1 Monday, 13 October 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Kindly call the case,
6 Mr. Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
8 everyone in and around the could the room. This is case number
9 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al., thank you Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Today is Monday. Good afternoon to all the people present in the
12 courtroom, to the OTP representatives, to the Defence counsel, the
13 accused, and good afternoon to the registrar and the usher as well.
14 We have two oral rulings. Let's start with the first one. It
15 has to do with the request or motion by the Prosecution asking for a full
16 summary of the testimony by Neven Tomic.
17 On the 6th of October, 2008, the Prosecution filed a motion with
18 the Trial Chamber for Prlic Defence to be asked to supply an adequate
19 summary of the testimony of Neven Tomic pursuant to Rule 65 ter by the
20 10th of October, 2008 at the latest.
21 On October 9, 2008
22 it provided additional information concerning Neven Tomic's testimony.
23 His testimony is scheduled to start on the 27th of October, 2008.
24 After reviewing the Prlic Defence filing, the Trial Chamber is of
25 the view that the Prlic Defence has supplied enough information for the
1 Prosecution to adequately prepare for the cross-examination of
2 Neven Tomic. For instance, the Prlic Defence mentioned parts of the
3 indictment to which the witness will speak, such as Croatisation, ethnic
4 cleansing, and the knowledge that Prlic allegedly had of events that took
5 place in detention centres.
6 The Prlic Defence further submits that Neven Tomic's testimony
7 will deal with other points dealt with by previous witnesses, such as
8 witnesses Puljic, Kozulj, Perkovic, and Primorac.
9 On the basis of the additional information provided by the Prlic
10 Defence, the Trial Chamber dismisses the motion by the Prosecution.
11 Second oral ruling, which is a request for observations from the
12 Prosecution with relation to the expert report provided by the Prlic
13 Defence expert report of Milan Cvikl.
14 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. Excuse me, Your Honour. I
15 apologise for interrupting the Chamber, but I'm afraid if I don't, it may
16 be to cause further confusion for everyone. Excuse me. I'm just trying
17 to get sorted here.
18 Your Honour -- good afternoon I should say first of all. Good
19 afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours, everyone in and around the
21 Mr. President, I do apologise interrupting you and I know that's
22 not very polite, but under the situation I feel that before the Chamber
23 proceeds further announcing these rulings, I need to say that I had asked
24 to address the Chamber this afternoon before the witness came in as the
25 registrar will confirm, and I was going to bring to the Chamber's
1 attention some additional developments concerning these very matters, and
2 it appears with to me with the greatest of respect to the Chamber that
3 some of these matters should be brought to the Chamber's attention before
4 the Chamber rules further on these items including the ruling that was
5 just announced. I was reluctant to get to my feet because I didn't want
6 to interrupt the Court, but based on what was filed last Thursday -- I'm
7 sorry, Your Honour, I'm still getting a lost feedback for some reason.
8 Based on the filing that the Prosecution made -- excuse me my
9 apologies. Based on the submission that the defence made on Thursday,
10 the prosecution has continued to look at that and based on some
11 additional information it learned at the end of last week has continued
12 to consider its position. And with great -- with great respect to the
13 Chamber did not expect the Chamber to necessarily address those matters
14 first thing this afternoon. There are very important developments
15 relating to both of these topics that with greatest of respects the
16 Chamber should have in front of it before making a further decision on
17 the one it just made in terms of the Tomic summary and in relation to the
18 expert report. I can -- I can bring those matters to the Chamber's
19 attention now as way of a preview. We are in the process of preparing
20 written submissions that will be filed later this afternoon that touch on
21 both of these matters. And I think -- and again, Your Honour, with the
22 greatest of respect and apologies for interrupting the Chamber these are
23 matters that the Chamber should consider before addressing these matters
25 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may be heard for a second just --
1 Mr. President. With respect to your ruling on -- on Mr. Tomic, now that
2 we have a ruling, and I didn't believe the Prosecution filed a request to
3 file a reply, it would seem to me that they'd have to seek leave. So I
4 would suspect that -- I would ask for that. And certainly this is the
5 first I hear that there is a problem with the Tomic submission that we
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, concerning Tomic, the
8 Trial Chamber handed down an oral ruling, and as things stand there's no
9 reason to go back on it unless there is a motion for review filed later
11 Let me continue what I was reading regarding the expert report.
12 On the 7th of October, 2008, the Prosecution filed a motion for
13 the testimony of experts Milan Cvikl and Svetlana Radovanovic's testimony
14 to be dismissed as there are proposed by the Prlic Defence, the ground
15 being that to date the Prosecution had not received the two expert
16 reports and related documents.
17 The testimony of the said witnesses was initially scheduled to
18 start on the 5th of November and on the 7th of November 2008
20 On the 10th of November, 2008, the Prlic Defence filed further to
21 Rule 94 bis the expert report of Milan Cvikl, his CV, and the documents
22 related to his report. On the same day the Prlic Defence disclosed an
23 amended witness schedule indicating that the testimony of Milan Cvikl was
24 postponed until the 17th of November, 2008. The Prlic Defence also
25 indicated that it would like to have four hours for the
1 examination-in-chief of the witness.
2 The Trial Chamber therefore seeks further observations from the
3 Prosecution based on the filing of the expert report and the new date for
4 the testimony of Milan Cvikl.
5 Mr. Scott, you have the floor again.
6 MR. SCOTT: Thank --
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There seems to be a minor
9 mistake on line 19, page 4. It's not 10th of November, it's 10th of
11 Mr. Scott.
12 MR. SCOTT: Once again, Mr. President, good afternoon and good
13 afternoon to all those in the courtroom. Once again, Your Honour, I
14 apologise for the unusual interruption of the Chamber in the process of
15 issuing a ruling, and I only did it out of great reluctance but the
16 need -- the felt need to make certain points available to the Chamber.
17 The points are related as to the current witness, the witness who
18 is about to start today, and also relates really implicates three
19 different witnesses at least -- in fact, probably more, but it relates to
20 the current witness, again today's witness, Mr. Zelenika, and I
21 understand there is no request for protective measures. That's why I'm
22 not seeking private session. If I'm wrong, Counsel, please correct me.
23 The issues relate to Mr. Zelenika, Mr. Tomic, and the --
24 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Ibrisimovic.
1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
2 continues]... please. I believe the witness mentioned by my learned
3 friend does have protective measures. We haven't heard yet if he has
4 maybe waived them in the meantime.
5 MR. SCOTT: First I've heard of it, Your Honour, and I asked the
6 registry beforehand if there had been any application, and I was told no.
7 So I will pause now to be told -- corrected if I'm wrong. I suppose
8 Mr. Karnavas would know whether he's seeking protective measures for the
9 witness or not.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: He did on a prior occasion -- good afternoon, Your
11 Honours. On a prior occasion the gentleman when he testified before this
12 Tribunal had testified with protective measures. This time he's not
13 seeking protective measures, although we will be going into private
14 session at some point due to some of the testimony and the fear of his
15 life of certain individuals who still remain at large in
16 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which neither the state nor the OTP has done anything
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So there's no protective
19 measures in this case.
20 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Your Honours, then I will
21 proceed in fact in open session. The issues that the Prosecution is
22 raising this afternoon which will be followed by written submissions on
23 these matters. As saying a moment ago, implicates three witnesses;
24 today's witness, Mr. Zelenika; a future witness Mr. Tomic; and the
25 proposed expert Mr. Cvikl.
1 What we have learned in connection with the preparation and
2 submission to the Prosecution for the first time, the Cvikl Report at the
3 it end of last week, is that in the course of preparing his -- conducting
4 his work and preparing his report, Mr. Cvikl has relied extensively on
5 interviews with various Defence witnesses, including Mr. Zelenika,
6 Mr. Tomic, and a past witness, Mr. Akmadzic. Those indicate that those
7 witnesses were interviewed in December of 2007, more than 10 months ago.
8 None of those interviews have been provided to the Prosecution in
9 violation of Rule 67(A) as statements of these witnesses.
10 The -- it is clear that if these statements, these interviews,
11 were important enough to provide to Mr. Cvikl, they are important enough
12 to be provided to the Prosecution. In at least 21 instances, I say at
13 least because we're still in the process of reviewing an extensive set of
14 material that was just put on our -- dropped in our laps last Friday or
15 Thursday night, there are at least 21 references in which Mr. Cvikl says
16 he relied for his point on the evidence of Mr. Zelenika and cites in his
17 footnotes to interviews with Mr. Zelenika in December 2007, more than ten
18 months ago. Those interviews -- that information has not been provided
19 to the Prosecution, and we submit that under Rule 67(A)(i) the
20 Prosecution is entitled to that information and material prior to the
21 cross-examination of this witness.
22 It also Your Honours, as I indicated directly implicates the
23 witness Tomic. Mr. Tomic is cited in the Cvikl report at least 161
24 times, let me repeat that, 161 times, based on an interview again
25 conducted in -- one or more interviews conducted in December 2007. Those
1 interviews have not been provided to the Prosecution, and it's our
2 submission that no examination of Mr. Tomic, either -- well, either
3 direct but certainly not cross cannot proceed until such time as the
4 Prosecution has been provided with this interview material and had its
5 chance to fully study and prepare for it in connection with
7 I mention in passing that this not only implicates future
8 witnesses, but it implicates past witnesses. Mr. Akmadzic is also cited
9 a number of times in the report again having apparently been interviewed
10 in December of 2007 prior to the time he appeared before the Chamber
11 earlier this year and without any of that information being disclosed or
12 provided to either the Chamber or the Prosecution. So, Your Honour, we
13 think it's in the Prosecution's -- it's the Prosecution's respectful
14 submission that these raise extremely important matters which directly
15 impact all of these items and was going to be part of, and I say part of,
16 an additional submission on the Tomic summary which we have been
17 preparing over the weekend, and that's what I intended and again for
18 which I apologise interrupting the Chamber so that I could make the
19 Chamber aware of that before the Chamber made its ruling.
20 We now also tender -- we will now also be submitting motions
21 concerning the witness Tomic, as I said, the witness Zelenika will be
22 filed later today, and also a further motions and further submissions
23 which in fact the Chamber just requested or just invited concerning the
25 Your Honour, we think these are serious matters that need to be
1 brought to the Chamber's attention. The Prosecution cannot -- cannot and
2 should not be required to cross-examine this witness until all the
3 information required by the rules has been provided to it. This Chamber
4 very specifically in the earlier proceedings this year, I believe it was
5 around -- the deadline was around the 28th of April, if I'm not mistaken,
6 specifically told the Defence to disclose all prior statements and
7 information of this sort of the witnesses. Now, according to Mr. Cvikl
8 report, these interviews existed at least -- at least by December 2007,
9 some months before the Chamber issued its record. It should have been
10 disclosed to the Prosecution on -- in a timely way as required not only
11 by the Rules but as required by the Chamber's scheduling record.
12 We will make written submissions on all of these points, Your
13 Honours, but I bring it to the Chamber's attention with great respect.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may briefly respond, Mr. President.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Just one moment.
17 Mr. Scott said that he was going to file some submissions.
18 You'll be able to reply. What do you want to add?
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, it's not -- he doesn't get to have 30
20 minutes wave time around television, and then I'm going to be cut off and
21 do it that way, because now he's challenged our integrity and he's led
22 you to leave that there are statements. The gentleman could have just
23 picked up the phone and asked for statements and he would have learned
24 the following: First and foremost, I have no statements. I didn't take
25 the statements. I didn't meet with these particular individuals when
1 Mr. Cvikl met with them.
2 Secondly, as I understand, and if the gentleman had read the
3 report, perhaps he hasn't, but if he had read it carefully, Mr. Cvikl
4 went on a field trip and met with certain individuals, and he had a
5 conversation. I have not been provided with the contents of those
6 conversations. I saw them in the footnotes just like he has. So he's no
7 more at a disadvantage than I am.
8 Thirdly, if he wanted to -- more details on what happened,
9 perhaps we could ask the gentleman, Mr. Cvikl, and he can elucidate as to
10 what, if anything, he has learned.
11 I can assure the trial chamber that I did ask if the gentleman
12 had any handwritten notes knowing full well I would get this sort of
13 response if I dare not turn up any notes the gentleman might have had,
14 and I was told that he didn't keep the notes. That's what I'm told.
15 That's the information that I have, so I am at a disadvantage as
16 Mr. Scott is. I do take exception to sort of the innuendo that we have
17 violated orders and we are not being ethical and so on and so forth, and
18 I leave that to you, Your Honours to figure out. But as far as I know he
19 had some conversations with respect to what he -- to his mandate, which
20 was we provided him with certain information. We also said if you look
21 at the report, if there's any other additional information that he needs
22 to look at as an expert he should go ahead on his own. In other words,
23 don't do what the Prosecution did with Tomljanovich. Instead, here is
24 what we think. Go out and do more. Don't do what Dr. Ribicic did, the
25 Slovenian, the other Slovenian expert did, with is never talk to anybody,
1 don't update your knowledge on any other material that might be
2 available. Don't even speak to the individuals that might have been in
3 place but instead make assertions such as there was no such thing as
4 municipalities having Official Gazettes and the indication that Mostar,
5 by having one, is one more indication that it is taking on state powers.
6 We wanted to avoid the pitfalls and follies that the Prosecution has
7 shown us throughout the trial. And by the way, this is the same practice
8 that I have done throughout my career, and I've never had a problem. I
9 tell my experts here's the information. Here are the questions we want
10 you to ask. If you think there is any additional information, go for it.
11 If you need to interview anybody, go for it. And unfortunately and with
12 regret, I don't have his notes. I am equally at a disadvantage and I can
13 understand the Prosecution's concerns, but I can assure the Trial Chamber
14 that I have no statements. I was not present during those interviews. I
15 don't know what exactly transpired. I assume he was asking technical
16 questions related to the issues that he was dealing with, which was the
17 economics and the laws that were in place.
18 If you look at the -- what he put together, it was basically --
19 you see the first part, you know, how did the system work during the
20 Yugoslavian area -- era, and then how it functioned at the state and the
21 municipal level -- or I should say the republican and then the municipal
22 level and then he looked at more specifically Mostar and other
23 municipalities, because by and large what we're trying to show is that
24 all this -- these decrees that were passed, what was -- what were the
25 benefits, what were the detriments, what needed to be done with the
1 vacuum created with Sarajevo
2 I maintain that we have been fully ethical, and we turned over
3 the report as soon as we were able to, not one second later. So if the
4 Prosecution wishes to file additional submissions after this, that's
5 fine, but I assume next time perhaps he could just pick up the phone and
6 ask, and we would have told him this.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you are telling
8 us you have no written documents regarding these interviews and
9 conversations as you have said.
