 "The total programme orientation, editorial policy, and programme
4 scheme are defined by the basic documents of the Croatian Republic
5 Herceg-Bosna, with an emphasis on presenting the survey of the activities
6 of the official bodies," I won't list them all, "HVO Main Staff," et
7 cetera. "Special attention is dedicated to the situation on the front
8 lines, so that daily events are reported on in the audio reports from all
9 theatres of operation - from Stolac to Brcko. One can state that the
10 defence of the area of Herceg-Bosna is very much present in the programme
11 of the Croatian Radio of Herceg-Bosna through the statements issued by
12 the Main Staff (which have recently been very timely and up-to-date), and
13 a large number of reports coming from the Radio's own sources, as well as
14 through other sections and programme units."
15 And would it surprise you at all that the radio station was being
16 used for these purposes in receiving information from, among other
17 sources, press statements, if you will, issued by the HVO Main Staff?
18 A. I'm not surprised. Why would I be surprised? This was of the
19 highest interest to all the people who lived in that area which was
20 caught up in the war. At that time we were following all the possible
21 media. The only media that informed the public about the situation and
22 the problems were the radio stations, so we listened to any radio station
23 we could receive, and of course just like all media, all radio stations
24 in the world, they were trying to report from the front. I don't see
25 anything strange in that.
1 Q. Very well, sir.
2 A. Many journalists were killed at the front in attempts to inform
3 their listeners and their viewers about the situation at the front.
4 Q. Yes. I agree with you, sir. Can we look very quickly, please,
5 at P 05551 for two brief points. This would be in the first -- I believe
6 the first Prosecution binder, P 05551.
7 Sir, this is a -- while you're looking at that, let me just
8 introduce it for purposes of the record. This is the minutes -- or
9 excuse me, I apologise, not the minutes. It's the call for a meeting, if
10 you will, call to convene the 52nd Session of the Government of the
11 Republic of Herceg-Bosna
12 mistranslated, I apologise, it should be 4 October 1993, and stating an
13 agenda. And just two quick items. On number 6 approval of the tariff of
14 the PTT, that would be the body of which you were president of the
15 managing board; is that correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And would that be the type of business that would come before the
18 government concerning the PTT during this period from time to time?
19 A. The government as the founder of the PTT Herceg-Bosna public
20 company was obliged to review plans of the companies -- of the company
21 and occasionally the report of the company and the government adopted the
22 statute of the company and the tariffs under which they operate. That
23 was the practice in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was and still is.
24 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, I see that there may be -- can I assist the
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, Mr. Scott, you're talking about the 4th of
3 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: In our binder document 05551 --
5 MR. SCOTT: Yes.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: -- is dated 1st March, 1993.
7 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour --
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And I do not find the date of October in it.
9 MR. SCOTT: It was a mistranslation, Your Honour. The -- I
10 think, hopefully my colleagues on the other side who speak the language
11 can confirm that -- I believe that the proper date should be October.
12 Maybe they can assist.
13 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Microphone not activated]
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
15 MS. TOMANOVIC: I had microphone.
16 [Interpretation] The 1st of October is the original date.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
18 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Our B/C/S is not good enough.
21 MR. SCOTT: It is not.
22 Q. Sir, again, very quickly, please. Can I just ask you to confirm
23 that item number 9 is an examination of their report of the performance
24 of work and tasks, which appears to be the document that we were looking
25 at a few moments ago?
1 A. Yes, the full name of the company is not given here, but it's
2 probably that document or a similar document.
3 Q. Thank you, sir. If we can turn to I believe the last two
4 exhibits, unless there's a question --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, let's stay with
6 this first document. So there was a meeting scheduled for the government
7 in Stolac at noon
8 the 1st of October. I suppose that this invitation is sent to all those
9 due to take part in the meeting. You may have been one of the
10 participants to this meeting.
