1 Tuesday, 21 October 2008
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, kindly call the
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
8 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
9 the Prosecutor versus Prlic, et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Today is Tuesday. Good afternoon to the accused, to the Defence counsel,
12 and the entire OTP team, and my greetings to the registrar and the
14 Mr. Stringer, do you have some information for us?
15 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you and good afternoon
16 to you. Good afternoon, Your Honours and to counsel.
17 I have prepared some remarks in response to the Trial Chamber's
18 inquiry of yesterday with regard to the Prosecution position on the
19 Petkovic Defence arguments on allocating or deducting time from the
20 Defence case that is used during the examination of a co-accused witness
21 when the examination falls outside the scope of the direct examination
22 that's led by the co-accused.
23 Mr. President, just a few preliminary remarks. I went back and
24 actually looked to see what and to what extent the issue arose during the
25 Prosecution case in chief because I think it's worth bearing in mind. We
1 want to try to maintain consistency as between the Prosecution case and
2 the Defence cases.
3 And I went back through the transcript and did some searches and
4 found that at least on three occasions during the Prosecution case, the
5 issue arose. Back in September of 2006, witness Islamovic was testifying
6 as a Prosecution witness; and counsel for Mr. Petkovic, actually, was
7 questioning, and there was an objection that the questions were outside
8 the scope of the direct examination of the Prosecution witness. I'm
9 referring to page 6930 of the transcript.
10 And it was actually Mr. Murphy, who was then counsel for
11 Mr. Ostojic, intervened and pointed out that under Rule 90(h), a party
12 may indeed question outside the scope of direct examination if the
13 evidence goes to that party's case. I saw also that in October of 2006,
14 the accused Praljak filed a request for additional time to cross-examine
15 a Prosecution witness, Mr. Agic. That was filed by the Praljak Defence
16 on the 18th of October, 2006. And shortly afterwards on the 25th of
17 October, that Defence submission was actually joined by the Petkovic
18 team; and in that Praljak submission, they wanted to get additional time
19 for cross-examination of this witness, and they wanted to go outside the
20 scope of the direct examination, and counsel for General Praljak
21 correctly relied in his submissions on Rule 90(h)(i) as a basis for going
22 outside the scope of the direct. And I looked at the transcript of the
23 Trial Chamber's ruling on that, and it appears that the Trial Chamber
24 granted the request because it granted additional time to the Praljak and
25 to the Petkovic Defence teams to cross-examine that witness.
1 Then thirdly, I saw that in June of 2007, during the
2 cross-examination of Prosecution witness Marijan Biskic, again, the issue
3 was raised. It was -- there was a Prosecution objection regarding scope
4 of the examination. This is page 15184 of the transcript. And to be
5 clear, the issue also related to whether leading questions could be asked
6 when the examination was going outside the scope of the direct. But in
7 any event, the issue was raised there; and again, Mr. Murphy was invoking
8 or invoked Rule 90(h) indicating that Mr. Karnavas was right in asserting
9 they could go outside the scope of the direct examination and to actually
10 ask leading questions of the witness.
11 So from this limited sort of survey of the Prosecution case, it
12 raised for me, anyway, a couple of points. First of all, which was that
13 it's clear that -- I think -- there isn't any serious disagreement that
14 Rule 90(h)(i) does entitle any party to go outside the scope of direct
15 examination if it's relevant to their case and obviously if the Trial
16 Chamber agrees that it's significant or relevant enough evidence to
17 justify doing that.
18 The Trial Chamber has always been, it appears to me, quite
19 consistent in its rulings on this issue. I went back and I looked at the
20 guidelines issued by the Trial Chamber in advance of the Defence case on
21 the 24th of April of this year. Guideline 3, paragraph 7 states that as
22 regards the rules governing the scope of cross-examination, the Chamber
23 recalls that pursuant to Rule 90(h)(i), cross-examination may deal with a
24 matter that has not been raised in direct examination; and what the Trial
25 Chamber did then was actually cite its earlier decision from the 10th of
1 May, 2007
2 it also made the same ruling, that a party may go outside the scope of
3 direct under Rule 90(h)(i).
4 However, the Trial Chamber has -- at least in my view, in the
5 Prosecution's view until we've gotten into the Defence case, the Trial
6 Chamber has consistently ruled is that once a party is questioning
7 outside the scope of direct, leading questions may not be used. And I'm
8 not going to repeat the Prosecution's submissions on the issue of leading
9 questions during an examination of a witness by one of the co-accused;
10 but in any event, certainly in our view the Trial Chamber has
11 consistently approved the practice and has on specific occasions allowed
12 this to occur, of course, during the Prosecution case as well as in the
13 Defence cases.
14 I think that it's worth pointing out that on those occasions
15 during the Prosecution case in chief when counsel for the Defence were
16 allowed to go outside the scope of the Prosecution direct examination
17 under Rule 90(h), there was no deduction of time from any of the Defence
18 cases, and of course, that's because there were no Defence cases and no
19 times to deduct from.