10 Mr. Scott.
11 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, first of all I'm not going to respond
12 on all the attacks on the Prosecution's practices which of course is
13 always Mr. Karnavas's way. The experts did their work on this -- the
14 Prosecution's experts did their work in a professional matter, the
15 Chamber received their evidence and of course will make the determination
16 of the weight to give to that evidence but I'm not going to get into a
17 tit for tat with Mr. Karnavas with respect to the Prosecution witnesses
18 who have testified to date the Prosecution -- except for this one and
19 this is very important, and that is when the Prosecution -- excuse me
20 when the Chamber contrast the extensive advanced notice given by the
21 Prosecution in every instance of its experts and the minimal, absolutely
22 minimal, and in our view, not even required by the rules has been
23 provided to the prosecution and that will be our continuing submission,
24 our position, and the fact that we received that last week has not
25 changed our position, and the fact that we have one more week will not
1 and has not chained our position. It's not what the Rules require, it's
2 not what this Court's Scheduling Order require.
3 I just ask the Court all of you come in here with your very --
4 very capable legal minds and common sense. Listen to what Mr. Karnavas
5 is telling us. That an expert, an expert -- someone who holds himself as
6 an expert and knows and knows he's going to be coming into court and
7 defending this material cites a particular witness as the source of his
8 report for the conclusions in his report cites a witness 161 times, and
9 Mr. Tomic -- and Mr. Karnavas stands up and says, But he didn't keep any
10 record of that. No notes, nothing? No record of that? I ask the
11 Chamber to assess that situation and the disadvantage and prejudice done
12 to the Prosecution in this situation.
13 Mr. Karnavas says he's at an equal disadvantage. I'm not sure
14 what that disadvantage is, Your Honour, with great respect. It's not --
15 he doesn't have to cross-examine this witness, and I'm sure he's happy to
16 tender the report, but the Prosecution, unlike the Defence, has to
17 cross-examine this witness, is entitled to all the material, all the
18 material on which the expert relied in coming to the conclusions that he
19 did, and that is not provided, and I just go back to the nature of the
20 report. When you look at all these footnotes and the 161 footnotes where
21 Mr. Tomic is cited, interview of Neven Tomic, December 2007, and we go to
22 the supporting materials, oh, well, surely the interviews must be
23 attached -- surely the interviews, the source material on which the
24 expert relies certainly must be attached. We go and we open all these
25 materials, the DVDs, and guess what? None of the interviews are there.
1 Nothing. Just a big fat zero, nothing for Tomic, for Zelenika, and all
2 that. So we have an expert who says, "I relied on these people. I
3 relied on these people. I'm going to give that information to the
4 Chamber but the evidence that I based it on is not available to you."
5 It's great prejudice to the Prosecution, Your Honour both as to the
6 expert report and our ability to meet the evidence of these coming
7 witnesses, and that's our position.
8 Thank you, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, let us wait for your
11 Before the witness comes in, Mr. Karnavas, you gave us the
12 schedule for your witnesses. Thank you for that. We have a better idea
13 until the 27th of November. I added up the number of hours, 24 hours as
14 of today. Does this mean that after the 27th of November, you don't have
15 any more witnesses?
16 MR. KARNAVAS: None that are planned, Your Honour and I don't
17 intend to all more witnesses. The remainder of the time we were going to
18 reserve for the other phases, but that's our witness list. We don't
19 anticipate adding anyone. We're not looking into adding anyone.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This is indeed how
21 I understood your filing.
22 At any rate, we're waiting for the OTP's submissions with great
23 trepidation, and the Trial Chamber will issue a ruling on the basis of
24 the submissions. We take due note that Mr. Karnavas said that he did not
25 have any report or personal notes or memos from Cvikl following the
1 conversations or interviews he may have had with other witnesses
2 including Mr. Neven Tomic. But Mr. Zelenika is due to come, so --
3 Zelenika, so the Prosecution can ask them whether Cvikl, when he met with
4 him, took notes, or listened to them orally without taking any notes.
5 That's all we know so far. At any rate, Mr. Karnavas said that he has
6 nothing else in his possession.
7 Back to you, Mr. Karnavas. I put the question to you for a good
8 reason. We know that after you we'll have the Stojic Defence with their
9 witnesses. The Trial Chamber just wants to organise future scheduling.
10 And you do confirm that you will have your last witness on the 27th of
11 November; is that right?
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Barring an action and/or some sort of a force
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perfect.
15 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Your Honour, not to try the Chamber's
16 patience, but as long as we're on that additional the matter, again I
17 just want to mention so there's no prejudice to anyone, Defence or
18 Prosecution or the Chamber, there are still of course the outstanding
19 matter of potential Rule 92 bis witnesses, Your Honour, and those motions
20 haven't been filed, and of course, of course the Prosecution may seek
21 cross-examination of those witnesses which presumably would have to be
22 scheduled sometime after the 27th of November. So just so long as the
23 Chamber is aware. And I'm sure the Chamber is, but just as a reminder.
24 Thank you.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, yes. Do you
1 have -- or how many 92 bis witnesses do you have, because you mentioned
2 this. I can't remember exactly. You mentioned some, not many, but you
3 had some.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: There are two categories. The first category are
5 witnesses who have testified before this Tribunal and have been
6 cross-examined by either Mr. Scott, Mr. Stringer, or others in previous
7 cases, and so if they want to call those witnesses back to take another
8 shot at the cross-examination, you know, that's up to them.
9 Then there will be three or four other statements there about a
10 page to a page and a half, and as I've indicated, I believe I must have
11 indicated this to the Prosecutor, maybe I did it verbally, but by and
12 large these witnesses are sort of -- they would fall into the category of
13 character witnesses. They are post -- post-Washington period and so
14 that's what these witnesses are, and of course the Prosecution is free to
15 call them if they wish to call them, but as I said, they're one to two
16 pages long.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, when will you
18 tell us about these 92 bis, soon?
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, we're add -- as we speak, I'm --
20 unfortunately you can make requests sometimes months in advance and
21 you're still waiting. I'm hoping that by the end of the week I will have
22 those four small statements I spoke of. As far as the others -- and I
23 must apologise -- I anticipated having that part of the motion in
24 earlier. I can assure the Trial Chamber that I'm going to endeavour to
25 have that by either the end of the week or first part of next week, but
1 again those witnesses have been cross-examined by three members, I
2 believe, of the Prosecution team, and so -- and I don't see the purpose
3 of bringing them in to cross-examine them again on content that they've
4 already been cross-examined on.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [No interpretation] Therefore,
6 we will have -- thank you very much for your answers to our request.
7 Yes. I see the beginning of the interpretation is missing.
8 I say you gave us a list of exhibits with chapters as I had
9 requested a week ago, and this will help us to follow your own
10 examination, and this will be very useful. Thank you so much.
11 Please bring in the witness.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: While the witness is coming back, I want to make
13 sure that one point is made clear, that not only do I not have any notes
14 but never did I ever give any instructions to -- to Mr. Cvikl either not
15 to take notes or to destroy any notes that he might have taken. So I
16 just want to make sure that -- because the implication may be that he's
17 been instructed not to. So that's what I wanted to add.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understood that.
19 [The witness entered court]
20 WITNESS: MIRKO ZELENIKA
21 [Witness answered through interpreter]
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. Please
23 state your name, your name and your birth date, if you please.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mirko Zelenika, 25th August, 1947
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Closed session, please,
1 Mr. Registrar.
2 [Private session]
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, have you -- what is your
8 work today? Are you working or not working? And if you are working,
9 could you tell us what is your profession?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm retired now.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Will you
12 please make the -- take the oath and read it out.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
14 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may sit down.
16 A few brief explanations about this hearing. You know it is
17 going to last four days to hear you. First of all, you will have to
18 answer questions from Mr. Karnavas. You probably met Mr. Karnavas before
19 in order to prepare this hearing. He will ask you questions, and he will
20 show you some documents. At the end of that, the other counsel of the
21 other accused may also question you within the framework of their
23 The Prosecution, who is on your right-hand side, Mr. Scott, will
24 also question you in the framework of cross-examination, and he will have
25 the same question time as Mr. Karnavas.
1 The four Judges you may see may also ask questions from you and
2 maybe, according to the documents shown, or after the cross-examinations
3 or examinations. This will depend.
4 Try and be extremely precise in your answers when you answer the
5 questions, and if you don't understand a question, don't hesitate and ask
6 the person who is questioning you to reformulate.
7 We have a break for 20 minutes every hour and a half, but if
8 during the hearing you don't feel well, raise your hand and we will stop
9 the session so that you may take a rest.
10 You made a solemn declaration to say the truth and the whole
11 truth, so this means that you are now a witness, and you do not -- you're
12 not a witness of one or the other party. You don't have any contact any
13 more with either Mr. Karnavas nor Mr. Prlic. This is what I wanted to
14 tell you.
15 Of course if at any time you wish to ask a question from the
16 members of the Chamber, don't hesitate to ask us. Raise your hand then.
17 We are at your entire disposal.
18 This is what I wanted to tell you as an introduction, and I will
19 now give the floor to Mr. Karnavas, who shall now start the -- his
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
22 Examination by Mr. Karnavas:
23 Q. Again, good afternoon, Mr. Zelenika.
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. First, I'm going to begin by asking you some basic questions
1 about your background. If you could tell us where you're from and the
2 level of your educations.
3 A. My name is Mirko Zelenika, born to gather Ivan and mother Milka
4 born on the 25th of August, 1947, in a place called Risovac, Jablanica
5 municipality, the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6 I got a degree in political science, majoring in social policy.
7 Q. And could you please describe to us up until 1991 the types of
8 positions that you've held, the kind of work that you did up until 1991.
9 A. In my career, from 1967 I worked for a year and a half as a
10 teacher, then another 18 months as a secretary in a primary school. Then
11 I worked in a socially owned business, the Granit Company as a clerk
12 dealing with affairs of social standard. Then I supervised a section for
13 human resources and general affairs. Then from 1984 to 1986 I was the
14 president of the Executive Council of Jablanica municipality, which means
15 the head of the local government, after which I returned to the
16 Granit Company where I was a manager of the unit for joint services. And
17 just before 1991 I was on standby waiting for my permanent employment to
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Zelenika. Now, as I understand it, at some point
20 in time, and you can tell us exactly when, you became again the President
21 of the Executive Board or Executive Council in the Jablanica
22 municipality; is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What were the dates?
25 A. It was the 11th of May, 1992.
1 Q. And how long did you hold that position?
2 A. For about six months.
3 Q. Now, before we speak about that period, if you could briefly --
4 I'll -- let me just ask one quick question and then we'll going into more
5 details. When you compare the way the Executive Council operated in 1991
6 for the six months that you were there and look back to when you were the
7 president of the Executive Council in 1984 to 1986, did it function --
8 the rules of procedure and how it functioned, was it the same or was it
10 A. The rules of procedure that applied when I was president of the
11 executive down in 1992 were the same as in the period 1984 to 1986.
12 Q. All right. So let's talk a little bit about your experience in
13 1984 and 1986 and we're only interested in knowing somehow this board,
14 how this Executive Board functioned and, in particular, your position as
15 president, how you fit within the board. So would you please tell us a
16 little bit about that. How did the Executive Board fit into this?
17 A. It was a collective body of executive local power consisting of
18 some members who were heading local secretariats, municipal secretariats,
19 and some outside members, renowned businessmen with extensive experience
20 nominated by the Assembly.
21 Q. Now, as President of the Executive Board were you above everyone
22 else with, for instance, extra powers for voting or being capable of
23 making decisions and issuing orders, making appointments without
24 consultation, or were you just one -- one member with equal rights, that
25 is, one vote?
1 A. I was actually one of the members with one vote, and I had no
2 powers outside the sessions of the Executive Council to appoint or
3 promote anybody or anyone -- anything like that.
4 Q. All right. Well, when decisions were made and when appointments
5 made, who signed those decisions or appointments on behalf of the
6 Executive Council?
7 A. When decisions were made on appointments or any other decisions,
8 after the decision-making process I signed such decisions, among others,
9 as the president of the Executive Council.
10 Q. All right. So those decisions or appointments were not yours
11 but, rather, they were taken by the collective body.
12 A. Absolutely.
13 Q. And I take it you would have to sign a decision or appointment
14 even if you had voted against it but it had passed because of the
15 majority of voting?
16 A. Yes. My vote was just one among the total number of votes in the
17 Executive Council.
18 Q. All right. Now, let's fast forward a little bit to 1991, 1992.
19 First let me ask you whether you were a member of a political party at
20 the time. This is leading up to the elections, the first free elections.
21 A. I was not affiliated to any political party before the democratic
22 elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
23 Q. All right. Now, when you were ultimately re-appointed to the
24 position of President of the Executive Board or Council in 1992, could
25 you please tell us how is it that you got that appointment?
1 A. Already earlier in 1991 the elected president of the Executive
2 Council was recalled, and in Jablanica we were facing the declaration of
3 the immediate threat of war and thus the Assembly of the municipality was
4 not functioning any more. There was in its place an operative body
5 called the Crisis Staff. That Crisis Staff of Jablanica municipality
6 appointed me on the 11th of May to be the next president of the Executive
7 Council of Jablanica municipality.
8 Q. All right. Well, had you ban member of the Crisis Staff?
9 A. No.
10 Q. All right. Well, had you been associated with or involved in any
11 of the secretariats of the Crisis Staff or the Executive Board prior to
12 your appointment, that is, as President of the Executive Board.
13 A. Yes. In the beginning of 1992 -- sorry, 1991, I was elected
14 secretary of the secretariat for the economy, social affairs and general
15 management, and I was thus president of the Executive Council of
16 Jablanica municipality from 1991.
17 Q. All right. Okay. You were -- you were a member of the Executive
18 Council since 1991?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now -- and that was by virtue of your position?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. All right. And when you say "secretariat," that's similar to a
23 department; correct?
24 A. You could put it that way, although within the framework of the
25 secretariat they are -- there are lower organisational units that are
1 called departments and sections, but you could put it that way. It's one
2 of the bodies of municipal government.
3 Q. All right. When you say that you were elected, how were you
4 elected to the secretariat position, or were you actually appointed or
5 nominated and, if so, by whom?
6 A. I was appointed, therefore not elected, pursuant to the electoral
7 results of various political parties at the elections in Jablanica in
8 1990. I was nominated by the Croatian Democratic Union to the position
9 of secretary of the secretariat that I mentioned before, and on that
10 basis, I was nominated into the Executive Council of Jablanica.
11 Q. And at that time when you were nominated by the HDZ, were you a
12 member of the HDZ?