11 I'd like to know the following. When the government would meet,
12 were there proper invitations convening the members thereof, as is seen
13 here; and if so, how was the invitation sent? Was it sent by courier or
14 by fax, by letter? If there was an urgent, not-expected need to convene,
15 how were the people informed? By telephone? By fax? By radio? As far
16 as you can remember, how was it done? Can you answer this?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At the time that we are talking
18 about, the postal traffic wholly functioned in the town of Mostar
19 Telephone connections functioned, although at a reduced volume. These
20 documents which were just not letters but were usually accompanied by
21 material or documents for each item on the agenda, this is something that
22 we would receive either through the mail or by messenger because mostly
23 all the ministers, all the government members, had their offices in
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
3 MR. SCOTT:
4 Q. If we can turn to what I believe will likely be the last two
5 exhibits. Can you please go, first of all, to P 10630, it should be in
6 binder number 2.
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Microphone not activated]
8 MR. SCOTT: 10630.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It's the same one we had this afternoon.
10 MR. SCOTT: Then I may have put the wrong number on it.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: A special binder.
12 MR. SCOTT: My apologies, Your Honour, I may have put down the
13 wrong number. Can I have one moment, please?
14 [Prosecution counsel confer]
15 MR. SCOTT: If we can have a moment. Your Honour, it's going to
16 take more than a second. Unfortunately -- I'm sure it's my fault for
17 having written the wrong number on the document.
18 10638, Your Honour. My apologies to everyone in the courtroom.
19 10638. On my copy I wrote down the wrong number; entirely my fault.
20 Q. Sir, this is an article which actually is based upon -- if you
21 look in the -- several lines down from the top on a Croatian TV satellite
22 service report from the 24th of November, 1995, which has been picked up
23 and reported by the BBC
24 "President Tudjman in talks with Bosnian Croats on Dayton."
25 And in the text of the document it refers to a meeting involving
1 a number of people in the first -- well, the second paragraph, including
2 Mr. Granic, Mr. Susak, Mr. Pasalic. And the third paragraph referencing
3 the involvement of Mr. Prlic. And in the last paragraph a substantial
4 list of names, the delegation, Jadranko Prlic; Dario Kordic; Ivan Bender;
5 Ante Jelavic; yourself, sir, Ilija Kozulj; Pero Markovic; Martin Ragus;
6 Valentin Coric; Neven Tomic.
7 Do you recall, sir, participating in that delegation -- in that
8 meeting at the end of November 1995?
9 A. I do remember that meeting well.
10 Q. And I would like you -- to take you, sir, to the -- next to the
11 Exhibit 8489, which again is -- I'm told it's the last exhibit in binder
12 number 1, 106 -- my apology. 08489.
13 Sir, this is a record of the transcript of that meeting that took
14 place involving this delegation on that day, and there's certain parts of
15 it that I'd like to review with you. And I'm going to do it somewhat
16 topically so we might jump around a bit. I'm not going to go just simply
17 straight through the document because I'm going to take it, as I said, by
18 topics. I would like to direct your attention, first of all, and the
19 pages in English and the pages in Serbo-Croatian should be exactly the
20 same. So if I tell you page 2, it will be page 2 for everyone. And I'd
21 like to start there, with page 2. And in that -- on that page it's
22 Mr. Susak speaking, carrying over from the previous page, and basically
23 is setting the scene, he says through that paragraph: "... I think it's
24 most important to inform you that every senior official of the Croat --
25 Croatian Republic
1 from two who couldn't make it," and then he makes some additional
2 introductions and says: "That's the briefest outline. I'll hand over to
3 Prlic, who led the group as prime minister, to give you the conclusions
4 from the meeting."
5 And then you'll see that Mr. Prlic begins speaking, and if I can
6 direct you to the second paragraph under Mr. Prlic's name. Mr. Prlic
7 reports: "Like any new settlement, it has its implications on the ground
8 and is provoking various reactions. The assessment we arrived at
9 together today was that this settlement represents the general interest
10 of the Croatian people in their entirety, and that's it is unequivocal
11 conclusion of everyone with who participated ..."
12 Carrying over to page 3. It goes on in that paragraph to say:
13 "It's also provoked incredulity and a sense of desertion, especially in
14 areas that are not included in the Federation's territory on the maps,
15 yet are populated by Croats. And as regards constitutional arrangements
16 with future canton boundaries, there is dissatisfaction in that respect
18 Now, do you remember generally, sir, that there was a report by
19 Mr. Prlic about the outcome of the Dayton
20 A. I cannot remember every word right now of what was said. I know
21 that Mr. Prlic did speak and that the goal of this meeting, as far as I
22 knew, as far as I understood it, was in some way to help us officials
23 living in Bosnia-Herzegovina and who were working in the Croatian
24 Republic of Herceg-Bosna at that time to go to Sarajevo and to help to
25 set up the Federation government and then later the Government of Bosnia
1 and Herzegovina
2 after the wartime events which were taking place. I cannot answer?