20 So right off the bat, I think that's a point that bears keeping
21 in mind because I know that one of the assertions from the Petkovic
22 Defence is that it's unfair for the Prosecution to be allowed to go
23 beyond the scope of direct now under Rule 90(h) and to not have that time
24 deducted from its overall time. The fact is that that same rule was in
25 effect during the Prosecution phase of the case. The Defence were
1 allowed to do that, and there was no deduction from the Defence,
3 But it's possible that -- at least in our view, the other point
4 on this that's maybe the most significant to bear in mind, and I don't
5 know that there's going to be a lot of disagreement on it, during the
6 Prosecution case and from what we've seen so far in the Defence cases,
7 it's our submission that this issue really doesn't raise a statistically
8 -- or it doesn't involve a statistically significant amount of time. On
9 those occasions when a party has wanted to go outside the scope and to
10 proceed with new questions under Rule 90(h), you know, I could be wrong.
11 There may be disagreement, but I think we are talking about 10 minutes
12 here, 20 minutes there, but not in the grand scheme of things
13 statistically significant amounts of time, and I'll come back to that
14 because that's largely what drives the Prosecution's ultimate position on
16 In regard to the Petkovic assertion that it's unfair for time to
17 be deducted from the Petkovic Defence while there's no corresponding
18 deduction from the Prosecution time since our case is over, there are
19 three points we'd make. First, we think it's not unfair to do that
20 because, as I've already pointed out, time wasn't deducted from the
21 Defence cases back during the Prosecution case. When they went outside
22 the scope, there was no deduction of time of the Defence cases because,
23 as I said, there were no Defence times during that phase of the case.
24 Secondly, as the Trial Chamber knows, the reason for allowing a
25 party to go outside the scope of direct and to raise new questions is to
1 prevent the witness from having to come back; and with six accused in the
2 case, it's theoretically possible that any of the Defence witnesses could
3 ultimately be required or asked to come back several times if there was
4 not a situation where a co-accused could go outside of the scope of the
5 direct. Clearly, if the Petkovic team wanted to bring back a witness
6 called by the Prlic Defence, they could do so. However, of course, we
7 know that if that were to happen, that time would be deducted from the
8 Petkovic Defence. So it seems, again, not unfair to simply deduct the
9 time now that the witness is here.
10 And thirdly, as the Trial Chamber knows - I'm not going to
11 belabour it - the Prosecution view, and we've said it a number of times
12 both orally and in written submissions, we do view the cross-examinations
13 conducted by the Defence teams to be cross-examination only by label for
14 the large part in that these are largely sympathetic or certainly not
15 adverse witnesses. And so we do see it as a different situation than the
16 situation you have when the Prosecution is cross-examining Defence
18 So for those three reasons, we think it's not unfair that the
19 Trial Chamber continues to deduct time from a Defence team that goes
20 beyond the scope of cross-examination.
21 Now, so our ultimate position on is this is as follows: Mr.
22 President, we recognise that this is not a perfect situation, but the
23 status quo, if you will, is what we are advocating; that is, these are
24 very factual driven decisions and findings that are made by the Trial
25 Chamber whenever a party -- whenever there's an objection on scope, and
1 if the party is or is not within the scope of the direct examination when
2 they're asking their questions, it's a complicated issue. It's very
3 factually driven, and it's not one that lends itself easily at all to any
4 sorts of firm or set rules or guidelines.
5 We think that it's appropriate for the Trial Chamber on a very
6 case-by-case basis to decide whether questions are outside the scope of
7 direct or not; and if so, we continue to assert that the Trial Chamber is
8 correct in deducting that extra time from a Defence team that does go
9 outside the scope of the direct examination.
10 But getting back, really, to the main point, so far we don't
11 think that this is a statistically significant amount of time. And if I
12 may, in using the Petkovic Defence as an example because they're the ones
13 that have raised it, if at the end of the Petkovic case in chief, after
14 they have exhausted their 50 hours or their 55 hours of time, if it turns
15 out that there are a few hours that they need that they don't have
16 because the Trial Chamber had deducted those few hours from their time
17 when they were cross-examining other witnesses and went outside the
18 scope, there's nothing to prevent the Petkovic team from at that point
19 making an application to the Trial Chamber to make up that time for more
20 time. The Trial Chamber has always been very flexible in administering
21 all of these rules. The Prosecution asked for more time at the end of
22 its case in chief. Time was granted. We didn't use it, all of it, but
23 certainly I think that when you're talking about 15 minutes here, 20
24 minutes there, in the end it's not going to add up to a huge amount of
25 time that will impact ultimately the length of the trial in any real
1 significant way. And in any event, any of the teams can ask for that
2 time back, and if they can make their showing to the Trial Chamber, I'm
3 confident the Trial Chamber will give them the amount of time they need.
4 But that's how we propose is the way to go, to continue doing it the way
5 the Trial Chamber's been handling it so far, deducting time when it finds
6 that there is questioning beyond the scope of direct, and if at the end
7 the Defence team needs to try to recover that time in order to complete
8 their case in chief, then they can apply to the Trial Chamber for that
9 additional time.