13 A. I was not a member of the HDZ.
14 Q. All right. And if I understood your earlier answer, based on the
15 electoral results, the parties were allocated certain positions within
16 the political structure; is that correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. Now, if we fast forward to the -- to the time when
19 you were appointed as president of the Executive Council, were -- who
20 nominated you for that position? Was it political party or was it a
22 A. In 1992. We're talking about 1992. There was a Crisis Staff in
23 operation, and based on an internal agreement between several political
24 parties, I was nominated into the Executive Council as president. So it
25 was not just the nomination from the HDZ. It was an agreement between
1 the political parties that were active in Jablanica.
2 Q. All right. And just so we have a clear understanding, what were
3 the political parties at the time that were members of the Crisis Staff
4 or their representatives? How many political parties were
5 representative, I should say, in the Crisis Staff?
6 A. All political parties that existed at the time. If you want me
7 to enumerate them I will try.
8 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that was the purpose of my
9 question. If you can help me out here. We know the SDA and the HDZ.
10 We've covered those. The SDP
11 A. SDP
12 Some youth party, perhaps. There were at least five of them.
13 Q. All right. And based on the electoral results, were you entitled
14 to hold such a high position since you were -- initially you came into
15 the Crisis Staff -- or you initially came into the -- the secretariat by
16 virtue of the appointment by HDZ. Was the HDZ in a position of having
17 someone hold that high a position, that is president of the Executive
19 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. Excuse me. Your Honour, I'm
20 trying to be minimal in the objections I make, but there's been
21 substantial leading questions being put to the witness from the very
22 beginning, and I have deferred to it or not raised the issue until now,
23 but if these are important enough questions for Mr. Karnavas to put to
24 the witness and he apparently thinks they are, then they shouldn't be
25 leading in nature. Just put open-ended questions, and let's receive the
1 evidence of the witness and not the evidence of Mr. Karnavas.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I wasn't aware that leading was of
4 such nature. I should also point out that the gentleman did provide the
5 OTP with an extensive 92 bis statement that they used in another case.
6 So this is not new information to the Prosecution.
7 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. That has nothing to do with
8 whether it's leading or not. The question is leading no matter what
9 disclosure I have. It's leading, and we object.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. Based on -- yes,
11 Mr. President.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I didn't have the impression
13 there were any leading questions. Those are questions which are
14 extremely complex, and in order to try and understand something in all
15 this the questions have to enable us by their answers to sort this out.
16 Please proceed, Mr. Karnavas.
17 MR. KARNAVAS:
18 Q. When you were elected to -- as president of the Executive
19 Council, how was that received by the members?
20 A. My name had been put forward by all the parties pursuant to their
21 agreement, and there was a general consensus on this. I had not -- my
22 name had not been put forward bit HDZ alone, because the HDZ had not
23 gotten a result at the election that would have guaranteed the party that
24 sort of role in the local government.
25 Q. Well, were you actually formally appointed to the position? Was
1 your position certified, in other words?
2 A. No. The Crisis Staff, based on certain regulations, had the
3 power to pass certain enactments, orders, decisions, conclusions, but
4 whatever the Crisis Staff passed, when needed they had to submit to the
5 Assembly for the Assembly to ratify all of that. Therefore, the
6 certification or ratification of my appointment never happened at any of
7 the Assembly meetings.
8 Q. All right. Was the Assembly still meeting on a regular basis?
9 A. On and off. No more than that.
10 Q. All right. And how long did the Crisis Staff -- how long was it
11 in existence, until what period?
12 A. As far as I remember, the Crisis Staff existed from May on for at
13 least two months, after which it was renamed and was now called the
14 War Presidency.
15 Q. And could you tell us whether there were any changes, now that it
16 went from Crisis Staff to the War Presidency? Did its membership in any
17 way change, and whether its functions changed in any way, could you
18 please tell us that?
19 A. This should be simple enough for me to explain. The only change
20 occurred to the name. As far as the powers of that body were concerned
21 in terms of decision making, there were no changes. The War Presidency
22 continued to do the same thing that the Crisis Staff had been doing
24 Q. All right. Well, let's talk about that a little bit. Just very
25 briefly, if you could tell us what sorts of things was the War Presidency
1 doing? What was it competent of doing, and what was it in fact doing?
2 A. The War Presidency had all the powers that under the law, under
3 the constitution, and under the municipality's statute were envisaged in
4 relation to the Assembly as a body of delegates. Nevertheless, the
5 Presidency was an operative body, the scope of whose work was much
6 narrower. In addition to the standard issues discussed by the Assembly,
7 the Presidency under its statute and under the law had the power to
8 analyse and monitor emergency situations such as the one we were now
9 facing across Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was an immediate threat of
11 Q. All right. Now, during that time when you had the Crisis Staff
12 and then later on the War Presidency, were there any armed forces in and
13 around Jablanica municipality and, if so, could you please tell us what
14 those forces were?
15 A. Well, the Crisis Staff was in existence -- while the Crisis Staff
16 was in existence and now that there was the War Presidency, there were
17 some armed forces around. The Territorial Defence on the one hand, the
18 Green Berets, the Patriotic League united under the name of
19 Territorial Defence for a while and then at different time known as the
20 armed forces. On the other hand there was the armed component element of
21 the Croatian Defence Council, and these were two armed components or
22 forces that had equal rights in every way, their shared objective being
23 to defend Bosnia-Herzegovina.
24 Q. And based on that answer I take it the HVO was accepted as a
25 legitimate component of the armed forces of Jablanica municipality.
1 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, just to be consistent, that's a
2 leading question. That is exactly a leading question. He took --
3 Mr. Karnavas told him the answer he was looking for.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour.
5 MR. SCOTT: Well, it is Your Honour.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may respond. If you look at the
7 previous answer --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You will respond, Mr. Karnavas,
9 but I'm looking at the question. You are saying that the HVO was the
10 legitimate armed component in Jablanica. This is a statement you make.
11 That cannot be challenged, Mr. Karnavas.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, Your Honour, if you look at the
13 previous answer that the gentleman gave, I mean, I'm -- fine. But if you
14 look at his answer, what has he said? I merely rephrased it.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, I don't think this is a matter for
16 argument. This is clearly a leading question and please reformulate.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. Thank you for that instruction.
18 Q. What were the legitimate armed forces on the ground in Jablanica
19 municipality at that point?
20 A. Am I expected to answer this.
21 Q. Yes, you are.
22 A. I have said this, haven't I? I'm just to repeat. I said that at
23 the time in Jablanica there were two equal and legitimate defence
24 components, one being Territorial Defence, Green Berets and
25 Patriotic League, and this went under the name armed forces and then the
1 other hand there was the Croatian Defence Council and those two
2 components were equal and legitimate. I'm talking about Jablanica
3 municipality, of course.
4 Q. Now, let's talk about these two legitimate armed forces. You
5 said that they were equally recognised. What about the financing of
6 them? Where were they being financed?
7 A. The armed forces, Territorial Defence, the Patriotic League, the
8 Green Berets were for the most part bankrolled by the local economy the
9 money generated in Jablanica municipality. The Croatian Defence Council,
10 as far as the military component was concerned, equipment, supplies and
11 so on and so on, from the Main Staff. There had been an agreement that
12 in proportion to their numbers both should be bankrolled to some extent
13 from the budget of Jablanica municipality, 80 per cent in favour of the
14 Muslim armed forces and 20 per cent in favour of the Croatian Defence
16 Q. And was that happening, at least to your knowledge, while you
17 were there, 80 to 20 per cent?
18 A. Well, not for the most part. Not for the most part. And I, as
19 the representative of the Executive Board, would learn about this at
20 meetings of the Crisis Staff or the War Presidency whenever whoever was
21 of charge reported this, saying that they were facing some difficulties
22 making sure the 20 per cent earmarked for the Croatian Defence Council
23 were available at all.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, was there a HVO civilian component operating in
25 and around Jablanica municipality and, if so, can you please describe it?
1 A. Could you please specify the time-frame in 1992 that you have in
3 Q. All right. Well, when the Crisis Staff and the War Presidency
4 and, of course, keeping in mind that you've already told us about the HVO
5 military component being a legitimate force as one of the legitimate
6 components in Jablanica, was there a civilian HVO in existence at that
8 A. The military component of the HVO was established sometime
9 earlier on in 1992. It wasn't before much later that the civilian
10 component was set up as well.
11 Q. All right. Now, if you could please describe to the Trial
12 Chamber what exactly was the civilian component. Describe to it what it
13 amounted to.
14 A. The civilian component of the Croatia in Jablanica municipality
15 was a form of self-help or help, if you like, to the Croats in the area.
16 It was also an attempt to assist in a logistical way the military
17 component of the HVO, but it also represented an effort on the part of
18 the entire population throughout Jablanica municipality regardless of
19 their ethnicity.
20 Q. All right. Was it -- I'm being pointed out to the transcript.
21 It says here component of the November. Do it know where that's coming
22 from. It was an attempt to assist in the logistical way the military
23 component of the what? The HVO military; is that what we're talking
25 A. Yes, the military component of the HVO.
1 Q. All right. Did the HVO civilian component ever set up a parallel
2 government in Jablanica municipality, and by that what I mean provided --
3 you know, have administrative services and establish police with police
4 officers running around with guns and billy clubs and a car, collecting
5 taxes, establishing schools, any of that?
6 A. Certainly not. This was an advisory body, and that did not
7 include this type of activity or any form of administration at all.
8 There were several persons who were involved who would hold meetings
9 occasionally, and depending on what the situation was that prevailed at a
10 given time they would make the proposals or would advise but they
11 certainly didn't have the authority to exercise power in any of the
12 segments of local life.
13 Q. Did it have an office?
14 A. For a while there was no office. Therefore, one might assume
15 what this was all about. You can't have a body of power exercising its
16 function from a tree branch or somewhere out in the street, although
17 there was an office at a later point but it was just to keep them from
18 meeting in private homes, flats.
19 Q. All right. Well, that's what I want to get to. At some point
20 did it have an office and, if so, where was that office located?
21 A. An office was approved by the War Presidency for the HVO. At one
22 point in time it was on the way out of Jablanica town along the road to
24 in the centre itself of Jablanica town. The street was called
25 Zeljeznicka Street, no number.
1 Q. All right. When it moved to the centre of the town, who provided
2 those facilities? Did they buy it? Did they rent it? Was it made
3 available and if so, please describe.
4 A. Sir, as I pointed out before, even the first offices that was
5 used it was actually a single office and the same applies to the ones
6 later on at Zeljeznicka Street. There were two or three rooms there.
7 That was something that the War Presidency of the Jablanica municipality
8 allowed the HVO to use. It wasn't about renting. This was a socially
9 owned property and the War Presidency had the power to award the use of
10 this office or these rooms in the HVO.
11 Q. All right. What about the HVO, the military component? Did they
12 have -- were they located in any particular area? Did they have
13 headquarters, barracks and if, so, where were they located and who
14 provided those facilities?
15 A. The military component of the HVO had a room that it was using,
16 and it was using this room jointly with the civilian component, and this
17 is something that was awarded to them by the War Presidency of Jablanica
18 municipality. And then the office moved to Zeljeznicka Street while the
19 military office remained over there in this one room, and this was
20 something that was given to them or granted to them again by the War
21 Presidency of Jablanica municipality.
22 Q. All right. Now, we've had quite a bit of testimony or
23 controversy, whichever you want to call it, concerning territory and
24 area, so let me be very concrete. Did the HVO or the Croatian Community
25 of Herceg-Bosna carve out any area or territory, whatever you want to
1 call it, within the Jablanica municipality and declare it to be Croatian
2 or belonging to the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna or the HVO or to
3 the Croat nation, any of the above?
4 A. Certainly not.
5 Q. Were there ever any attempts by the HVO civilian component,
6 perhaps in conjunction with the military component, to take over the War
7 Presidency, to take over any of the institutions in Jablanica?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Were any discussions ever held regarding the HVO or the Croatian
10 Community somehow being involved or associated with or connected to the
11 Jablanica municipality and, if so, please describe.
12 A. Certainly not. Despite you being so adamant, I have to answer
13 no. I have no choice but to answer no to all these questions because
14 there was nothing like that at all going on. That simple.
15 Q. All right. Did you yourself, however, ever, when you were either
16 in -- a member of the Crisis Staff or president of the Executive Council
17 ever or thereafter ever bring up the possibility of HZ -- HZ HB, the
18 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna being involved or -- let me rephrase
19 it, the Jablanica municipality or the Presidency looking at or being
20 connected to the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?
21 A. There were talks on several occasions.
22 Q. All right. And could you please tell us what those talks were
23 about, how far the talks went, what was the purpose, some details?
24 A. The talks were about checking if there were any better options to
25 organise life in Jablanica. As time went by, Jablanica was becoming more
1 and more of a dead end. We did know, however, that in some other areas
2 life was organised in a much better way for citizens and for Defence
3 purposes alike and so on and so forth. Therefore, we talked in order to
4 see if we could improve the living conditions, both for citizens and for
5 defence purposes. I must especially point out the fact that at the time
6 Jablanica municipality and especially its main town, Jablanica town, were
7 under pressure, pressure from refugees flooding in. At one point in time
8 there were more refugees living there than the domicile population, the
9 local population.
10 Q. All right. And we'll talk a little bit more about that, but
11 since you spoke of the refugees and of the times, were the residents of
12 the Jablanica municipality ever mobilised and, if so, do you recall when?
13 A. Yes. More than once. Sometimes there -- there was partial
14 mobilisation and sometimes full mobilisation.
15 Q. Okay. And when we speak of mobilisation, what are we speaking
17 A. As far as I understand the term, mobilisation has a number of
18 different aspects. Mobilising military conscripts on the one hand, and
19 then there's also mobilisation in terms of war assignment or civilian
20 protection, and all three were happening depending on the situation.
21 Q. All right. Well, were you ever mobilised?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And could you please describe to us in what fashion?
24 A. As of mid-April 1993, I received a summons for mobilisation into
25 what was termed the work platoon. I was told to report at 7.00 in the
1 morning outside the Jablanica municipality building. I was told to bring
2 along a shovel, a pike, and a saw. The summons also said that should I
3 fail to respond to the call-up, I would be duly prosecuted.
4 I did not respond to the call-up, because I had in my possession
5 a document dating 20 years before, from 1973, when the military medical
6 commission had declared me to be only fit in a very limited form to serve
7 in the armed forces, and document said explicitly that I was unable to
8 stand, walk, march, or stand guard for any extensive period of time.
9 Based on this assessment by the military medical commission, the
10 secretariat for All People's Defence back in 1973 adopted a decision
11 stating that I was unfit for this type of military service as I have now
12 specified. Therefore, my assignment was to the ranks of the civilian
14 I invoked this decision that was then 20 years old, and I failed
15 to respond to the mobilisation call-up. The people from the municipality
16 who had issued the summons sent the police for me. I was taken in by
17 force and brought to the municipality building. I spoke to the secretary
18 who had dispatched my call-up, and I showed him my document. He said he
19 had one of those too dated 20 years ago, and he said it was worthless.