3 Q. No, sir --
4 A. May I at least finish?
5 Q. Yes, sir, please do, but as you know again our time now is very
7 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the question was put
8 in such a way that it sought a kind of explanation. I think the witness
9 should be given the opportunity to explain and finish what he began. A
10 cross is a cross, but this is how broadly the question was put. And
11 another thing since I'm on my feet already. I don't see the relevance of
12 this question in view of the time-frame of the events. If the Prosecutor
13 has time at his disposal that he can spend on his cross, that does not
14 mean that he can go into irrelevant areas.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What's the relevance, please?
16 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, toward the end of the direct examination
17 the witness, we went on to discuss the efforts to implement the
18 Washington Agreement and the various peace agreements. Mr. Karnavas
19 showed the witness several documents - indeed Mr. Karnavas himself I'm
20 sure was being rushed at the end - about various documents to implement
21 the peace agreements and the witness began telling us about various
22 efforts to do so. And I think this evidence is directly relevant, both
23 to that and to other aspects of the case, the continuity of the Croatian
24 policy toward Herceg-Bosna.
25 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Just one small correction.
1 Mr. Karnavas in his direct examination asked Mr. Kozulj about the
2 implementation of the Washington Agreement, not about the various other
3 agreements, the Dayton Agreement or any other agreement. That is all.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well -- yes.
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Just very briefly, Your
6 Honour. I am afraid that there might be a misunderstanding later and I'm
7 afraid that Mr. Scott is confused here or mistaken here. We're talking
8 about document P 10638, it's a report by the BBC talking about the
9 information about a meeting that took place on --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, he's speaking about the
11 document that is P 08489.
12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
13 continues]... but they continue on and this is where the confusion
14 arises. The first document, the BBC
15 presidential palace, and now this is a different meeting of the 27th of
16 November and these are -- and then after that, at this meeting of the
17 27th of November, it says that the witness was present. And then after
18 that we looked at the document that you referred to, the transcript, and
19 that is P 08489, but that is the transcript of the 24th of November and
20 that transcript does not indicate or refer to the name of this witness.
21 So that I'm not sure if the witness or we in the courtroom know which
22 meeting he's talking about. Is it the 27th that the BBC's talking about
23 or this one of the 24th, the transcript of which we do have, and I do
24 believe that this is important.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I was wondering about that
1 because there was a meeting in Zagreb
2 Did you attend the meeting? Because we can see your name
3 mentioned but I can't see any intervention by you. Did you attend the
4 meeting or are you mixing up with another meeting?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have to say that I did attend
6 this meeting, the meeting that is referred to in the minutes from the
7 24th of November, and this meeting dealt with the implementation of the
8 Washington Agreement and in a way it was to give an impetus to the
9 officials of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
10 constitution of -- constituting the Government of the Federation of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was also the Government of the Republic of
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the question was: What kind of assistance do
13 you need in order to decide to go to Sarajevo? At that time it was not
14 easy for us. We were all victims of that war. My family home was burnt
15 to the ground. Two of my closest family members were killed in a
16 dastardly fashion in this war, and it is not easy after all those events
17 in the war to go to Sarajevo
18 and we did go because it was in the interests -- it was in the interests
19 of our people and in the interests of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So that
20 was the gist of that meeting.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So the purpose of
22 the meeting was to implement the Washington Agreement. We understood
23 very well.
24 Mr. Scott, what was your question because we lost sight of it
25 after all this? What was your initial question?