10 Mr. President, just three last remarks, and these don't relate to
11 this specific issue, but rather, just to some of the other points that
12 surfaced in yesterday's proceedings because it seems to us, the
13 Prosecution, that the calendar and scheduling for the remainder of the
14 year is certainly in flux now. Could we confirm, if possible, that the
15 week that had been envisioned for the expert witness Mr. Cvikl, that that
16 week of November 17th is an empty week and that it's not going to be
18 Secondly, we would encourage the Trial Chamber to --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, it can be filled with a
20 witness Radovanovic. We asked for your position regarding this witness
21 because we've already got the report. He is a demographer, an expert in
22 demography. It's not too complicated, so possibly he could testify in
23 that week from the 17th -- or she could come and testify in the week of
24 the 17th to the 20th.
25 MR. STRINGER: Well, Mr. President, with respect, to the
1 Prosecution would object to that. It's -- we're still reviewing the
2 report. It's our intention to file our RULE 94 bis response to the
3 report, and it's our view that Ms. Radovanovic cannot be moved forward
4 earlier in time. Prosecution can't be prejudiced by having just received
5 the report and being pushed into an examination sooner than we are ready.
6 We've got 30 days under rule 94 bis to file our response to the report.
7 We think it's time that the --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, I can listen to
9 you, but I read the report this morning, and I can demonstrate to you
10 that I, I can cross-examine her without any problem for 2 to 3 hours. I
11 do not need a whole month to know what questions to put to her, or the
12 more so since we've already had Ms. Tabeau who came to testify on
13 demographic problems that we are all aware of. Of course, as per the
14 rules, you have 30 days to respond. You can. But you could also show
15 some cooperation since there's a gap in the calendar, and you could say
16 at least that this expert can come. There can be examination-in-chief by
17 the Defence with possibly postponement of the cross-examination if you
18 are overwhelmed by the questions that are put. But you are a very great
19 professional, and I don't think that you're going to be hindered by the
20 situation. If that expert can come and testify in the week from the 17th
21 to the 20th, a big problem is then solved.
22 And secondly, if you are very prompt with regard to the eight 92
23 bis witnesses, if you state your position saying I want to cross-examine
24 this one and that one, then Mr. Karnavas can be told straightaway, and he
25 can have them be called for that week as well, and all the problems are
2 MR. STRINGER: Well, Mr. President, I know the demographics are
3 foremost in your mind today because you've been listening to evidence of
4 that throughout the morning session. With respect, it's the Prosecution
5 position, Mr. President, that the Prosecution will not be prepared to
6 examine Ms. Radovanovic prior to the week that she's scheduled for, which
7 is the final week of November. I understand that the Trial Chamber
8 wishes us to have a different position, and I regret that we're not able
9 to agree. Obviously, the Trial Chamber is the Trial Chamber, and we will
10 abide by whatever order it issues. But we think it's unfair to railroad
11 us, frankly, into having to proceed with our examination of what we view
12 as an important demographic expert.
13 If I could -- just to continue, we also wanted to encourage the
14 Trial Chamber if possible to set a deadline. I don't know when counsel
15 is planning to file his rule 92 bis motions. We are anxious to see those
16 and to file a prompt response, and we think that that would facilitate
17 all of the witness calendaring; and that was our third request, was
18 whether it's possible to get witness calendars from both the Prlic and
19 Stojic teams for November and December, at least proposed ones, because
20 everyone knows that there's a great deal of uncertainty. But if we could
21 have some calendars and names that are at least on the table, I think it
22 would assist all of us in preparing the Prosecution's concern about
23 having - as appears to be the case with the expert Radovanovic - having
24 to prepare cross-examinations and being pressured to prepare its
25 cross-examinations at the last minute or under less, you know, than ideal
1 conditions. And we think that's unfair, and we think that if we had some
2 potential or some proposed calendars and if we had counsel's rule 92 bis
3 motion, it would certainly put us in a better position to prepare
4 ourselves for the remainder of this year's proceedings.
5 Thank you, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, today is the 21st
7 of October, unless I'm mistaken. Yes, 21st of October. The 21st of
8 November, that is a month away from now. You have more than enough
9 people in your team. Don't tell me that you don't have somebody in your
10 team who can prepare for a whole month based on the report that you have
11 for the cross-examination. I find it hard to believe.
12 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Your Honour. We do have someone who can
13 prepare, and I can assure you that the preparations are underway. I
14 guess -- and I think you know, Mr. President, that I and all of us on the
15 Prosecution team are always anxious to try to facilitate the proceedings
16 and to accommodate the parties and the Trial Chamber. We just got the
17 report yesterday, and I know that you've read it, Mr. President. To be
18 perfectly honest, I have not. I've been having to do other things. But
19 I led the evidence of Ewa Tabeau when she testified in this case, and the
20 demographic part of the case is important to me, and I would like to have
21 an opportunity to read the report, and it's possible that our position
22 would change. But I'm being abundantly cautious at the moment because
23 I've not reviewed the report, and I'm also troubled by the fact it was,
24 in our view, filed late without giving us enough time to prepare and to
25 consider what our position would be on it.