20 He said that all those decisions and medical certificates would now be
21 subject to revision, but until such time it was my duty to report to the
22 call-up, the mobilisation call-up. They called it mobilisation, and I
23 choose to call it forced labour.
24 Q. Let me ask you this: Were you ever given the opportunity to be
25 medically examined to see whether your condition had changed, you know,
1 whether you were somewhat confabulating or malingering in any way?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Okay. So you were actually physically examined by a physician?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Well, did you ask to be examined?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Well, why weren't you examined?
8 A. When I was summoned by the medical commission, I brought a lot of
9 documents with me because this was a very peculiar illness or condition
10 which I had been suffering from ever since 1961. I had a lot of medical
11 documents about that, and I submitted these documents to the chairman of
12 that medical commission who said he did not have the time to go through
13 those. So he didn't check the documents, and he most certainly didn't
14 check me either.
15 Q. All right. And what sort of labour -- you said forced labour.
16 Could you just in one minute tell us what sort of forced labour or labour
17 you were asked to -- to do given your condition?
18 A. It was about cutting timber for the purpose of fortifying BH army
19 positions. This was about carrying food, water, and weapons to BH army
20 positions. This was also about other types of manual labour that we were
21 being forced to perform by those who took us there.
22 Q. All right. And how long did you do that?
23 A. From the 15th of April, 1993, to the 8th of September. That's
24 when I was taken prisoner and taken to a camp.
25 Q. All right. And how were you treated in the camp? You don't have
1 to go into all the details at this point, but how were you treated in the
3 A. In the shortest possible terms, this was inhumane and cruel
4 treatment in every way.
5 Q. All right. And how long were you in the camp?
6 A. I was in the camp from the 8th of September, 1993, to the 1st of
7 March, 1994
8 I was released.
9 Q. Who was the war -- who was the president of the War Presidency at
10 the time for the Jablanica municipality, that is, when you were both
11 doing forced labour and then when you were in the camp?
12 A. At the time when I was performing forced labour and when I was in
13 the camp, the president of the Jablanica municipality was Dr. Safet Cibo.
14 Q. And do you know when Dr. Safet Cibo would have known about you
15 being forced to do labour in light of your medical condition and
16 whether -- and the conditions under which you were in that camp for all
17 those months, or is it possible that he simply didn't know?
18 A. I believe he knew that.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: All right. At this point we can take our break,
20 Your Honours.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Let's have a 20-minute
23 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 4.05 p.m.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, I give you the
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Mr. Zelenika, we're going to go to the documents now and you have
4 your folder in front of you, and as I've indicated to you in the past,
5 the documents would be sort of in the order in which I'm going to present
6 them to you. So the first set of documents deal with minutes of meetings
7 that -- that you either attended or are familiar with. So if we could
8 look at first P 00272. That should be your very first document. Do you
9 have it in front of you Mr. Zelenika?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. Okay. And I take it you've had an opportunity to look at this
12 document before coming here today?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. We note that it's 19 June, 1992
15 under "Others." Is there a particular reason why you're under "Others"?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you tell us, please?
18 A. It was usual and customary at the sessions of the Assembly to
19 first write the names of members of the council, of the deputies, and
20 then of others. I, as a member of the council, was indicated among
22 Q. Okay. Were you a member of the Executive Council at the time?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. And -- and I see that your name comes up here on a
25 couple of occasions. First, can you please tell us what's going on with
1 respect to the discussion concerning your position as chairman of the
2 Executive Committee? We see that on page 4, for instance, there's some
4 If you could just tell us from what you remember.
5 A. I can.
6 This was actually the first session of the Municipal Assembly of
7 Jablanica from the day when the Crisis Staff of the municipality
8 nominated me to be the president of the Executive Board, and this was the
9 first opportunity for the Municipal Assembly to verify all the enactments
10 and decisions, conclusions, et cetera that the Crisis Staff had in the
11 period between the two sessions adopted. Among these decisions was the
12 decision to appoint me president of the Executive Board, and this was the
13 first opportunity to confirm that decision.
14 Q. All right. And was there some sort of an agreement as far as
15 your confirmation went, or was there disagreement? If you could help us
16 out here.
17 A. In the course of the debate and deliberations, I noticed that
18 there was no agreement to confirm my appointment and it was not.
19 Q. Now, was that because you were a Croat or a member of HDZ, or was
20 it some other reason?
21 A. I understood the reason lay in the fact that the Party of
22 Democratic Action, the SDA, believed that on the basis of the electoral
23 results in 1990 the HDZ should not get the position of the president of
24 the Executive Board, and that was the reason for their reservations.
25 Q. All right. Now, if we could go to the very last page, at least
1 in English it's page 8, and I direct -- it would be 6 in yours. And I
2 want to direct your attention to "Ivan Rogic," and I understand -- you
3 know who Mr. Rogic is; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. If you could look at that segment very briefly,
6 because here Mr. Rogic says they informed the deputies that the decision
7 to build the Jablanica-Posusje road was not being implemented, although
8 work should be completed before next autumn. And then it goes on if we
9 skip one, one sentence, it says: "After hearing the proposals set out by
10 Hamdo Sefer, the Assembly decided that Nijaz Ivkovic and Hamdo Sefer.
11 Would go to Grude as soon as possible so as to work -- so as that
12 work could begin on construction of the Sovici-Risovac section of the
13 Jablanica-Posusje road."
14 Having been there at that meeting, could you please explain to us
15 why were they planning to go to Grude? What was there?
16 A. I think I can explain that. The thing is that the building of
17 that road was a great challenge in terms of the construction work
18 required. It surpassed our local capacities in Jablanica. And since
19 communication was no longer possible on the thoroughfare towards Mostar,
20 all the traffic from Sarajevo
21 road. That's the reason why help was required from outside, from other
23 Q. And I believe -- I thought I heard you say that the road to
25 A. I said the road from Sarajevo
1 was redirected towards the macadam road, Jablanica, Doljani, Posusje, et
3 Q. And did that road have a name at some point? Was it given some
4 sort of a name?
5 A. Yes. That road was classified as a regional road and had the
6 name R-419. That's an internal name given to it by the maintenance
7 people, whereas we in Jablanica called it the Road of Rescue or the Road
8 of Salvation because that was the only road available from Jablanica.
9 Q. All right. But why was Hamdo Sefer or Nijaz Ivkovic, and I
10 assume they're Muslim, why not go to Zenica? Why not go to Tuzla
11 not go to Sarajevo
12 Grude? What's in Grude?
13 A. Right. What you're saying is true. Hamdo Sefer and
14 Mr. Nijaz Ivkovic were Muslims, but this kind of assistance and any other
15 kind of assistance was not available from Sarajevo because Sarajevo
16 absolutely besieged. Had been besieged for a long time before the moment
17 we're talking about.
18 Q. All right. But what's in Grude? Why go to Grude? Because
19 there's -- we've heard testimony here that as of 1991, there's a joint
20 criminal enterprise. Now we're seeing there's a meeting here in 1992?
21 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me. I object to this long commentary. I have
22 no idea why we need to talk about a joint criminal enterprise with a
23 witness as to why go to Grude. We don't need that. If the witness
24 doesn't know, he doesn't have the answer, we can move on. But
25 Mr. Karnavas is coaching the witness.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Nobody's coaching anybody.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, ask him why he
3 wants to go to Grude without talking about the rest.
4 MR. KARNAVAS:
5 Q. Why -- why are these members of this particular meeting, why are
6 they going to Grude? Who's at Grude?
7 A. Here is the answer: If we're talking about the road, I know that
8 even before the war there was a specialised company in Grude called Grude
9 Roads which built and maintained roads. So they had the resources
10 required, and the idea was to see if they could help build this road more
11 quickly and maintain it.
12 Q. All right. Well, there's discussion here, and you raise -- you
13 raise the issue with respect to the war budget. Who is going to pay this
14 construction company to come to Jablanica or wherever to build this road?
15 Where was the money going to come from?
16 A. At that time we didn't have any money. We didn't have any money,
17 but we knew that there was money in the region. So that was one reason
18 why we wanted to look into that possibility. But it was possible for us
19 to pay in kind, and we did that. We paid in granite, we paid in timber
20 available in the Jablanica area. So we did not have funds but we had
21 other resources with which to pay in kind.
22 Q. All right. If we go to the next document, P 0045 -- 546, and
23 this is dated 6 October 1992
24 A. I do.
25 Q. And we again see that your name is here, and we see you as a
1 member of the -- present as a member of the Presidency. Can you confirm
2 to us that at this point in time you were indeed a member of the
3 Presidency in Jablanica?
4 A. Yes, I can confirm that by that time I was already president, and
5 I was member of the War Presidency at the time we are talking about.
6 Q. All right. Do you recall being at this particular meeting?
7 A. I do.
8 Q. All right. Now, I want to draw your attention. It would be on
9 page 7 in the English. This would be comments that were made by
10 Salko Zarem, where Mr. -- did you know a Mr. Zarem?
11 A. If I understood correctly, you are talking about Mr. Zerem.
12 Q. Zerem?
13 A. Yes, I knew him.
14 Q. And what position did he hold?
15 A. He was commander of the Muslim armed forces in Jablanica.
16 Q. And I see his name that he is under -- listed as a member of the
17 Presidency if we go to the very first page. So was he a member of the
18 War Presidency at the time?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now here I'm going to read what he says and I'm going to ask you
21 whether you could help us out here. It states here that he says the
22 state of BiH had joined forces consisting of the army of BiH and the HVO
23 and without a mutual cooperation between these components, the whole
24 thing would be difficult. "It is necessary to say that the Muslims were
25 neither organised nor ready at the beginning to fight against the
1 aggressor, and for that reason, they're also very grateful to the
2 Croatian nation for their timely engagement and brave fight against the
4 Now, my question is do you recall hearing this gentleman making
5 these comments at this meeting of the War Presidency on 6 October 1992
6 A. Yes, I do recall.
7 Q. All right. Now, if we go to page 10 --
8 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, counsel, just a technical correction
9 nothing major, but just for the transcript, when the witness was reading
10 from the document -- or it may have been Mr. Karnavas, I'm not sure --
11 but it came across in line -- let me find it again. On page 45, line 10
12 it was transcribed as the state of BiH had joined forces. And what the
13 document says is that had joint, j-o-i-n-t, had joint forces and there
14 may be -- there may be a significant difference in that. Just to correct
15 for the record. It's "had joint forces." Thank you.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: That's fine.
17 Q. All right. Now, if we go on to -- to page 10 at the beginning of
18 the page in English. This is a comment by Zeljko Siljeg, and he's saying
19 here that: "The HVO introduced check-points and documents in order to
20 protect goods from smugglers and war profiteers, while clearance --
21 clearances (permissions) were introduced due to the apparent large number
22 of deserters from Bosnia
23 Can you comment on this observation that is being made by
24 Mr. Siljeg?
25 A. I can by saying that check-points existed both on the side of the
1 Bosnian Muslim armed forces and on the side of the HVO for the same
2 reasons, absolutely the same reasons, and in most cases the people
3 manning those check-points were of mixed ethnicity.
4 Q. All right. Now, if we go to the very last page, on page 11, and
5 focusing on what Mr. Matan Zaric indicated, and of course when one reads
6 this document you have to go to page 2 of the English as well, but here
7 he says: "Matan Zaric pointed out again that the companies from
8 Jablanica municipality provided a financial support to the BiH OS and
9 that the Jablanica HVO requires 20 per cent of that support (food, money,
10 and uniforms). The Presidency made right decisions on that, but they are
11 not implemented in reality."
12 Do you see that part?
13 A. I do.
14 Q. Okay. First question is: BiH OS, what does that mean? What
15 does OS mean?
16 A. That means armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
17 Q. And who were the armed forces at the time of Bosnia and
19 BiH OS?
20 A. Let me say this again: The armed forces of Bosnia and
22 Green Berets. They had a common name, the Armed Forces of Bosnia and
24 Q. Now, what is Mr. Matan Zaric saying here about the 20 per cent
25 that was required, food, money, and uniforms, and that the Presidency had
1 made a decision but it wasn't being implemented? What does he mean by
3 A. He was trying to say that that particular decision was not being
4 honoured and that the 20 per cent of support were not being given to the
5 HVO as an equal, fully fledged and recognised component of the armed
6 forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
7 Q. All right. Let's go on to the next document P 00624. And this
8 is minutes from a session of the 22nd of October, 1992, and now we see
9 your name under "Others -- Other Present." Do you see that?
10 A. I do.
11 Q. Why are you under "Other" and not above?
12 A. Because this was a session of the Municipal Assembly, as I
13 explained before on one occasion. The first to be listed were members of
14 parties, deputies, and then others. I belonged with the others, and this
15 listing is correct.
16 Q. All right. Now, if we look at item 2 on the agenda, and that
17 would be on page 6, and we already -- you introduced us to Salko Zerem,
18 and if we look at the third paragraph of what he's saying, he says here:
19 "The OS," the armed forces, that is, "and the HVO in the territory of the
20 municipality of Jablanica are behaving in accord with the said order of
21 the Supreme Command and the Presidency of BiH. There must be no
22 obstacles in executing the joint logistics support, check-points, joint
23 police, et cetera, although there are some influences from outside
24 slowing it down."
25 Do you see that part?
1 A. I do.
2 Q. Now, can you confirm whether Zerem said those words at that
3 meeting? Do you recall?
4 A. I can confirm that. Mr. Zerem said this not for the first time.
5 He had said it before on many other occasions.
6 Q. Because at the very last paragraph on page 6, and he says: "If
7 we wish to create a better environment for a more successful defence of
8 the municipality, more contacts and cooperation between the OS and the
9 HVO are needed, there should be barracks with trained soldiers in
10 Jablanica, and we need more support from the Municipal Assembly in
12 Can you confirm that he said that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. At this point in time, can you please tell us what the
15 environment was in Jablanica? What were the dynamics?
16 A. We're talking now about the period at the end of November 1992.
17 The environment around Jablanica was not really good. There were a
18 series of consequences that had repercussions on Jablanica. There were
19 refugees in Jablanica who, according to information available to me, were
20 larger in number than the local population. I could say that almost 100
21 per cent of the refugees were Muslim. Many had been traumatized by their
22 past recent experiences and were forced to leave their homes and come to
23 Jablanica. Of course they could not contain sometimes their frustrations
24 and suffering and sometimes the local population got the worse end of
1 Q. All right. Now, I see in the transcript here on page 49 line 4
2 that it says at the end of November 1992. Did you mean November or
3 October? Which month are we speaking of?
4 A. It's October.
5 Q. Okay. All right.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: While we're at this point on lines 5 and 6, it
7 says there were a series of consequences that had repercussions on
8 Jablanica. Should it not be occurrences or events that had
9 repercussions. That consequences have repercussions seems a bit
10 redundant. It doesn't make much sense.