1 MR. SCOTT: I believe -- I think I probably lost a little bit of
2 sight of it myself, Your Honour, at this point. We were sitting at the
3 meeting, Mr. Prlic had began talking, and I was about to ask -- well, the
4 witness I think had confirmed that he attended and, yes, he remembered in
5 general that Mr. Prlic gave a report. My next question to him was,
6 selected further down on the same page 3, if he could confirm to us that
7 in fact he and Mr. Tomic were appointed to one of these, I'll call it,
8 working group, on the implementation. If he can see that reflected on
9 page 3. That's my question to the witness - and was that the case.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't confirm the accuracy
11 of this transcript in every little detail because I've never seen it
12 before, and you have to admit that it was a long time ago. I know the
13 essence, the basic elements of this meeting, and I can't recall the
14 details. What I do know is that before this meeting I had agreed to go
15 to Sarajevo
16 certain time. I served as an official in the first government of Bosnia
17 and Herzegovina
18 meantime I did a number of jobs to help set up the Federation. And let
19 me tell you that I was a member of the commission under annex 9 of the
20 Dayton Agreement that had to do with the establishment of public
21 corporations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
22 MR. SCOTT:
23 Q. All right. So the answer is: Yes, you do recall generally the
24 meeting and your involvement and becoming involved in the implementation
25 following this meeting. Can I ask you to go over, please, to go over
1 next to page 20 of the record. Page 20, please.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment before we move on to
3 page 20. Let's speak about this group of experts that was set up.
4 Mr. Prlic said to Mr. Tudjman that there were four expert groups that
5 were established. The first one dealing with economic and financial
6 matters. We can see the assistant prime minister, Mr. Tomic, and you,
7 Mr. Kozulj. Hence my question: Did you have any economic and financial
8 expertise as well?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have any financial
10 expertise. I did have economic expertise because all the companies that
11 were set up in the Croatian Republic
12 company for post and telecommunications, the public company for railways,
13 the public company for roads, the public company for Mostar airport, all
14 those public companies are in the sphere of economy, that's the way we
15 classify them and I monitor them.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.
17 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]
18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
19 MR. SCOTT:
20 Q. If we can go to page 20 now, sir, please.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have no time left, you have
22 to finish, Mr. Scott.
23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, can I beg the Chamber for approximately
24 20 more minutes which will still put me an hour less than the total time
25 taken by Mr. Karnavas and Mr. Praljak?
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No. The time -- and the
2 objections were not counted. Mr. Prlic had through his lawyers three
3 hours, so the equality of arms demands that you have three hours.
4 There's no reason to grant you more time. I'm going to ask my
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, after deliberations,
8 as you could see, and I -- as I said, you must have the same time as the
9 time devoted to the examination-in-chief and as much as Mr. Prlic was
10 given three hours you have three hours as well. It was up to you to make
11 sure that you had enough time to sort out the questions that you wanted
12 to put. Well, three hours is a lot of time.
13 Well, ask your last question, please; no further than that.
14 MR. SCOTT: [Microphone not activated]
15 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
16 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, my apologies.
17 Q. Do you remember from this meeting, sir, the discussion of the
18 continuing demographic problem that was presented in certain areas of the
19 Herceg-Bosna, the problem of there being insufficient Croats returning to
20 the areas and the encouragement by President Tudjman that Herceg-Bosna --
21 this did not mean an end to Herceg-Bosna, that in fact Herceg-Bosna would
22 continue on? Do you remember President Tudjman giving you those
23 encouragements at this meeting on the 24th of November, 1995?
24 A. I don't recall him giving us any encouragement that there would
25 be Herceg-Bosna. I remember that he asked us to build, to implement the
1 Washington Agreement that had been signed, and that he promised he would
2 help us. So in the Federation under the Washington Agreement as far as I
3 know there is no Herceg-Bosna. And could you please show me where is it
4 said here that there would be Herceg-Bosna at this page that you referred
5 me to, page 20? I don't recall --
6 Q. Well, if the Chamber allows I would refer you to pages 13 and 14
7 of the transcript of the record and pages 24 and 25 of the record, where
8 those matters are discussed. In terms of the demographic problem, I
9 would direct your attention to page 6 to page 9, page 14, and what
10 President Tudjman says at pages 27 to 29.
11 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. President, I
12 would like to object to the Prosecution's insistence on asking these
13 questions. He got his last question and he used his right to the last
14 question. I would like to remind you of my cross-examination when I had
15 20 minutes and when the 20 minutes elapsed you cut me short in the middle
16 of my sentence. So I would really like to ask you to treat the
17 Prosecution in the same way as you treat the Defence.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to discuss this with
19 my fellow Judges, but ...