1 I can't tell you what our -- it may be that there are parts of it
2 we accept or that we -- we don't have strong objection to or that we --
3 it may be that it's not complicated, as you suggest, Mr. President, but
4 at the moment I've not read it, and so I'm not really comfortable making
5 any concessions on the timing.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Stringer, you could
7 do one thing: Read the report without delay, and tell us whether you are
8 in a position or not because you are going to be the one cross-examining
9 Ms. Radovanovic, I suppose. You can read the report, see what the
10 problem is, and within a fortnight or in two weeks' time, ask for another
11 date or to ask whether the 27th of November is okay. We depend on you.
12 You are the one who can tell us whether you are able to because you were
13 the one asking questions of Ms. Tabeau; therefore, you are the number one
14 in the Prosecution team when it comes to demographics. So very quickly,
15 you'll be able to tell us whether you can or not or whether you need
16 further time. Do we agree on that?
17 MR. STRINGER: Yes, Mr. President, absolutely.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Did you have
19 another topic?
20 MR. STRINGER: No, Mr. President. That's all.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good afternoon.
23 Good afternoon to you. Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom. If
24 I may just be allowed a single minute to reply to the words of my learned
25 friend, Mr. Stringer, about cross-examination, Defence cross-examination
1 in relation to two issues that weren't raised in chief.
2 First of all, in any legal matter when an accused is trying to
3 stand up because one of his rights have been violated, at least in his
4 opinion, the extent of this violation or purported violation is not in
5 itself of any substance whatsoever. Therefore, it does not in the least
6 matter whether Petkovic's overall time for the presentation of the
7 Petkovic Defence would be taken away from in terms of time to a large
8 extent or to a small extent.
9 The next question is, does an accused have the right to raise
10 other issues on cross-examination that weren't raised in chief? I'm also
11 very glad that the OTP and the Petkovic Defence agree entirely on their
12 interpretation of Rule 90(h). We therefore believe that there is now no
13 doubt about the fact that both the Defence and the OTP have the right on
14 cross-examination to go into issues that go beyond the scope of the
16 My third remark, what remains in doubt is whether such
17 examination by Defence teams should be considered as cross-examination
18 length-wise or if this is miraculously transformed somehow into an
19 examination-in-chief and therefore deducted from the time allocated to a
20 Defence team.
21 I would like to draw everyone's attention to the fact that no one
22 in this courtroom has so far come up with any objections or, indeed,
23 observations to the effect that the subjects that I used in my
24 examination of the witness were subjects outside the scope of the
1 I would also like to draw everyone's attention to Rule
2 90(h)(iii). The Trial Chamber has the power to allow or disallow the
3 questioning of a witness on other subjects. I believe that by making no
4 ruling at all on my cross-examination, the Trial Chamber either believed
5 that my examination was in no way outside the scope of the chief or
6 tacitly agreed to have me proceed as I did.
7 One thing that cannot be disputed is that the decision rendered
8 by this Trial Chamber on the right to cross-examine outside the scope of
9 the chief is something that must be adopted ahead of time so that any
10 Defence that takes this approach can decide under what circumstances they
11 will be adopting this approach or, indeed, dropping this approach.
12 It is by no means possible for any rule known to this court to
13 have the situation as follows: A part of the cross-examination by a
14 Defence outside the scope of the chief to not be treated as
15 cross-examination while any time used for such examination is deducted
16 from a Defence's overall time.
17 By way of a conclusion, General Petkovic's Defence does not
18 believe that the most important issue is the issue of equal treatment for
19 both the OTP and the Defence. Rather, we believe that what is at stake
20 here is the just nature of this trial, the application of the rules, and
21 especially in this case, Rule 90(h).
22 Thank you very much, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
24 continues] ... and the situation in the days to come rest on the
25 shoulders of Mr. Karnavas, so he will have to tell us how many 92 bis
1 witnesses will come and testify - four or more, we don't know - after the
2 13th of November. For the time being, there's nothing during the week of
3 the 17th of November and the 24th of November, also, since Mr. Stringer
4 wishes to cross-examine the witness at a later stage.
5 So there are two weeks ahead of us that could be used to hear the
6 92 bis witnesses or their evidence, so we need to have the list very
7 quickly to know which witnesses can be called. Otherwise, we will have a
8 gap since Cvikl cannot be translated before the 22nd of December, which
9 means that Cvikl's testimony will not start before the 12th of January
10 when the court is back in session, the week from the 12th to the 16th.
11 So we will hear Cvikl, and the week after that we will hear the first
12 witness of the Stojic Defence team.
13 This is how things stand. I stand to be corrected, however. Mr.
14 Karnavas, is this how you see things also?
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Good afternoon, Mr. President. Good afternoon,
16 Your Honours. Good afternoon to everyone in and around the courtroom.
17 I'll be very brief and very blunt. First, with respect to the
18 four 92 bis witnesses that have been previously cross-examined by the
19 Prosecutor in previous cases, they, especially they - and I mean Mr.
20 Stringer and Mr. Scott - know exactly who they want to call. They know
21 the testimonies; they know what they testified. Essentially, we want to
22 introduce their prior testimonies. So they can tell us very easily
23 without being so coy as to which one of these witnesses they wish to
24 call. That would eliminate some of the guessing that's going around.
25 Second of all, with respect to the other four witnesses, as I
1 indicated, I'm still waiting for one of the statements. We did receive
2 the third one today. We hope to have that by the end of the week.