11 MR. KARNAVAS:
12 Q. Let me just ask you concretely, Mr. Zelenika. Other than what
13 you described to us, what were you trying to convey?
14 A. I was trying to say that Jablanica was facing a problem, how to
15 ensure that the adverse events in its environment not be reflected in the
16 locality. All these refugees and the armed forces in the municipality
17 had a certain impact, and the problem was how to make sure that this does
18 not engulf us.
19 Q. All right.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. That clarifies, in fact, the issue.
21 Thank you.
22 MR. KARNAVAS:
23 Q. Now, if we look at page 10 in the English version, we see that
24 you speak. At some point you spoke at this meeting. Do you recall?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And here it says that you presented the councilmen with a
2 chronological overview of difficulties in this composition of Executive
3 Board encompasses the beginning of its work to date. And then later on
4 you say due to the continual harassment, it says you offered to file your
5 resignation or to put your activities on hold until such an agreement had
6 been reached.
7 What exactly were you talking about?
8 A. Yes, I did say that. I did inform the councilmen as I had at
9 another session four years earlier of the difficulties that had only
10 grown since then. Namely, it was absolutely impossible to lead that
11 Executive Board any longer knowing that I'm not enjoying the support of
12 all the members of the assembly, and that's why I informed them in so
13 many words that I'm facing an impossible situation. I was unable to pass
14 almost a single decision through the council no matter how good the
15 decision was, as I had meant to.
16 Q. Okay. Now, was that because you had difficulties or differences
17 with the other political parties, or had the situation changed in a
18 different direction now?
19 A. No, in fact, I didn't have difficulties with the political
20 parties. It was on a personal level. The people who were sitting on the
21 Executive Board, those secretaries of secretariats, were now voting
22 motivated by their ethnicity, not motivated by the quality of the
23 specific proposal. In the whole complement of that local government
24 there were two of us Croats and five Muslims, and I was not able to
25 ensure the enactment of any decision whatsoever. I think that's clear
2 Q. All right. Now we can go on to the next document, P 00945. This
3 is 22 December 1992
4 see your name; correct?
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. We do see that Mr. Rogic and Mr. Zaric, which I -- who are
7 Croats, as I understand, were absent; correct?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. And I just want to focus your attention on just one
10 aspect of -- of this meeting. At some -- at the very first item, we can
11 see that it appears that the Christmas celebration will not take place
12 essentially because of the -- of a curfew. And we see that
13 Father Bosnjak has similar views. Can you please explain what was
14 happening and whether, in fact, there was Christmas mass on Christmas
15 Eve, midnight
16 A. Yes. I did not attend this meeting. I had been replaced on the
17 29th of October, 1992, by a decision of the War Presidency.
18 Nevertheless, as person still living in Jablanica, which is really a
19 small town, I knew about these developments that you address.
20 An explosive device was launched at the local Catholic church in
21 Jablanica causing some material damage. However, the greater damage was
22 the fact that it caused concern among people in Jablanica, especially the
23 Catholics, especially when they found out that the Christmas mass would
24 not be celebrated. For any Catholic the Christmas mass and Christmas
25 itself is one of the most important religious festivities that they mark
1 every year.
2 Q. All right. Now, you told us that you had -- you were no longer
3 on the Presidency. I want to walk you back a little bit and ask you when
4 you were still a member of the Presidency, do you ever recall attending a
5 meeting where Izetbegovic was present and, if so, can you please tell us
6 where and when, and then we'll go into details.
7 A. As a matter of fact, I can remember. This was sometime in the
8 autumn months of 1992. I was called to a meeting being held at the
9 hydroelectric plant in Jablanica having been informed that
10 Mr. Izetbegovic, too, would be attending that meeting.
11 The municipal leaders were there, the party leaders were there.
12 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honours. I apologise to the witness.
13 Mr. Zelenika I apologise to you.
14 Your Honours, if terms of -- I was just looking at the summary
15 and I don't see anything in the summary anything about the hydroelectric
16 plant or any meeting with Mr. Izetbegovic. There's no notice of this
17 evidence at all.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: As I understand it, Your Honour, first of all the
19 Prosecutor indicated that he wanted no more information. That's first
20 and foremost.
21 Secondly, as I indicated, the gentleman was questioned
22 extensively and extensively by the Prosecution when he gave a 92 bis
23 statement. Obviously either they failed to record it or maybe they
24 failed to ask him all the necessary questions at the time. This
25 information came to my attention today, and so I'm entitled to ask the
1 question and then if you wish to strike it from the record, you could do
2 so but I intend to do so.
3 MR. SCOTT: None of those you aren't again we're in a situation
4 neither of Mr. Karnavas's points are responsive to the point. The
5 Prosecution has made no secret of the fact and I'm sure the Chamber is
6 perhaps even tired of hearing, but, unfortunately, we're in a position
7 where we have to keep raising it, the importance of these summaries. It
8 is the only notice, is the only notice of this evidence that we're
9 getting. We don't get statements, and we had the issue earlier today
10 about whether statements should be provided or not, and when we say we're
11 not asking for any additional information, we're saying that we
12 understand then, we understand that the scope of the evidence presented
13 by the witness will be as represented in the summary that we're provided.
14 Now, this is the summary that the Chamber ordered to be provided
15 on 31st of March, 2008. There is nothing in the summary about this topic
16 or subject note. This meeting, a meeting with Izetbegovic, we are caught
17 totally, you know, with no notice.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues] ...
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, were did you fail
21 to mention in the summary that the witness was planning to mention this
22 meeting with Izetbegovic because he's an important character? Did you
23 think it was secondary at the time, and do you want to change your mind
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, I met with the gentleman from
1 Thursday for a couple hours, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and then today
2 again all the way until 12.30. We went over -- well over 150 documents
3 with the gentleman. During the course sometime today, he had indicated a
4 meeting -- that he recalls a meeting where Izetbegovic was present. We
5 finish the prepping session approximately 12.30, just enough time to
6 reorganize the binders in a particular fashion, provide you with what
7 you've -- what you've indicated, but again it is within the context of
8 when he served as a member of the Presidency.
9 Now, we've heard testimony or there have been some documents that
10 Mr. Izetbegovic had been in Mostar prior -- sometime around this period
11 of time. In fact, I believe that there was a document indicating or
12 reflecting a picture where Izetbegovic had met with my client,
13 Dr. Jadranko Prlic. What is telling about this particular meeting that
14 we learned today that after leaving Mostar Izetbegovic then goes
15 unknowing that he's having --
16 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm entitled to make my record.
18 MR. SCOTT: Not in front of the witness. Excuse me. The
19 Prosecution has raised a point of procedure and principle. One of those
20 reasons is not to go into it on something has not brought before the
21 notice and not to go into it with the witness sitting here. If you want
22 to excuse the witness and discuss it further, that's fine. But I'm not
23 going to let Mr. Karnavas, with all due respect, put the evidence in
24 front of the witness and the Chamber on the very point that I've raised.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: I would ask that the witness be excused.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's not waste 20 minutes on a
2 detail, on really a ludicrous detail. Based on what Mr. Karnavas said it
3 was just prior to 12.30, just before 12.30 that this was mentioned. It
4 was mentioned that Mr. Izetbegovic came. Is that how Mr. Karnavas said?
5 Did you mention this meeting only this morning?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I mentioned it at
7 about 1.00, as a matter of fact. Between noon and 1.00, early this
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Karnavas, you did not
10 have enough time to send e-mails to everybody. Well, proceed then.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
12 Q. Now, if you could please describe to us this meeting.
13 A. I was still a member of the War Presidency of Jablanica
14 municipality, and there had been an announcement that Mr. Izetbegovic
15 would be arriving. I, too, was called to the meeting. At the meeting he
16 wanted to see what the political and security-related situation was as
17 well as the economic situation in Jablanica.
18 This was a meeting of the Presidency that included the full
19 component, but there were also some other people such as managers of
20 local companies and businesses, for example, and at one point
21 Mr. Izetbegovic asked the manager of the Jablanica hydroelectric plant,
22 Mr. Muharem Tanovic, the following question --
23 Q. Excuse me, if you could just wait. I would prefer having the
24 full attention of the Bench.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: In fact, Mr. Karnavas, I am a bit puzzled for
1 the following reason: On page 53, when you first answered the
2 Prosecution, you said, and I quote: "The gentleman was questioned
3 extensively and extensively by the Prosecution when he gave a 92 bis
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: So that must be some time ago.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, it was. It was --
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And you know that statement.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, I do know the statement.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Now you say you could only know today at 1.00
11 that you would bring up this question.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: No. Okay. Perhaps it's being lost in
13 translation, and again I appreciate, Judge Trechsel, your intervention
14 here because it does call into question my integrity as I read your
16 The 92 bis statement, which you should have as well, was given
17 for the Halilovic case, as I understand. He was not called as a witness.
18 Why wasn't he called? I leave it for the Prosecution to explain.
19 In any event, in that state -- what I'm trying to convey to you
20 is, you don't take a 92 bis statement as extensive as this one without
21 going into the field. If you look at the statement, it is extensive.
22 Now, I don't know whether they asked him all those details. What I do
23 know is that they had access to the gentleman. They questioned the
24 gentleman. Now, whether they questioned him about everything he knew or
25 some of the things that he knew, I don't know, but they knew at the time
1 that he was a member of the Presidency. That's -- that was my point,
2 that they've had access to this gentleman. They've requested him. I
3 don't know whether they had this information.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I may well be in error, Mr. Karnavas. I'm
5 always prepared to examine and admit it if it's the case. I had thought
6 that you were intimating that that 92 bis statement the question had come
8 MR. KARNAVAS: No, it hadn't come up. And that's the whole
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Good. Thank --
11 MR. KARNAVAS: What happens is these witnesses sometimes say
12 things because they -- you know, their memory has been jogged, and all of
13 a sudden we're put in a position at the very last moment to try to
14 reconcile the situation and this was one instance when it happened so
15 late, you know, we had to be ready to be in court, we want to be here on
16 time. We -- you know, there's only so much I can do.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: This shows that it is good sometimes to ask
18 questions and clarify.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: I agree.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: This is what happens. I think this is an
21 absolutely felicitous incident, if it's not a bit exaggerated.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, this 92 bis
23 statement, I know nothing of it. Was it a 92 bis statement for the
24 Prosecution at the time, or was it for the Halilovic Defence?
25 MR. KARNAVAS: It was taken by the Prosecution. It was taken by
1 the Prosecution, and it was taken actually in French as well. I point
2 that out because I know that this was one of the rare occasions where
3 they had to translate it from French to English.
4 If I may continue, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do proceed.
8 MR. KARNAVAS:
9 Q. To speed up things a little --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But if I understood properly,
11 because there was an objection by Mr. Scott, you meant to say that this
12 92 bis statement having been taken by the Prosecution, it was up to the
13 Prosecution to ask any relevant question, including questions on this
14 meeting with Izetbegovic who allegedly came. So this morning when you
15 talked about this with the witness, you were informed around 1.00 of
16 this; is that right? This is how I understood you.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: That's correct. And --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Obviously no investigator can be expected to ask
20 every single question. On the other hand, when information does come up,
21 I'm obligated to try and make a record based on the information.
22 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. Just so the record is clear
23 and I don't want to make too much of it at this point, but when an
24 investigator goes into the field, they normally go on a particular case
25 and are seeking the evidence on -- in connection with a particular
1 investigation, not to ask the witness everything he might possibly know
2 about everything. Now, we don't know what the investigator's objective
3 was in conducting this, but to somehow -- for Mr. Karnavas to somehow
4 excuse this by saying the investigator back at that time should have ask
5 all of these questions and then taking us full circle where this started
6 that that somehow relieves him of the obligation to provide notice and
7 the summaries that are required by the Rules is just -- is just --
8 stretches things way too far. The obligation is on counsel to provide
9 notice. No matter what I know, if my memory and if my knowledge was a
10 lot better than it is, I might know a lot, and I think I do know quite a
11 bit but that nonetheless relieves Mr. Karnavas of absolutely no point of
12 what his obligations are under the Rules and that is to write a summary
13 not matter -- I may know everything. I don't, but maybe I do. That
14 doesn't relief him of his obligation to comply with the Rules, and
15 frankly -- and I'm sure you can hear in it in my voice -- I'm tired of
16 being told every time we object that we should know. It doesn't matter
17 whether I do know, its's his obligation to provide the notice.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I think you find it
19 hard to understand what an investigator does. A summary is made that was
20 done by Mr. Karnavas. He provides the summary to you. But it so happens
21 later on when he met with the witness there were things that were not in
22 the statement or in the summary that could appear. And you're right in
23 saying that he has to inform you, but he discovered this at 1.00 this
24 afternoon. So materially speaking, he did not have enough time to send
25 you a long letter and explaining to you that during the proofing session
1 that was mentioned. I think everybody's got that.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Karnavas.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I still have a question on this.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: We have had this problem, of course, when the
7 Prosecution presented their evidence, and it has happened that in the
8 morning before Monday afternoon new things came up, and I remember that
9 sometimes at 1.00 or even at a quarter to 2.00 we had information that
10 furthermore during the proofing such-and-such a new question had come up.
11 Wouldn't that have been possible or preferable?
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, you know, nothing would please me more if I
13 had their staff and -- which I don't have. And of course I've been
14 repeatedly asked by -- specifically by you, Judge Trechsel, to organise
15 the files in a way that they're user-friendly. We're working under
16 extreme circumstances. I don't have the staff. It's easy to say, well,
17 you know, can't -- who's going to do it, okay? It's one of those things.
18 I am got up at 4.00 in the morning. I'm not crying about it but that's
19 the nature of things. I was working from 4.00 in the morning until all
20 the way until I got here and I had 10 minutes to spare. Ms. Tomanovic
21 was assisting us all the way to the very end. Now, if this is a problem,
22 what we could very well do is I won't go into this area until tomorrow.