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, the Trial Chamber is
22 of the view that the witness came to speak to technical problems,
23 electricity, telecommunications, and so on and so forth, and now you are
24 tackling a topic which is a meeting held in 1995 which is outside the
25 scope of the indictment and, furthermore, has nothing to do with
1 telecommunications or electrical supply. So you have to come to an end.
2 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I accept the Court's ruling on that. I
3 would disagree with some of the Chamber's -- with great respect, some of
4 the Chamber's comments. I do believe it's highly relevant to the case
5 and relates to evidence that has been led by the Defence, but I accept
6 the Chamber's ruling that the time has expanded. There have been times,
7 I'm sure the Chamber will recall, where parties on both sides have been
8 granted additional time. I think the Chamber can see that I have moved,
9 I think, with some dispatch to the best of my ability, but I accept the
10 Chamber's ruling. I was then further simply responding to the witness's
11 own question, that if he cared to look at the transcript that's where he
12 might find that information. Thank you very much, Your Honour.
13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my colleagues are
14 dissuading me, but I would like to ask you for one thing. Please
15 consider my proposal, it will be my proposal, that in light of the last
16 20 minutes or so of the cross-examination and in light of the current
17 jurisprudence about the notification, or rather, the clear nature of the
18 indictment I would like you to instruct the Prosecution to get acquainted
19 with the issue whether going into events in 1995, and in particular the
20 implementation of the Washington and Dayton Agreement, whether the
21 Prosecution is de facto expanding the scope of the indictment. We have
22 the right to be informed about the indictment, the charges, the details,
23 and based on this I can conclude that it is implied that this is also
24 relevant and that this becomes part of the indictment. And bearing in
25 mind the views of the previous Trial Chambers and previous appeals,
1 unfortunately I cannot give you the exact quotation, where the Appeals
2 Chamber decided that it was enough to get notice during trial and that
3 the Defence could gauge what was happening because the Prosecution was
4 leading evidence on those events. So I would like to be warned
5 officially by the Prosecution within the next few days if they intend to
6 expand the indictment; if that is not the case, I cannot see the
7 relevance of the questioning over the past 20 minutes.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
9 continues]... already dealt with several months ago through a question
10 that was outside the scope of the indictment. I don't know whether it
11 was Mr. Scott or Mr. Mundis or Mr. Stringer, and they had raised to their
12 feet and said, No, it's not an extension of the indictment. I believe
13 Mr. Scott is going to say the same.
14 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, these issues -- excuse me. These issues
15 were thoroughly addressed by both sides and the Chamber made prior
16 rulings in connection with, particularly, the witness Nicholas Miller
17 about the continuation of Herceg-Bosna. It is clearly part of the
18 Defence case, I'm not challenging that they can put that case, but it's
19 clearly part of the Defence case that this was all temporary,
20 provisional, et cetera. The Prosecution thinks it's relevant for the
21 Chamber to know, and it's the Prosecution view that it was not temporary
22 and provisional, it had a long-term interest. It survived way past
24 relevance of that and confirmed the receipt of the evidence of Witness
25 Miller, and that's one particular instance. It's highly relevant to the
1 case. The Chamber has heard evidence of this before. With this
2 particular witness on Monday and I don't have -- I'm speaking now without
3 a note in front of me, but I believe at about page 88 of the transcript
4 Mr. Karnavas got into these issues, and it's the last topic that I hope
5 to cover with the witness in response to questions raised by Mr. Karnavas
6 on the implementation of the peace agreements. I think it's completely
7 relevant. It's not an extension of the indictment. The Prosecution has
8 always said that, but it is relevant to the case and the Chamber has
9 previously so ruled.