3 As far as the expert demographer, and let me just remark the
4 following: They have an entire demographic team. The two reports, one
5 is about 25 pages at best if you stretch it. The other one is about ten
6 pages. The reports are an analysis of their expert reports. So when you
7 consider they have several demographers, an entire demographic team
8 behind them, plus an armada of Prosecutors, I find it, frankly,
9 incredibly troubling to hear that a month is insufficient to determine
10 whether they're capable of cross-examining this particular expert.
11 Now, the problem with this particular expert is that she is also
12 a professor, so we would like to have that testimony taken this year if
13 possible. We would urge the Court to force the Prosecutor to come up to
14 speed. Frankly, had I received this report on Sunday night or Monday
15 morning, I would have read it by now, especially when the Trial Chamber
16 invited the Prosecutor for their remarks today. One would think that
17 they would at least glance at it. So I do think that perhaps the Trial
18 Chamber should force the Prosecutor and give them a deadline to look at
19 it and come back. And I don't believe and I take offence to the remark
20 that was made - perhaps it was made in haste - that somehow the Trial
21 Chamber is trying to railroad the Prosecution. The Trial Chamber is
22 merely trying to exercise its discretion and trying to push this trial
23 along as expeditiously as possible.
24 Lastly, on the one issue that was raised concerning
25 Ms. Alaburic's motion, I must say that I found the Prosecutor's remarks
1 very balanced, and I believe that the ultimate -- the ultimate conclusion
2 which was at the end of the case, the Trial Chamber would have an
3 opportunity to assess whether the lawyers were efficient and whether they
4 do need some additional time because it would be reasonable. I think
5 that's an adequate solution. And I think far too much time is being
6 spent on this issue. We're spending more time debating this issue than
7 actually time being spent questioning outside the scope. Thank you.
8 MR. STEWART: Could I just raise one question, Your Honour, which
9 occurs to me to arise out of all this, which is that when Mr. Karnavas is
10 finished his case, if he comes to conduct this sort of examination of
11 other Defence witnesses, how would the adjustment be made of his time?
12 Because he will have finished his case, so he will be in the same
13 position as the Prosecution. So I'm just wondering -- it's just a
14 question, really, how it's all going to work then because some sort of
15 equality of treatment among the Defence teams is also presumably inherent
16 in the Trial Chamber's thinking.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: That's why we've been asked to reserve time. We
18 were allocated a certain amount of time, and we're reserving about eight
19 hours. So that should make sure that none of the Defence are going to be
20 treated disproportionately somehow; the first team is going to have the
21 advantage. In fact, I would dare say the first team has a disadvantage
22 above everybody else because we have to prepare in a less amount of time
23 and try to manage our case, especially this type of a case. Thank you.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, Ms. Alaburic. This
25 is what I had understood. Mr. Karnavas since he did not have all his 95
1 hours had set aside a few hours in case such a situation arose. That is
2 the answer he has given you, but that is what I had understood.
3 Ms. Alaburic.
4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe that my
5 learned friend Mr. Karnavas should find this a simple task because in
6 order to present his case, he was given just slightly under twice the
7 time of some of the other Defence teams.
8 What I would like to draw your attention to is this: One issue
9 is additional time being granted for hearing the witnesses of other
10 Defence teams. This is beyond dispute, and this is something that has
11 already been applied in this courtroom. We'll take some of the time and
12 allocate it to our Defence to additionally hear certain other witnesses.
13 This is something that no one is trying to challenge.
14 What we are talking about here is additional issues within the
15 bounds of time already allocated for cross-examination. So let's say I
16 have 20 minutes for my cross-examination. The question remains whether
17 within those 20 minutes I have the right under Rule 90(h) to broach other
18 issues as well. And what if I wish to ask additional questions in
19 relation to these 20 minutes allocated to me? Of course, I will have to
20 use up some of the time that has been allocated to the Petkovic Defence
21 team. Thank you very much.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.
23 MR. STRINGER: Thank you. Just a few remarks in response to
24 counsel. Yes, we know who four of the eight -- well, we know who all the
25 witnesses are in the 98 bis, and four of them have testified here before,
1 and we know who they are. And I said yesterday, we can file a response
2 very fast. We're not being coy. We just need the motion. Just file the
3 motion, and we'll respond, and we can all move forward. That's the
4 point. We don't file motions. We don't make motions like this orally.
5 Put the paper into the registry, and we'll file our response, and we can
6 all move ahead. That's as simple as it needs to be. It doesn't have to
7 be nasty, and it doesn't have to be coy, and we're not being coy. We
8 just want to have a motion to respond to. That's all.
9 I'm not suggesting, Mr. President, that the Trial Chamber is
10 trying to railroad the Prosecution. I think it's evident that the Prlic
11 Defence has tried to railroad the Prosecution in respect of these two
12 experts. Both of these reports have been filed months after a deadline.