23 That gives the Prosecution sufficient time. That's good, but what I do
24 get the impression, Judge Trechsel, is somehow, you -- and perhaps others
25 on the bench -- are under the impression that Karnavas just loves
1 thinking up ways how to obstruct the Prosecution's day, and that's not
2 the case. I really don't.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It's not the case that I think like that,
4 Mr. Karnavas. Not at all. I know you have a difficult task.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: But the last thing I want to do is stand here and
6 make excuses or provide explanations. We're trying. Things fall between
7 the tracks.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: But I think you made a constructive proposal you
9 could have had someone informed in the course of this afternoon and bring
10 new issues tomorrow.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: I can do that. I can do that right now. I can
12 move to the next subject matter.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: [Overlapping speakers]
14 MR. KHAN: Yes. And, Your Honour, I don't know if it assists, I
15 think it's quite right the comments that have been made The President
16 also, Your Honour, that when issues do arise at the last moment, prior to
17 the testimony of course it can be raised but -- but given that it has
18 come up, I don't think we need to spend so much time on this issue. If
19 my learned friend is prejudiced at all by in new information coming to
20 light certainly on behalf of Mr. Stojic, we wouldn't object after
21 Mr. Karnavas has finished examination-in-chief that some time be given to
22 the Prosecution to the extent that they need that time in order to
23 effectively and properly prepare for cross-examination on that additional
24 point, but that may be the more expedient way to deal with it rather than
25 going in circles at the moment.
1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may, just a
2 word or two, and I think it might be helpful in terms of clarifying this
4 In relation to the objection raised by Judge Trechsel, one thing
5 that I do wish to point out is based on my memory at least the Defence
6 never raised any objections in relation to witness summaries.
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No. The Chamber does not raise objections,
8 Ms. Alaburic.
9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] It appears that something has been
10 misinterpreted. It was a remark by Judge Trechsel that I was talking
11 about, and the explanation on the previous page of the transcript I just
12 wanted to point out that the Defence never raised any objections in
13 relation to new issues that arose in relation to witness summaries during
14 the OTP's case. We merely raised objections when new topics were touched
15 upon that were not actually part and parcel of the witness statements,
16 and we do know that there is a huge difference between summaries and
17 statements and that the Defence is under no obligation to provide witness
18 statements. Therefore, I do believe that Mr. Karnavas at this point in
19 time is right. Thank you.
20 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour, one brief response because it
21 makes our points, and I appreciate my good friend Ms. Alaburic pointing
22 it out. There again we come back to the fundamental distinction. The
23 reason that the Defence couldn't have to raise issues so much about the
24 summaries is because we provide them with so much information. We
25 provide them with a 15, 20-page statement of the witness before the
1 witness -- months, years, in advance, years in advance of the witness
2 coming into court. So they're not so much concerned. Let's face it,
3 they're not so much concerned about the summary. They have a statement.
4 The Prosecution does not. We have a summary, sometimes about two
5 paragraphs. That's what we're given. And that's why, Your Honour, and
6 with great respect, that's why we feel so strongly about it, and that's
7 why we'll continue until the last day of trial, as long as the summaries
8 are not deficient, we will continue to raise the issue. That's all we
9 get, Your Honour, and that's why it's so important. That's why we keep
10 raising it. We don't have 20-page statements.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Karnavas.
12 We've been -- we've spent nearly 20 minutes on the issue.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: And perhaps during the next break if I could give
14 a verbal to the Prosecution as to what the testimony might be before,
15 because it takes some time to type it out and everything. And I can type
16 it out as well for the record, but I can give them a verbal.
17 Q. We're going to move on to another subject, Mr. Zelenika. We'll
18 get back to this tomorrow, okay? So if we go to the next -- the next
19 topic, and I'm going to focus your attention. We're going to be talking
20 about the -- the HVO and the armed forces.
21 If we go to the next document, which is 1D 00969. And this is
22 dated 6 May 1992
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And you told us earlier to some of my questions as far as, you
25 know the, the -- the armed forces located in Jablanica municipality, and
1 as I understand it this would confirm what you were saying earlier, that
2 the -- that you have Territorial Defence, the Croatian Defence Council,
3 the Green Berets and others participating in the Jablanica Territorial
4 Defence, or in this unified defence system; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And to your knowledge was the HVO at that time participating?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. If we could go to the next document 1D 00970. And this is an
9 announcement. It's 6 May 1992
10 system being organised, and again we see that it makes reference to
11 the -- the Croatian Defence Council; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note could we have both
14 microphones for the witness switched on? Thank you.
15 MR. KARNAVAS:
16 Q. All right. Now, this announcement, would that have been made
17 available to all the citizens of Jablanica so they would have known the
18 composition of this unified structure?
19 A. Well, I can't say all the citizens but most, most at the time.
20 Our system of channeling information was quite good at the time. We had
21 capable TV, and it had been tasked by the War Presidency to keep everyone
22 informed about key issues. The purpose of this statement was forwarded
23 to be read out, and it was several times in the evening hours over the
24 capable TV, and I do believe that most of the citizens knew about this.
25 Q. All right. Now, 1D 024 -- yes?
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're talking about
2 Green Berets in this document. Everyone knows that the Green Berets are
3 rather on the side of the BiH than the HVO. This announcement is public,
4 6 May 1992
5 say, all those who were in the BiH knew that you had at Jablanica a
6 unified force which gathers the Green Berets and the HVO. Am I mistaken
7 or not?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the unified armed
9 forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina comprised two equal components, one
10 being the Territorial Defence, the Green Berets, and the Patriotic
11 League, the other -- the other legal and fully legitimate and equal
12 component was the HVO. These two joint components made up the armed
13 forces of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina under a Joint Command.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But my question was
15 Mr. Izetbegovic knew about it. He knew, didn't he?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He most certainly did.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay.
19 Q. If we -- if we go on to the next document, 1D 02471. And now
20 this is 21 May 1992
21 quantities of meat shall be requisitioned from butchers in the territory
22 of Jablanica municipality for the requirements of the Jablanica
23 Territorial Defence units."
24 Now, at this point in time -- that would include Jablanica as
25 well, the Jablanica Territorial Defence units?
1 A. In the previous document we saw what the components were of the
2 armed forces. This order, however, strays a little from what we saw a
3 moment ago. It says that all the meat that was requisitioned should be
4 made available to members of the Territorial Defence but not the HVO.
5 Q. All right. If we go on to the next document, 1D 02298. And here
6 we see an order that the military staff, the command of the defence
7 forces of Konjic municipality, is obliged to ensure -- it says "unique"
8 in English, "consumption of crude oil and its derivatives for all members
9 of the defence force (TO and HVO) in Konjic municipalities."
10 Can you -- now, first -- and this is signed by a Dr. Rusmir
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And were you aware of the situation in Konjic?
14 A. Yes, to a large extent.
15 Q. And for those of us not familiar with the terrain, how far is
16 Konjic from Jablanica?
17 A. Twenty-three kilometres. The main town, I mean. The municipal
18 territories, the two municipal territories, Konjic and Jablanica, are to
19 a large extent contiguous.
20 Q. Now, in English it says "unique consumption." Could you please
21 look at the document and tell us, does it say unique or is it something
23 A. It says shared or unified.
24 Q. Okay. Thank you. If we go to the next document, 1D 01451.
25 This is 29 June 1992
1 distribution of foodstuffs to members of the Jablanica police security
2 station based on the same regulation which applied to members of the
3 Jablanica municipality Territorial Defence. And it's signed -- or we see
4 the name of Nijaz Ivkovic.
5 I take it at this point in time Mr. Ivkovic is the president of
6 the Crisis Staff.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And what's wrong with this particular conclusion, very
9 quickly, if anything?
10 A. This is yet another example of discrimination against the HVO.
11 The HVO is here not being treated as an equal component in the defence of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina. They only deal here with the TO stations -- with the
13 TO and the public security stations, but the HVO seems to be left out.
14 Q. All right. 1D 01543. This is a decision now this is 20 July and
15 it says here "To remain the Territorial Defence as the staff of the
16 Jablanica municipality OS armed forces."
17 Now, is it a fact that after this date the Territorial Defence
18 was renamed to Jablanica Municipality Armed Forces?
19 A. In essence the decision has a purely terminological meaning. We
20 now no longer spoke of the Green Berets, the Patriotic League and the TO.
21 Rather, the new name encompassing all these now was the Armed Forces of
23 Q. But that did not encompass the HVO?
24 A. Well, if you go through this decision, one would say not.
25 Q. Okay. 1D 00344. This is 13 November 1992, and here we do see
1 that the restaurant and kitchen, and it's named in here, is -- "... shall
2 be requisitioned to provide quarters for 50 members of the Jablanica
3 HVO." What is this about?
4 A. Yes. This is about requisitioning a part of that building owned
5 by a socially owned business. They were into catering, and this was to
6 be used by the HVO for HVO purposes, but this wasn't as big as a
7 barracks, for example, or anything, not big enough to put up the
8 soldiers. That's where they ate, where they took their meals, about 50
9 of them, because that's how big it was. It was no bigger than that.
10 Q. All right. Okay. If we look again on the next document,
11 1D 01462. This is now 19 January, 1993
12 is an order limiting the sale of oil and oil derivatives. And if we look
13 at Article I, it says: "The sale of oil and oil derivatives by the
14 Jablanica petrol station is hereby limited except for the quantities at
15 the disposal of the Jablanica HVO," and then it goes on.
16 Can you confirm to us that indeed the HVO at this particular
17 point in time was receiving oil and oil derivatives per this order of the
18 Presidency of the Jablanica municipality?
19 A. The purpose of this decision primarily was to rationalise on the
20 use of oil and oil derivatives given the fact that the HVO got its petrol
21 from the petrol station, they were actually renting the petrol station
22 for that purpose. This restriction in no way applied to the HVO but,
23 rather, to the component that belonged to the BH armed forces.
24 Q. All right. Now, if we look at 1D 01463. Again -- now we are
25 into January 22, 1993
1 Jablanica on approving the agreement on the conditions and manner of sale
2 and distribution of fuel by the Energopetrol station in Jablanica, and it
3 makes reference to the Jablanica Municipal Assembly and the Jablanica
5 Are we speaking of the Jablanica HVO, the -- the armed component
6 or the civilian component? And I'm told ...
7 A. We're talking here about the civilian component of the HVO. An
8 agreement was reached with them, a conditional one for them to supply and
9 sell fuel at the petrol station in Jablanica. This is a conclusion, but
10 there's another document which is the full scale -- or, rather, detailed
11 agreement on that.
12 Q. All right. If you could go back to the previous document,
13 1D 01462 and look at page 2 of that agreement. Tell me -- tell us
14 whether you're referring to this particular document.
15 A. Yes, precisely.
16 Q. Okay. So we have to look at these two documents together?
17 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Karnavas, please.
18 MR. KARNAVAS:
19 Q. So we have to look at these two documents together; correct?
20 A. Yes, as a whole, together.
21 Q. Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to another segment. And this is
22 a sort of a short topic. This deals with UNHCR. And if we look at
23 1D 01449. This is 1 May 1992
24 unified armed forces in the sense that HVO is -- is fully recognised. So
25 now going back to May 1, 1992
1 there's a decision by Sefer Hamdo where he says to give 2.500 meals given
2 as aid by the UN High Commissariat to the Jablanica Territorial Defence,
3 to staff.
4 My first question is these meals that were given by the UN, were
5 they intended for military purposes or civilian purposes?
6 A. The meals provided by UNHCR were meals for military purposes in
7 the case at hand.
8 Q. Okay. Were they for military or for civilian? That's what I'm
9 asking, not where they actually went to.
10 A. Understandably the UNHCR looked after civilians, so it was for
12 Q. All right. And in looking at this decision, is -- when it says
13 the Jablanica Territorial Defence, would that include also the HVO
14 getting their 20 per cent of the 2.500 meals, which by my math it's about
16 A. No. This decision does not imply that the HVO would be getting
17 their 20 per cent cut over a total of 2.500. This decision is actually
18 not in keeping with the documents that we were looking at a while ago
19 about there being two equally recognised components of the defence plan.
20 Based on this decision the HVO would be getting nothing.
21 Q. All right. Now, perhaps we can go into closed session.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, closed session.
23 [Private session]
11 Pages 33045-33058 redacted. Private session.
4 [Open session]
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Back in open session. We're
7 going to have a 20-minute break, and we'll resume at 6.10.
8 --- Recess taken at 5.50 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 6.10 p.m.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have 50 minutes left before
11 the end of the day. Please proceed, Mr. Karnavas.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. And then perhaps we can
13 have two or three minutes prior to the end of the day where I do want to
14 go on record and give a -- give the Trial Chamber an indication of that
15 material, that information, in the presence of the Prosecution so you can
16 have that. It's an offer of proof.
17 Q. Now, if we go on to the next document of 1D 00780. This is the
18 next chapter, sir. This deals with the issue of curfew. And it's not
19 part of tu quoque. It is to indicate what is happening in the Jablanica
20 municipality at the time.
21 Now, we see this is 10 April 1992
22 being imposed. If you could tell us why was it necessary to impose a
23 curfew in Jablanica as early as 10 April 1992?
24 A. At this time a curfew was introduced because it was necessary to
25 introduce it due to the fact that there was a large number of displaced
1 persons in Jablanica, a large number of refugees, mainly local
2 population. Those were the reason. And according to the reports of the
3 police, there was a large -- there was a high incidence of offences and
4 violations against law and order, and that was the reason why it was
5 necessary to introduce a curfew.
6 Q. All right. Okay. Thank you. And we'll just look at one other
7 document, and there will be others for the Trial Chamber by way of
8 motion. 1D 00990. Here we have a decision on the introduction of a
9 curfew, and this is 28 May 1992
10 the same with this decision as it was with the one that you've just told
11 us about; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. While we're on the issue of -- sort of issues of
14 controlling, were there -- were there check-points placed at the city
15 entrance and exit?
16 A. Correct. Check-points had already been set up.
17 Q. And who was manning those check-points?
18 A. They were manned by the reserve force of the police, mixed crews
19 of the members of Muslim armed forces and the HVO.
20 Q. All right. Thank you. We're going to go on to the next chapter,
21 and this deals with roads. We did such a little bit on this. You spoke
22 about the Road of Salvation or to Salvation. If we look at 1D 00953.
23 This is 20 April 1992
24 the Crisis Staff for the municipality of Prozor
25 Bugojno to give to Jablanica municipality some machinery and five to six
1 tons of fuel so that urgent and necessary interventions of the
2 Jablanica-Risovac road may be carried out.
3 First let me ask you, are you familiar with this stretch of the
4 road, Jablanica-Risovac?
5 A. Yes. That's the regional road R-419, the Salvation Road that we
6 had mentioned when discussing the previous document.
7 Q. And again -- well, why was it necessary to contact the
8 municipalities of Prozor, Gornji Vakuf, and Bugojno?
9 A. Because at that time Jablanica had a problem with fuel, and we
10 thought -- we knew, rather, that fuel was available in the municipalities
11 you mentioned.