10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, just one
11 word. I thank you for your interpretation that you've given us. You
12 told us no, this was not an attempt to expand the indictment. That is
13 enough for me, but I have to say that after what my learned friend has
14 said I am again in doubt. But I will abide by what you have said. In
15 light of what he said, I don't know what the indictment is. We will
16 fight the windmills, we will fight all the charges in the indictment. We
17 might call for additions to 65 ter list until the Prosecution clearly
18 defines what is and what isn't. I will now clearly comply with what you
19 said, no, this doesn't appear to be an expansion of the indictment, but
20 last time when this was discussed during Miller's testimony this is when
21 this first cropped up, this topic, and that is why I brought this up
22 today. I don't know what the indictment is, whether there are any
23 addenda to the indictment, a post festum addendum as I call it.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're soon going to
25 have re-direct, but I have just one question by way of an anecdote and
1 it's really not so essential, but I thought of it as I was looking at the
2 document mentioning this famous meeting of the 24th of November, 1995
3 there was several speakers at that meeting. And at some point President
4 Tudjman said to Mr. Kordic, Dario, go on. So he calls him by -- on a
5 first-name basis. Was that something usual for Mr. Tudjman to use a
6 first-name basis to speak to people, or is that something customary, you
7 call people by their first names? Or does this show that there is a more
8 personal, a closer personal relationship between the two of them?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's not unusual to me at all,
10 Mr. President. In our parts it is quite usual for people to be on a
11 first-name basis.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is what I wanted to know.
13 Thank you for your answer.
14 Now, does the Prlic Defence have any additional questions?
15 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. There
16 is no need for any re-examination of this witness. Thank you very much.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
18 Witness, on behalf of the Trial Chamber and my own name, I want
19 to thank you for testifying as a Defence witness for the Prlic Defence.
20 You have our best wishes for a safe return and for further activities.
21 The usher is going to accompany you out of the courtroom.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to thank you and I
23 wish you good health and happiness.
24 [The witness withdrew]
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm now turning to Mr. Prlic's
1 lawyer, since Mr. Karnavas is not with us today. With regard to next
2 week, if I'm not mistaken, we're going to have Mr. Miroslav Palameta.
3 He's scheduled to testify for three hours for the examination-in-chief.
4 We shall be starting on Monday. Tuesday is a UN holiday, so that we
5 shall resume and continue on Wednesday and Thursday. That's the schedule
6 for next week, isn't it?
7 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Mr. President. The
8 witness is ready. He will be here. We don't expect any surprises. I
9 hope there won't be any, so that would be our schedule and our plan.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But he hasn't arrived yet?
11 He's going to come for the proofing, isn't he?
12 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] He will be here for the proofing
13 session on Friday. All of our witnesses arrive before the weekend, but
14 according to my information his ticket is fine and he is ready to leave.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good news.
16 On the other hand, you, further to the Trial Chamber's ruling,
17 you have sent us a very thorough schedule. I was trying to find the
18 paper, I can't find it, until November. And I did some maths for the
19 number of hours, and it seems that you have scheduled 39 hours for all
20 the remaining witnesses. Is that right?
21 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Precisely, Mr. President. We
22 hope that we will be able to save maybe half an hour or an hour, but I do
23 believe that we will need 39 hours to complete the examination of all the
24 Defence witnesses. As for the other witnesses, we decided to get their
25 evidence under Rule 92 bis in order to save some time for the direct
1 examination of other Defence witnesses.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So if I understood you
3 properly, from memory, you had 43 and 24 minutes left. Now you're
4 scheduling 39 hours, in other words, you are keeping four hours as a
5 reserve for the examination-in-chief of the other Defence witnesses. But
6 with regard to re-direct, you've kept no reserve at all.
7 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, re-examinations are, as a
8 rule, an exception. That is why we do not anticipate spending any time
9 on re-examination.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last technical question.
11 So we're going to have 92 bis statements when exactly? When do you want
12 to present them to the Trial Chamber? Because that represents a lot of
13 work, we have to look into them and all that. So when are you going to
14 give us that, after you've had your last witness or is it in the few next
15 coming days?
16 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] No. The 92 bis motion is being
17 drafted. I expect it to be completed within the next 10 or 15 days so
18 you will have it in front of you quite soon.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How many of them roughly?
20 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think four 92 bis, four
21 transcripts, and two or three statements.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for the information.