13 We've talked about this before, and I know the Trial Chamber doesn't seem
14 to be troubled by that. But again, none of this can work to the
15 prejudice of the Prosecution, and that's -- all we're doing is trying to
16 protect ourselves and give ourselves the ability to prepare having
17 received both of these reports very late -- very late in the game. So
18 those are my only remarks, Mr. President. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, of course the
20 Trial Chamber is concerned. Of course we have realized that these
21 reported had not been filed as had been said in March and April. Of
22 course we contemplated the possibility of dismissing these reports
23 because the deadlines had not been abided by. But we also took into
24 account issues that related to the work of the Defence team, that have a
25 heavier workload, that don't have the same resources as you do, that find
1 it more difficult to get ahold of these experts, so all of this is quite
2 complicated. After having spent a lot of time thinking about this, we
3 felt that in the interest of justice it would be preferable in the future
4 that all expert reports for those upcoming witnesses be filed at least
5 two months ahead of time, two months before the witness in question comes
6 to testify in order to abide by the 30-day deadline of the 94 bis rule of
7 our rules of procedure in evidence. So in the future, it has to be two
9 Of course we are concerned about it. The Trial Chamber is trying
10 to put both parties back on track because if everybody derails, then it's
11 a disaster. This is why we suggest guidelines. We are trying to do our
13 Our last topic, Mr. Karnavas -- Mr. Karnavas, on Thursday the
14 30th of October, could we possibly switch from the morning to the
15 afternoon? This is an application made by the Seselj Chamber. Could we
16 possibly switch and sit in the afternoon and not in the morning as
18 MR. KARNAVAS: We would be more than happy to accommodate Mr.
19 Seselj in the Seselj Chamber. That would not be a problem, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So we will sit on
21 the 30th of October in the afternoon.
22 Let's bring the witness in, and I shall tell the witness that we
23 have been involved in procedural matters. We need a few IC numbers.
24 Registrar, please.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. One of the parties have
1 submitted his objection to the list of documents tendered by the
2 Prosecution through witness Zelenika, Mirko. These objections submitted
3 by the Prlic Defence team have been given Exhibit number IC 00868. Thank
4 you, Your Honour.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 WITNESS: MARINKO SIMUNOVIC [Resumed]
8 [Witness answered through interpreter]
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. You have
10 been waiting since quarter past 2.00. I'm sorry, but we have had to deal
11 with a some of procedural matters. And we were not able to call you in.
12 I apologise for this and for having made you wait, but we could not do it
13 any other way.
14 According to the registrar's calculations, you should have one
15 hour and 50 minutes left, unless I'm mistaken.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: I believe I have slightly less than that, Your
17 Honour. I believe it's an hour and 5 minutes or something to that
18 effect, but...
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was overgenerous with you as
20 you can see.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: I think we will be finished perhaps as early as a
22 half an hour from now.
23 Examination by Mr. Karnavas: [Continued]
24 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
25 A. Good afternoon.
1 Q. If I could go back to where we were yesterday in that last -- we
2 are at the second-to-last, penultimate chapter on distribution of
3 humanitarian aid; and if I could focus your attention on document 1D
4 00303. And when you have it, let me know.
5 A. I have located the document.
6 Q. All right. Now, this concerns the Livno municipalities dated 11
7 May 1993. Have you had a chance to look at it prior to coming to court,
8 this document, during the proofing session?
9 A. Yes, yes, but not before that.
10 Q. Not before that. Now, in looking at this particular document, we
11 can see that the humanitarian -- the criteria set out by the Livno
12 municipalities, can you tell us whether looking at what is being done in
13 the Livno whether Mostar was doing the same thing, setting criteria, that
14 is for the humanitarian aid?
15 A. Yes. The coordinating committee in cooperation with the social
16 welfare centre worked on setting up these criteria, and the records were
17 set up according to the rules that we discussed yesterday.
18 Q. All right. Is Livno doing anything differently than what Mostar
19 is doing at this time?
20 A. It is possible that the quantities allocated for distribution
21 were different in viewing the overall amount of humanitarian aid
22 received. Anyway, all distribution criteria were based on the
23 availability of the aid.
24 Q. All right. Well, let me focus your attention now for
25 illustrative purposes on Article 28, Roman numeral XXVIII. Do you have
1 it, sir?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. From here we can see that it sets out certain criteria, 5
4 kilograms of flour per person in a household and so on and so forth. Are
5 we to understand that Mostar had similar criteria, these sorts of items?
6 A. Yes, especially since this reminds me of the criteria that the
7 ICRC applies, and a little below -- anything below that would be
8 insufficient for distribution. So these are minimum quantities and
9 minimum criteria applicable to distribution to either families or
10 individuals to satisfy the minimum needs that they have in a month.
11 Q. All right. Well, you indicated this would be minimum
12 distribution. What if - hypothetical - what if in your warehouse you
13 have various items, but because of the number of people that you need to
14 distribute the aid to, you cannot meet the minimum distribution per
15 person? What happens then?
16 A. Then we have a problem, and we would solve this problem in a
17 variety of ways. We would look at the plan for the forthcoming influx of
18 aid, if we had any notices thereof, and then we would postpone the
19 distribution pending the arrival of these forthcoming quantities.
20 If we were not certain that humanitarian aid would arrive any
21 time soon, then we would conduct the distribution according to
22 priorities, but then again, not below the minimum quantities required for
23 sustenance, the ones that are presented here.