12 Q. All right. And this particular road, the Jablanica-Risovac,
13 where would it go? If you could kind of help us out here.
14 A. It led to the west of the municipality centre. Jablanica is an
15 hub of roads from Sarajevo
16 roads meet at Jablanica. And since it was impossible to go towards
17 Mostar, the only way to go was Doljani, Posusje, Split. That's about 60
19 Q. All right. And to your knowledge were any refugees going to
21 A. They were going almost every day. I know that. And it was
22 necessary to keep that road usable, open.
23 Q. All right. And what period of are we speaking of when they were
24 going to Split
25 A. So we are now discussing the first part of 1992, and they kept
1 going until mid-1992 in larger numbers that were later reduced.
2 Q. All right. You say first part of 1992. Now, what months are we
3 talking about?
4 A. According to this document, we are now in April. They kept going
5 until mid-April.
6 Q. All right. Where were they coming from? What parts of the
7 country were they coming from?
8 A. Refugees came to Jablanica mainly from the eastern part of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the areas of Foca, Rudo, Gorazde, and some from
10 Eastern Herzegovina
11 Q. So when we speak of refugees, we're actually speaking of
12 displaced persons. These are residents or citizens of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
14 A. Yes. Those were residence of one part of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
15 Q. And they're passing through from what I understand from Jablanica
16 and they're going now to the Republic of Croatia
17 neighbouring country; correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, were they being forced to go to Croatia by Jablanica
20 municipality? Were they being kicked out?
21 A. No. We organised it at their request. Many of them actually
22 insisted to have passage towards Split
23 the buses for their transport.
24 Q. All right. We'll go on to the next document, 1D 00957. Here we
25 have April 25, 1992
1 Staff is ordered to ensure the road to Posusje -- that the road to
2 Posusje is permanently opened." Now, why was that necessary?
3 A. This order confirms what we will discussed on the previous
4 document, the importance of that road and the need to keep it open so
5 that the refugees coming from northern areas of Bosnia would be able to
6 go towards Split
7 Q. All right. The next document is 1D 00972, and here we see an
8 order, and this is -- we see a Mostar state-owned company is ordered to
9 provide a bus with 25 seats to transport workers engaged on the
10 construction of the Sovici-Risovac-Posusje road from Jablanica to Risovac
11 and back and my question now is how is it that the Jablanica municipality
12 Crisis Staff is ordering a construction company or a state-owned company
13 which is from Mostar? How is that possible?
14 A. Well, at that time these -- the vehicles happened to be in
15 Jablanica. So the Crisis Staff thought that all the resources that
16 happened to be in the territory of the municipality could be used for
17 what they believed to be a priority.
18 Q. All right. So in other words they were confiscating it and using
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. All right. Even though it belonged to perhaps another
23 A. Right.
24 Q. All right. 1D 00992. Here this is decision to begin the
25 construction of the Jablanica-Posusje-Sovici section. And we see this is
1 R-419. This is the same road I take it that we've been talking about;
3 A. Yes, that is the same road.
4 Q. All right. And finally if we look at the next document, 1D 0450.
5 This has to do with the repair of bridges on Jablanica-Mostar main road.
6 This is 23 June 1992
7 the problem?
8 A. The bridges on this section Jablanica-Mostar had been blown up
9 and destroyed, and the interventions we see referred to here were not
10 aimed at completely restoring the bridges, nor was it possible. The
11 purpose was to enable them to be used for pedestrian traffic or perhaps
12 even passenger vehicles but not freight vehicles.
13 Q. That concludes that section, but let me ask one question. Did
14 the HVO military component or the HVO civilian component in any way try
15 to obstruct the building of this road or the repair of the bridges?
16 A. No, on the contrary. The HVO took an active part with all its
17 resources, both technical and manpower.
18 Q. All right. We're going to go on to the same segment, and this
19 deals with some issues on the economy, loosely phrased, so nobody should
20 hold me to it or hold it against me for not having a more comprehensive
22 1D 00937 -- 973, 973. This is 8 May 1992, and this is an order,
23 and we can see that it talks about instructing all companies, the SDK,
24 that's the Public Auditing Service, the Sarajevo commercial bank branches
25 and the post offices that they're to place their materiel and technical
1 equipment resources and money at the disposal of the Jablanica municipal
2 Crisis Staff. Can you tell us, please, why was this necessary? What
3 does this order exactly mean?
4 A. This order had a purpose of placing cash from the SDK, the bank
5 or other publicly owned enterprises to the Crisis Staff so that they
6 could fund the logistical needs of the municipality of Jablanica
7 Q. All right. Now, we've heard testimony before, and we'll hear it
8 again -- or we'll hear testimony again, I should say, concerning this
9 Public Auditing Service, the SDK as it was known back then. Could you
10 please tell us whether the Public Auditing Service for Jablanica, whether
11 it was tied into the greater network throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina?
12 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour, there's nothing about the SDK
13 or the economy. There's nothing whatsoever in the summary about this, so
14 we would object to evidence on this matter.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, these are documents that again are
17 rather clear on their face. There is nothing in the summary again when
18 we go to the next document that has Jugo dinars, German marks and
19 Croatian dinars. Now, let's put it into context. We've had testimony
20 regarding the Public Auditing Service, and this gentleman was there. I'm
21 discussing this particular order. These documents were disclosed to the
22 Prosecution, and I see absolutely no issue with this. I mean, I -- and
23 also, as it was pointed out to me, and I'm very grateful to my colleagues
24 that I failed to mention, that if there's any prejudice suffered or being
25 suffered or to be suffered by the Prosecution as a result of this -- of
1 this document or other documents or testimony coming from the witness,
2 then perhaps after my direct examination, you could determine to what
3 extent any -- if any he was prejudiced and fight the appropriate remedy
4 such as, because you must take the least restrictive measure, give him an
5 opportunity to prepare. But this is --
6 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, that's not the remedy. As
7 Judge Trechsel has correctly pointed out, and it's quite relevant now
8 again, id what Mr. Karnavas wants to do is just simply read 65 ter (G)
9 out of the rules. Let's just take the rule book and tear those out and
10 say they don't apply to me. And say the rules don't apply to me. Is
11 that the Chamber's ruling? Because it's not in the summary, and there is
12 no reason for all this. Mr. Scott should it's not in the summary, Your
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour.
15 MR. SCOTT: It's he like four sentences. It's either in the
16 summary or it's not, yes or no.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: The gentleman was provided --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, please -- allow me please first to
20 make this final comment, and I'll abide whatever decision you make on
21 31st of March, 2008 we provided detailed list of documents we intended it
22 use with -- with the -- with our witnesses. Now, it is incumbent upon
23 the Prosecution to read those documents. They should know what is in
24 those documents. Jablanica municipality is in the indictment, after all.
25 They also had the gentleman's background, and just by looking at the
1 gentleman's summary they would have known that we were discussing issues
2 related to Jablanica municipality.
3 Now, what is the purpose of -- if I may, Judge Trechsel, make my
4 record, and I would appreciate being heard and then I would --
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You have not much new argument, Mr. Karnavas,
6 the same all over again. And I refer you to Rule 65 ter (G)(i)(b) and
7 what you say is different. It is not what the Rules say. It's as simple
8 as that. The Rules say you must warn about the facts. You must give a
9 summary of the facts the witness will speak about, and you want to escape
10 that. You simply do not want to accept it. I think that is not -- it's
11 not correct.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: I beg to differ with you, Judge Trechsel.
13 Nobody's trying to escape anything. But I'll move on. I'm go on. If
14 the SDK upsets the Prosecution and it upsets you, and you feel that
15 somehow we didn't disclose this material, we'll move on.
16 Let me just ask one question since we are on this particular
17 document -- since we are on this particular document.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, please move on to
19 something else, but my colleague is absolutely right. The Rules say that
20 you have to sum up the facts to which the -- each and every witness is
21 going to testify. So that's the Rule. This is not something said by the
22 Judges. It is in the Rules. Therefore, if the Prosecutor sees there is
23 one fact mentioned by you that is note in the summary each time he will
24 be on his feet to tell you have not complied with your obligation.
25 Therefore, in the future do list all the facts in your summaries. That
1 will be, you know, gaining time, saving time for everybody.
2 MR. KARNAVAS:
3 Q. Were you in Jablanica at this particular time, 8 May 1992
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Look at the next document, 1D 00783. And here we have a decision
6 on fuel prices, and it lists dinars, German marks, Croatian dinars. With
7 respect to the first list of dinars, are they -- where are they from?
8 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, my objection exactly the same.
9 Apparently Mr. Karnavas didn't hear the objection or the ruling.
10 Economy, currency, none of that is in the summary, and he's just
11 proceeding on, and I thought the Court made it quite clear. I thought
12 Judge Trechsel and the President made it quite clear these were outside
13 the scope of the summary.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I can solve this problem. We can
15 send this gentleman back at this point to his hotel. I can prepare
16 another summary, and we can start again on Wednesday. It's as simple as
17 that. But I find it rather curious that here's somebody who was the
18 president of the Executive Council. Now he's talking about the situation
19 in Jablanica and members -- some members of the trial bench simply do not
20 find this to be information that is necessary or relevant to the case,
21 and the Defence is being accused of not having complied with the Rules.
22 By virtue of his position, he is able to talk about what is
23 happening in Jablanica, and I don't see how the Prosecution is being
24 prejudiced. That's the real issue. How are they being prejudiced by
25 this? But since we have Judge Trechsel shaking his head with virtually
1 everything I say, I suggest, Mr. President, that at this point -- at this
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait one moment.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: [Overlapping speakers] -- at the end of the day --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have to confer.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, faced with this
8 specific problem the Trial Chamber is trying to find a practical
9 solution, which is for you to continue with the examination-in-chief
10 based on the points expressly mentioned in your summary. With regard to
11 the ones that are not in the summary, do disclose to the Prosecution
12 tonight at the latest the points that were not in the summary but are to
13 be found in the documents or in the document that you have the list of
14 exhibits so that on -- documents, so that Mr. Scott knows tomorrow what
15 your topics will be, and you'll have the whole night to prepare for it.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Mr. President. I must confess that I
17 don't have my summary in front of me, and based on that -- I mean, this
18 is one of those rare occasions where we didn't bring it. It wasn't
19 intentional like some may assume. I just don't have my summary here, and
20 I assume that I'm going to be asked to justify on every single document
21 even though it's been disclosed as of the 31st of March to the
22 Prosecution concerning these witnesses. But I don't have my summary, and
23 therefore I suggest that we adjourn for the day. I can then prepare a
24 more detailed summary for the Prosecution and have it to them hopefully
25 by 9.00, no later than 9.00, perhaps even earlier. So that would be my
1 suggestion, Your Honour.
2 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour, not to belabour the matter,
3 but if I get a list of these issues at midnight tonight I do not have
4 time to prepare for cross-examination tomorrow. What the Rules require
5 is that they be provided on the 31st of March, 2008. Well, I hear
6 laughter coming from the other side. That's completely inappropriate.
7 That's what the Rules require, it's what the Chamber ordered. Your
8 Scheduling Order said that this information would be provided to the
9 Prosecution on the 31st of March, 2008, not at midnight the night before
10 cross-examination, and I will not conduct a cross-examination on that
11 basis. I have to have -- I have every right to prepare. So if
12 Mr. Karnavas is in violation of the Rules, which he is, more than six
13 months late, more than six months late, I will not have that date to the
14 prejudice of the Prosecution to prepare. It's his violation, not mine.
15 Do not penalize the Prosecution for the violations of the Defence.
16 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, once again I can just suggest that Your
17 Honours' ruling stands. The information can be provided, and if after
18 receiving the information at the end of examination-in-chief my learned
19 friend still things that more time is needed, at that point an
20 application for additional time can be made. It's a matter that can be
21 dealt with I think to ensure that the Prosecution is not prejudiced.
22 MR. SCOTT: The analysis is fundamentally flawed, Your Honour the
23 rules do not require --
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Scott. I think that's a fair proposal. You
25 don't necessarily have to start tomorrow, but you can do it later. We
1 know that the Rules have not really been complied with, but we somehow
2 have to get through this trial. We still hope that the compliance will
3 eventually improve with 65 ter, but I do not entirely discard the
4 reference to possible prejudice. Anyway, there is already in the air
5 possibility that the witness might be called back at a later stage in
6 connection with the -- with the expert opinion, and I think somehow we
7 must find ways that prevent this from totally collapsing.
8 MR. SCOTT: With due respect, Your Honour, the way to deal with
9 it is to enforce the Rules, and if the Chamber -- with the greatest of
10 respect and with great respect, Judge Mindua my great respect to you,
11 Judge Prandler my great respect, Mr. President my great respect,
12 Judge Trechsel my great respect. If the Chamber would enforce the Rules
13 once and for all and make it very clear that this would be solved, but
14 instead this happens to the prejudice of the Prosecution. The Rules
15 require but we'll excuse it this time and the next time and the next
16 time, and it's the always the Prosecution that is the loser in these --
17 Rule 65 ter (G) says nothing about prejudice. The obligation stands on
18 Defence counsel and says nothing about -- except where it doesn't
19 prejudice the Prosecution. The way -- with the greatest of respect --
20 the way for the Chamber to deal with this issue is to make its ruling on
21 the summaries once and for all, make it very clear and make the Defence
22 comply. Then we won't have these problems because we'll have --
23 hopefully we'll have compliance not tomorrow or not so the Prosecution
24 has to run in at the last minute, but we'll have compliance for the rest
25 of the trial if the Chamber enforces the Rules now. Thank you.
1 MR. KHAN: Well, Your Honours, just one additional point. Of
2 course in drafting the Rules, the Judges of this Tribunal eschewed the
3 possibility of technical rules of evidence, and there is of course a
4 whole raft of possibilities between a breach, a mere breach, and a
5 substantial breach, and in assessing the remedy, the remedy for a breach
6 Your Honours would have reference and recourse of course to Rule 89 to
7 decide on the Rules -- the best favor in a fair determination the master.
8 I understand it's quite palpable my learned friend is upset, and I'm not
9 trying to condone I'm not taking a partisan position here, but from the
10 way I think the Trial Chamber's ruling must be understood, it's been
11 specifically tailored to avoid any possibility of prejudice to the
12 Prosecution, because what could the prejudice be? The prejudice would --
13 the prejudice of course would be if they are taken by surprise and are
14 being compelled to cross-examine information of a nature which they could
15 not anticipate and couldn't properly address and prepare for.
16 Your Honours' ruling in my respectful submission focuses on that.
17 My learned friend can provide a more detailed information. My learned
18 friend Mr. Scott can see it, and if at the time of reading it it is of
19 nature that requires a more sophisticated approach, requires more time
20 there's going to be no objection from this Defence team if that time is
21 granted to the Prosecution, so I think matters can be kept rather --
22 rather calm and matters can be dealt with in an unremarkable manner.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Kovacic.