23 We have an idea now and it's much clearer.
24 Before we come to an end, do you have anything to say,
25 Mr. Prosecutor?
1 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to note obviously
2 that it goes without saying, I hope it does at least, that of course when
3 the 92 bis motions are filed the Prosecution will have an opportunity to
4 respond to that, and just as the Defence did the Prosecution may request
5 that some of those witnesses come for cross-examination. And of course
6 we have not seen that material and it goes back to the old question of
7 prior statements, and if there are statements and if we can get a head
8 start on considering them, we would certainly be happy to get the
9 statements as soon as possible. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Well, there may be
11 a small technical problem. You told us that there would be four 92 bis
12 and two or three statements, so altogether six or seven. Let's assume
13 that the Prosecution would want to cross-examine, just like Defence
14 wanted to cross-examine 92 bis witnesses, and let's assume that the
15 Trial Chamber grants this motion. Then your 92 bis witnesses have to
16 come here. I assume that you ask questions to them, and if you run out
17 time what's going to happen then? You see, you have to keep everything
18 in mind and that's what we do here at the Bench.
19 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I didn't know that
20 in these situations, I didn't know that this time was counted in the time
21 that the Defence planned for their presentation of evidence. That is
22 something that we did not count on. We take statements and transcripts
23 in order to shorten the time left for the presentation of our case. If
24 the Prosecutor calls, and you allow them to do that, then perhaps that
25 should be counted in the Chamber's time.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Chamber's time is also very
2 precious and scarce, and I do regret that sometimes we don't have enough
4 Mr. Praljak, I believe you want to take the floor regarding the
5 92 bis witnesses.
6 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Correct, Your Honours. I
7 just keep having this technical question left that is unclear to me. I
8 or Mr. Kovacic, our Defence, will have a lot of witnesses like that and
9 we did provide brief summaries, and of course it's open to the
10 Prosecution and to the Chamber to say we would still like to bring such
11 and such a person other than those who would be put forward by our
12 Defence, to be brought forward. In view of the time available and in
13 view of the time that I'm going to testify for quite some time, I can
14 bring 15 witnesses and say good day, good day, are you such and such a
15 person or so and so, did you sign what you said, did you go over it, did
16 you sign every page? Thank you very much. I have nothing further. And
17 that way I would use a minute and a half. In that way, if I wish, I can
18 bring in 20 or 30 witnesses because -- and I can sit down because there
19 is in writing whatever the witness said.
20 So what sort of time will the Prosecutor then have? I would like
21 to have everything explained in advance. If the Prosecution asks for ten
22 witnesses to be called and I spent only enough time on the witness to
23 introduce his evidence a minute and a half, how will they then
24 cross-examine that witness and how will the others cross-examine the
25 witness, the others from the team of the Defence?
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
2 continues]... far the Trial Chamber has not deliberated on this and we
3 cannot answer right away; however, I can tell you that it doesn't seem to
4 be a problem that can be overcome. The Prosecutor might cross-examine
5 your witnesses, it all depends on your 92 bis witnesses. Maybe there
6 will be cross-examinations or not. But according to the rule of the
7 procedure, maybe there will be no reason to bring the witnesses into the
8 courtroom after all. But we have to take that into account because it
9 might happen, and then the Trial Chamber will allocate time then. But we
10 can't answer right off the blue like that.
11 We saw your submission and I noted that there's a lot of
12 witnesses that are supposed to be 92 bis witnesses, but we still have to
13 read their statements. The Prosecutor has to put its point and give its
14 opinion. If his opinion -- as of now, we're totally in the dark.
15 Is there any other housekeeping matter? I saw Ms. Alaburic, she
16 wanted to take the floor. Did you have something to add?
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you. I'm
18 going to be very brief. If my records are correct, we saw today that the
19 Prosecutor showed us two documents which were not on his 65 ter list,
20 these are documents P 10638 and P 10627. This is not the first time that
21 the Prosecutor in the middle of a cross-examination of a Defence witness
22 introduces new documents that were not presented to the parties and which
23 were not part of the Prosecutor's case, which actually was completed in
24 January 2008. We believe that this practice brings us to an
25 exceptionally unfavourable condition or situation, first of all, because
1 the other Defences do not have the right to cross the witness on these
2 new documents, and in view of the nature of the indictment the majority
3 of the documents refer to all of the accused.