24 Q. All right. Well, yesterday, we talked about the situation in
25 Mostar in April and May, and you had indicated based on the charts that
1 we saw that collectively, the coordinating committee had very few
2 resources available for distribution; and you also indicated from your
3 notes that there were some 30.000 displaced persons in Mostar, correct?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. Well, let's say now, hypothetically speaking, that you only have
6 enough for 15 or 20.000. Why not -- why not distribute to all but
7 distribute less than the minimum quantity as prescribed by the criteria,
8 so at least, then, everybody gets a little bit?
9 A. I think that such distribution would only cause dissatisfaction
10 among beneficiaries, and that would cause the situation to deteriorate
11 because as much as those people were needy, they were still unwilling to
12 be treated subhumanely, so we took very good care not to create
13 additional problems for these people, not to offend them by offering them
14 such meager quantities. So any distribution in such minor quantities
15 would be seen by them as humiliation.
16 Q. All right. Let's go on to the next document, 1D 02763. 1D
17 02673. And in this particular document, we see various certificates. Do
18 you have that, sir?
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. You can see at the top of the page, Social Welfare Centre Mostar,
21 24 May 1993
22 have the same date. This Social Welfare Centre Mostar, this is the
23 municipality of Mostar
24 A. Yes, yes.
25 Q. Now, in looking at -- let's look at the first certificate. Maybe
1 you can help us out here. This certifies a Mr. Izet Curic, that he is an
2 employee of the Mostar Social Welfare Centre and employed as a social
3 worker. Did you know this individual?
4 A. Yes. I knew him personally.
5 Q. And could you please tell us what a social worker did within the
6 social welfare centre? Concretely, what were the sort of tasks that
7 social workers were doing?
8 A. Well, this certificate is not actually a certificate or a proof.
9 These were actually issued to employees of the social welfare centre in
10 order to allow them to go into the field to assess the situation and the
11 needs there and to analyse the method of distributing humanitarian aid in
12 cooperation with people from humanitarian organisations operating in
13 local communes.
14 Q. All right.
15 A. So they were employees of the social welfare centre; and at the
16 same time, based on this certificate as proof, they were allowed to go
17 out into the field and to assess the situation there.
18 Q. All right. Well, yesterday we saw the chart, and you discussed a
19 little bit about how the food was ultimately distributed at the commune
20 level: People got cards, they would come to the commune centre, and then
21 they would receive their aid. Am I stating your testimony correct from
23 A. Yes. That's how it was.
24 Q. Okay. Now you're telling us that individuals such as Mr. Curic
25 as a social worker would go into the field and make assessments. Would
1 he be making assessments at the commune level to see whether particular
2 individuals met the criteria in order to get the card so that they could
3 go to the commune when food was being distributed?
4 A. One of the main task was precisely that, which is that in
5 cooperation with the local commune commissioner, he assesses a situation
6 as a professional and check whether the aid was received by those who
7 have properly certified cards, whether there are some newcomers who need
8 to be given a status and issued with a card. So the whole process of
9 validity and confirmation of the cards was under the supervision of this
10 person from the social welfare centre.
11 Q. And by looking at the name, and of course you know the gentleman,
12 can you tell us whether he was a Croat or a Muslim or a Serb?
13 A. Judging by the name he was a Muslim; but since I know him
14 personally, I can confirm that.
15 Q. All right. Let's just look again at the second certificate.
16 This is for a Mr. Fehim Sunagic. He's also a social worker. This is
17 again dated 24 May 1993
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What nationality is he?
20 A. The same like the previous one, a Muslim.
21 Q. And the next certificate, again, dated 24 May 1993, a Mr. Mehmed
23 A. He's also a Muslim.
24 Q. Did you know this individual?
25 A. Yes, yes, I did.
1 Q. And he was doing the same work as the others that were doing, if
2 you know?
3 A. Yes, yes.
4 Q. Then we have a Ms. Elvira Colic. She is employed as a protocol
5 officer. Did you know Ms. Colic?
6 A. Yes. And what's written here as a description of what she did is
7 correct. I know that this is what she was doing at the time.
8 Q. All right. Can you tell us what a protocol officer does or did
9 back then?
10 A. Keeping records of incoming mail, making categorization of cards
11 received by the centre to be verified and certified, and all other
12 supporting documents that were delivered to that institution.
13 Q. Is this individual Muslim or Croat?
14 A. She was also a Muslim.
15 Q. The next certificate [French interpretation], is she a Muslim?
16 A. [French interpretation] She was also a Muslim, and I had many a
17 cup of coffee that she made for me.
18 Q. And what about the next certificate, a Ms. Hata Colic [French
20 A. The same. This lady was a Muslim, and she did the same job as
21 the previous one.
22 Q. Then we go on again, the next certificate is [French
23 interpretation] Pervan [phoen]?
24 A. The same.
25 Q. And what did she -- she's -- you can see that she is a social
1 [French interpretation]?
2 A. Yes, yes. There were 32 local communes in Mostar, which required
3 a large number of people to be out in the field monitoring the situation.
4 Q. And finally, the last certificate, 26th of May, 1993. Do you see
5 this name to know whether this is a Muslim or a Croat?