24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it wasn't my
25 intention previously to use up any time, but I think matters have now
1 gone too far and we should have the positions of the other Defence teams.
2 I wish to pick up where Mr. Khan left off. I fully agree with him.
3 However, and I think this applies to every Rule as it does to Rule 64, we
4 must first have a fair interpretation. In itself the Rule means nothing.
5 It is not before you've placed it in the context of the overall trial
6 that we can grasp its full meaning. What is its meaning? I think that's
7 visible from the practice. We must provide summaries before a witness
8 appears and the point -- and this is to avoid surprise, to avoid any
9 traps being laid by one party for the other. Nobody can be allowed to
10 bring a witness without the other party knowing exactly what the witness
11 will be testifying about. Of course there are matters of detail
12 involved, but we must look at any specific situation as it arises.
13 How could the OTP possibly have been surprised if, (a) in
14 addition to the summary provided by Mr. Karnavas, (b)it received a list
15 of documents and in that list were also the documents that the Prosecutor
16 now claims is not in the summary? Does this mean that we actually have
17 to recount documents in our summaries? The indictment was raised five or
18 six years ago. They know the case. The OTP know the facts or perhaps
19 they have not been acting conscientiously, or perhaps they at the time
20 raised their indictment without knowing the facts.
21 When I or Mr. Karnavas give the Prosecution a list of documents
22 and what each witness will be questioned about, then they must
23 understand. This is crystal clear. Money, currency. Even an infant
24 would know what this is about.
25 We cannot interpret this provision verbatim. Summary and then
1 you need to list all the facts that you will be asking a witness about.
2 This has to be a more general type of information. This is a summary,
3 also a list of documents. When talking about this witness this is also
4 something else his 92 bis statement the one that the witness provided to
5 them. Therefore the OTP know full well what this witness might or might
6 not be talking about. Hence I believe that the OTP's claim that it has
7 been ambushed or prejudiced has nothing to it that is true.
8 Let's not be naive about this. Let's not have the Rule read out
9 verbatim as it reads with no context, with no possibility of contextual
10 or circumstantial interpretation. This is something that simply doesn't
12 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Just for the transcript, page 98,
13 line 24, Mr. Kovacic, you don't want to speak about Rule 64. You mean 65
14 ter, don't you?
15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] [No interpretation]
16 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. Now, we have devoted
18 perhaps one hour on these problems, on these issues. I wanted to use
19 this hour to ask questions which would have been very interesting and
20 which I cannot ask because we have a procedural problem. And I say it's
21 a pity both for the Prosecution and the Defence. This being said,
22 Mr. Karnavas is going to address the -- to send the list of items which
23 is not in the summary on which he intends to ask questions from the
24 witness on the remaining documents.
25 And then this is my personal point of view: This question of the
1 possible prejudice for the Prosecution, yes, he's right, but the question
2 is to know may there be a prejudice. The Defence could also in another
3 situation talk about the prejudice. I wonder where is the prejudice.
4 The documents that have been contested up to now have concerned dinars,
5 for instance, documents 783 on the price of petrol, or 788, diesel. I
6 don't know what the prejudice can be for a person who sees that the 98 is
7 1.40 Deutschmark. So one should be in a position when one knows the
8 case, and it's been for years that one should be knowing the case that
9 this trial has begun. One shouldn't be surprised by this document.
10 Perhaps for certain people it's a prejudice. For me it's not because I
11 discovered the document at the last minute. So the Chamber might also
12 say there is a problem. One discovers documents. So we could say in the
13 future each time the Defence prepares a file, I need at least a fortnight
14 to prepare myself. If not, I will suffer prejudice, and justice will
15 suffer prejudice with that. The trial will go on for years, at least 20
17 So everybody has to do their best, and Defence must in the future
18 do its best to present the facts on which -- on D1 and D2 in order to
19 avoid to lose time because all the time that is lost, more than 20 per
20 cent devoted to procedural matters could have been used to go to
21 substantive matters, substantive issue, it would have been more
22 interesting for everybody.
23 So, Mr. Karnavas, make an effort to review all this in order to
24 get to Mr. Scott as soon as the list in question, and therefore you might
25 -- you may continue your examination.
1 Do you want to add something, Mr. Karnavas?
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, just briefly, Your Honour. We could send the
3 witness out at this point, and I could spend the next ten minutes in --
4 giving a verbal account as far as what I'm going to cover.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Yes. All right.
6 So, Witness, the hearing will resume tomorrow, tomorrow morning at 9.00.
7 Now you're going to leave -- now you're going to leave courtroom, and
8 we'll see you again tomorrow at 9.00.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 [The witness stands down]
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you have used up
12 nearly two hours now so you still have two hours and two minutes.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I hope. I really hope.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Let me go back to the one issue that was into the
16 in -- that we learned today. That goes to the Izetbegovic meeting.
17 Based on what the witness indicated to us, he was invited to this
18 meeting. It wasn't known at the time I guess it had escaped everyone's
19 attention that he was the only non-Muslim there. At that point in time
20 when the meeting took place Mr. Izetbegovic concreting asked the director
21 of the hydroelectric plant whether they could cut off the electricity to
22 this area called Herceg-Bosna at which point in time the director said
23 yes that could be done and Izetbegovic said that's good. That was all
24 that we learned on that.
25 Now, to go on to the next -- to the segments that we had planned
1 out based on the documents that we had presented to the Court and to the
2 Prosecution for this particular witness, the economy, all these
3 documents, I think you've said it, Mr. President. Basically they all
4 reflect the fact that you have the use of the German mark, also the
5 Croatian dinar. Why is that important? It's important because of this
6 argument of Croatisation. We see that Croatian dinars are being used in
7 official documents, and that was to show that at that point in time
8 people were using whatever was available to them under the circumstances.
9 With respect to the SDK, the Public Auditing Service, it's well
10 known that Jablanica was connected as every other municipality and every,
11 you know, locality to the central system which wasn't functioning and
12 that we heard already from Mr. Primorac.
13 So that deals with that segment. The next segment deals with
14 movements and mobilisation. That's what we called or that's what I
15 called it. Go you look at these documents these are all official
16 documents that we got from the municipality, they're rather very plain on
17 their face. They're talking -- these are steps that were taken by the
18 municipality at the time. It has nothing to do with tu quoque. What it
19 has to do is to show that under these extraordinary circumstances
20 miraculously or serendipitously all these municipalities are acting more
21 or less in the same fashion. Why? Because those were necessary measures
22 to take under the circumstances. Nothing nefarious about that. And we
23 see even the very last document that was included, we have an order for
24 mobilisation and what was interesting was here is Dr. Cibo, a medical
25 doctor, who is mobilising from the age of 15 up to the age of 65, and I
1 only pointed that out because as I recall two and a half years ago the
2 issue was the age of mobilization. We see 18, sometimes 17, sometimes
3 16, and here we have a document on 15.
4 There are no mysteries to this particular segment. They're all,
5 if you read them, they very plainly talk about what was happening at the
7 Then we go on to this issue dealing with the civilian
8 authorities, that is the War Presidency and the executive the documents
9 are laid out in a chronological order again to give the Trial Chamber a
10 flavour as to how things unfold starting with the gentleman's position
11 that he held and certain decisions that were issued. They're rather
12 plain on their face. At some point we get to the issue of Cibo. He's
13 been here -- he's been mentioned on numerous occasions, and, yes, we will
14 be asking about Cibo's appointment and he will state that Cibo's
15 appointment was unconstitutional at the time. He was there as the war
16 president for Konjic, Jablanica, and I believe Prozor as well.
17 And this -- this also I should go and I'm grateful to my
18 colleague Ms. Tomanovic. This testimony came in from Idrizovic. If you
19 may recall, this gentleman talked about -- about Jablanica, and of course
20 we are at the stage where we are entitled to rebut testimony by the
21 Prosecution. So all of these documents -- or not all but some of these
22 documents go to address if not rebut some of the information that was
23 brought in by witness Idrizovic. And of course what we're going to show
24 is that with the coming of Cibo the events deteriorate. My -- the
25 witness is in forced labour. At some point he's at a camp. And of
1 course the Executive Council becomes purely Muslim at that stage.
2 So that's -- and also we're going to be talking about the issue
3 of Okruzi, which is the districts. That issue has already come up, its
4 constitutionality and how it worked.
5 The next segment is -- deals with mobilisation of -- of
6 resources. Now, there are lots of documents. We had over 20 or 30
7 documents at one point. Some we will address through motion, but what we
8 wanted to show that again when Dr. Cibo comes in and we do -- we do
9 submit that this -- this individual is rather unique in his approach. We
10 see that he begins to commandeer the first two documents, the
11 commandeering, wood, and flower stuff, but it's only from Croats. That's
12 what the witness will say, that while they were commandeering and while
13 they were expropriating, it was only from the Croats and not from the
14 Muslims from Jablanica, again to show the situation there.
15 And why is all of this somewhat important? Because it goes -- it
16 goes to our overall concept and theory which was well understood by the
17 Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina that in these times of need, they needed to
18 organise themselves, and the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,
19 especially in Jablanica, was for that very same purpose, to organise
20 themselves so that -- as an association, as group. They could protect
21 themselves without necessarily trying to do anything nefarious as has
22 been outlined by the Prosecution.
23 So -- and if you look at the other documents, they're very
24 innocuous in that there's nothing special. The last document for
25 instance 1D 01483. It shows here that Dr. Cibo is now commandeering the
1 pharmacy and the pharmaceuticals of the Caritas, Croatian Catholic
2 charity, and he's putting it at the disposal of the Jablanica town
3 pharmacy for "better use" under him.
4 And so -- now, again if we look at these documents, you will see
5 that they're rather -- they're not very complicated. They're one-page
6 documents. They have been provided.
7 The next issue deals with the camps. Now, certainly the
8 Prosecution should know all about this issue because the gentleman was --
9 was not only taken to a camp but he was tortured. He had a terrible
10 experience, and of course the first document is this Jablanica war
11 hospital. This is where he went and they refused to examine him because
12 of his particular situation. That's when he was put under slave labour
13 as he put it.
14 Then we have lists of -- of Croats who were in the Museum in
15 Jablanica. This testimony came out during the Prosecution's case. So
16 again this is not a mystery. This was testified to as well by
17 Mr. Idrizovic. So again this is evidence that goes to counter the
18 Prosecution's case, much of which I find it very difficult to believe
19 that the Prosecution is unaware of or is surprised by. The documents are
20 rather self-evident.
21 One of the things that might be interesting in this packet which
22 I find kind of interesting is appointment by Sefer Halilovic. He
23 appoints Cibo, who is the Presidency, he's the president of the
24 Presidency, now he appoints him to a military position and then later on
25 we see Dr. Cibo issuing operational orders. That would be 1D 03039.
1 So -- and then there was a chronology which was prepared by -- by
2 the gentleman, and I assume they would know about this chronology because
3 for years the gentleman worked for the office of the -- the Office of the
4 Prosecutor investigators. He worked with them for several years. They
5 relied on him to gather information for the International Tribunal for
6 the former Yugoslavia
7 And then finally the last is his certificate of release from the
9 And finally there is one chapter which we don't know whether we
10 will have time to get to, and that deals with the issue of refugees, and
11 again if you look at them, that's merely to demonstrate how the -- the
12 refugees were coming and how they were going, and again we heard some
13 testimony that refugees went straight to Croatia. Again, that was their
14 wish. That's how they ended up there. Albeit this is the timing of
15 1992, but again it goes to that.
16 In addition to this, he will talk about how the abandoned -- how
17 the refugees were accommodated in Jablanica at one point where the Croats
18 were forced to -- to accommodate large members of families -- large
19 family -- families in their own apartments to the point that some of them
20 ultimately either had to leave or it became rather difficult for them to
21 be in that situation and left on their own. This particular gentleman
22 was housing nine. He will recount one time when Croats were brought to
23 the Museum and the little boy from the family came back and said, "Mama,
24 I just went down and tried to beat up some Ustasha." And the mother kind
25 of told him to hush because after all he was saying this in the presence
1 of the witness in the witness's own house.
2 So this is essentially his testimony. Why is this relevant?
3 Again it goes to this whole notion that as of 1991 the Croatian
4 Community -- there was this joint criminal enterprise, and what the
5 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was all about and how it fits into
6 this enterprise and anybody who participated in it was a member of this
7 joint criminal enterprise, the notion that there was this territory, that
8 they're trying to re-establish the Banovina Hrvatska, that they actually
9 through their own one witness indicated Idrizovic.
10 That they tried to take over the civilian authorities where, in
11 fact, we see nothing of the sort happened. They pitched an idea. It was
12 rejected. That was it.
13 That is in essence the testimony of the gentleman, and what I
14 will do tonight pursuant to your -- to your instructions, I will sit down
15 and I will try to put it in writing and -- and frankly let me say again
16 with all due candour when I came here today, now, maybe I misread the
17 situation, but I believed in my heart-of-hearts that I had fully complied
18 with my obligations as far as the summaries go. Now, some may disagree.
19 I truly believed that the Prosecution, based on their representation,
20 that I didn't need to supplement any more, were aware I was going to go
21 into these sorts of subjects because that's what would be expected in
22 late of the gentleman's background. I truly apologise to the Prosecution
23 if I've caused them any grief. I will certainly endeavour in the future
24 to do better. I will go back even to next -- the next witness who
25 they've asked not to supplement. I will see if I can supplement it some
1 more so that we don't have this recurrence, and I apologise to the Bench
2 for wasting more procedural time. It certainly wasn't intended but I can
3 assure you we're doing our best to become as we possibly can be so that
4 we can provide the evidence that you need in order to make a fair
5 determination in this case and I thank you very much for granting me this
6 time. Thank you and good night.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So we're going to
8 stop because now we've gone beyond the time. You spoke of next witness.
9 I'm looking at the list of documents for the next witness. We've got 373
10 exhibits. Experience shows that in six hours, one may admit 90 -- 80
11 exhibits. So you will have to sort out your exhibits, because there is a
12 great number of these exhibits which you'll have to sort out since you
13 will not be in a position to tender them. You will only be able to
14 tender about 80 to a hundred. Here you've got 373, which will cause a
16 Therefore, I'll give Mr. Scott which he is entitled to receive
17 and act on the statement you've made and then things will go much better,
18 because I just said I prefer to go to the bottom of things, the
19 substance, rather than to spend 20 per cent of our time in procedural
20 matters because the judgement will be on the substance and not on
21 procedure. So good evening and see you tomorrow at 9.00.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.
23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 14th day
24 of October, 2008, at 9.00 a.m.