4 The second reason for our great concern is the fact that we have
5 prepared the concept of our defence and we placed it in the list of
6 exhibits and witnesses, and that is why we plan to submit a motion to the
7 Trial Chamber proposing to agree on the ways to treat such documents.
8 And we are going to put forward a proposal similar to that adopted in the
9 Hadzihasanovic/Kubura case, and that is that the rule should be that the
10 Prosecution cannot introduce new documents and that there are exceptions,
11 that this can be done in case the documents shed doubt on the credibility
12 of the witness or if the witness needed to be reminded of some event. If
13 such terms are not defined in this proceeding, we believe that the right
14 of our accused to a fair trial would be brought into question.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, you're absolutely right
16 to remind us of all this, and notably a decision that I was involved in.
17 This is a topic that I know inside-out, not the only one, but I know this
19 Mr. Scott, you introduced documents that were not on the 65 ter
20 list. And in doing so, when introducing documents that are not on the
21 list, you're supposed to request for these documents to be added and
22 according to the Hadzihasanovic/Kubura guide-line you know the -- we have
23 to see why it wasn't in the list in the first place, the Trial Chamber
24 checks that, tries to determine what the reasons might have been, then
25 also determines whether there is a reason, a relevance, in introducing
1 this document. It may be to refresh the memory of a witness, as
2 Ms. Alaburic just said, justly said, or to challenge the credibility of a
3 witness without this document being admitted in the end.
4 So you have to be very specific and clear about this; if not,
5 please refer to Mr. Mundis who he was in the Hadzihasanovic/Kubura case
6 and knows exactly in which direction the decision was made. You're also
7 an excellent lawyer. You also know this case as well as I do.
8 So what can you answer? What can you say to Ms. Alaburic?
9 MR. SCOTT: Well, thank you, Your Honour. First of all, I think
10 it's a bit premature. What I heard her say was that a motion would be
11 filed, so I find myself responding to a motion that hasn't been filed
12 yet, number one. It might be more appropriate to wait until the motion
13 is filed.
14 Secondly, Your Honour, I have to say that in my 29 years of
15 trying cases, I've never come up against this rule either in my prior
16 experience or at the ICTY. That was not the case in the -- that was not
17 the ruling in the Kordic case, that was not the ruling in the Tuta and
18 Stela case. It may not be the ruling in this case because this Chamber
19 is not composed the same way that the Hadzihasanovic Chamber was
20 configured. So as I understand it, this Chamber has not yet issued a
21 ruling, but we'll certainly address the motion when it's filed.
22 This is cross-examination. The Defence brings witnesses. The
23 witness is subject to cross-examination, and I would think the Chamber
24 would -- if there's relevant evidence that can come in from either side
25 when a party calls the witness, the Chamber would wish to receive that
1 evidence. And that's always been the practice in every case, and I
2 emphasize the word, every case that I've tried in the last 29 years,
3 including at the Tribunal.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, but I see that there
5 are -- there is some case law that you seem to neglect, and you should
6 read this decision which was handed down. But as of now no formal motion
7 has been filed. Maybe you could ask for documents to be tendered through
8 IC numbers. Maybe if you do that the Defence will submit its opinion and
9 then the Trial Chamber will rule.
10 Ms. Alaburic.
11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Just one sentence, Your Honours.
12 This is not just the practice in the Hadzihasanovic/Kubura case. There
13 are also decisions by other Trial Chambers, and we're going to refer to
14 that in detail in our submission. I just wanted to inform the
15 Trial Chamber about what I was thinking and also to prepare the grounds
16 for the motion that we are going to submit.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Previous translation continues]...
18 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I
19 spoke with my colleague about this decision -- well, it's not just the
20 introduction of new documents. The correspondence is such -- or the
21 jurisprudence is such that the Prosecutor cannot just now submit
22 documents that they might have had in their possession for ten years or
23 more. They did have their chance over the past two years to present the
24 documents that they wish to present, and now that chance is over.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
1 continues]... very well, we will look into this.
2 Mr. Khan, you're very quiet. Don't you want to take the floor?
3 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, I will spare you on this occasion. Thank
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for that.
6 So we will meet again next Monday at 2.15. Thank you.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5.28 p.m.
8 to be reconvened on Monday, the 29th day of
9 September, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.