6 A. This is a Muslim woman, since this is a female and the status and
7 the reason for issuing this certificate was the same; only the time frame
8 was different. If anyone was required to go out, they had to have this
9 kind of certificate on themselves in order to prove that they are
10 authorised social workers working in the field.
11 Q. All right. If we request go on to the next document, 1D 02771.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. Witness, I
13 have three questions for you. I think they are relevant based on these
14 eight documents that we've just seen. I noticed that for most of the
15 documents, they were written on the 24th of May, 1993; but for the last
16 one, that was drawn up on the 26th of May, 1993. We know that all the
17 people mentioned in the documents are Muslims. You told us that you knew
18 them because you discussed things with them. You even said that you
19 would take -- you would have coffee with one of them.
20 Based on this, I have three series of questions. So these are
21 Muslims working in the social work centre. Where did they live? Did
22 they live in East or West Mostar? Where did these people live?
THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were living in West Mostar
24 Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So they were living
1 in West Mostar.
2 Most of the certificates concern women. I suppose these women
3 had husbands; they were married. Did these women speak about their
4 husbands? What did they do? What was their occupation?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Believe me, I don't know. There
6 were men, as well, on this list, but I don't know their personal
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you did not know their
9 personal situation in any detailed manner? You talked about their work
10 with them, I suppose, about their lives, didn't you?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I didn't have time to discuss
12 their lives with them. We always only talked about work during working
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. But when you would
15 discuss with them, would they mention the problems that there were at the
16 time? Did they, for instance, say that they at any point in time they
17 had learned that Muslims had been arrested, had been transferred to
18 Heliodrom? Did they speak to you about it, or were these topics you
19 would never speak about?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't discuss those things with
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] They were working in West
23 Mostar, and you said they also lived there. Could they move about
24 freely, or would they come up with problems?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. They had no problems
1 moving around. They would come to work, go out into the field, and the
2 purpose was these certificates to allow them to go out into the field, so
3 they had absolute freedom of movement. If Your Honours would like to
4 know, I could tell you that at the time in West Mostar, there were about
5 8.000 Muslims, 2 and a half thousand Serbs, and about 1.000 others in
6 addition to 30-odd-something-thousand Croats, and these figures are more
7 or less accurate.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. From what you say,
9 back then in May, say, in West Mostar, there were 8.000 Muslims?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How many Croats in West Mostar
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About 30.000.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. 30.000, you said so. So
15 there were 8.000 Muslims moving around without any problem; is that so?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course. They were
17 beneficiaries. Anyone who was capable of doing work or becoming engaged,
18 they were engaged, and they were doing all sorts of work; and there were
19 no problems in that respect. And this was already a time when the
20 situation was somewhat normalised as compared to the initial stage when
21 the conflict started; but as time went on, the situation progressed.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Were there men, women, children
23 among the 8.000 Muslims? The children - for instance, the children of
24 your employees - would they go to school or not?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If the schools were open, yes, but
1 I can't remember now whether schools were working at the time or not.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You do not know whether the
3 schools were working? Did you yourself -- did you have children?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My children were with my mother
5 and father in Peljesac in Croatia
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No because if you told me that
7 you had children --
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, lots of women and
9 children had left the war zone and become refugees, and that took place
10 at the very beginning when the conflict broke out in April 1992 in
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Yes. Another
13 question. Judge Mindua.
14 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, two small questions.
15 Could you remind me, how many people were employed in this social centre
16 in Mostar in May 1993? We've just seen eight certificates, but I'd like
17 to know how many altogether there were there.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can just give you an approximate
19 answer, but I think that there were up to 30 employees.
20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very well. So out of 30 --
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But not more than 30, as far as I
23 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Fine. So these eight
24 certificates for Muslims, is that the overall number of Muslims working
25 in the centre, or were you just giving us some examples?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think so. These were the
2 people who were required to go out into the fields; and in view of the
3 overall situation and the need for them to cooperate with the local
4 commune staff, they were issued with these certificates in order to allow
5 them to go out into the field. The other employees who didn't need to go
6 out normally came to their offices and did their job at the centre.
7 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you. Just one more
8 question: What was the, say, political affiliation of the people
9 employed in the centre? In other words, did the employer, the centre as
10 such, did it know the political affiliation of every employee? Did they
11 know what political party they would belong, for instance?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think that I'm able to
13 give you an answer to this question. I just met these -- with these
14 people within our work and the scope of our work, and I knew nothing
15 about their political affiliations or any thoughts that they might have
16 on this subject.
17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Very last question. We have seen
18 the certificates, mostly delivered to female employees. If these women
19 were married, did some of them have Muslim husbands?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I absolutely don't
21 know who they were married to. That was their personal affair, and I can
22 say nothing about that. All I can say, that there were lots of mixed
23 marriages in Mostar, Muslims married to Croats or -- Muslim men married
24 to Croat women and vice-versa, but I don't know anything about these
25 particular cases.
1 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. You've
2 answered my questions.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honours.
6 Q. If we turn to the next document, 1D 2771. And the next few
7 documents, in fact, are more or less the same with the exception of the
8 last document in this bundle. This document, we see that there's a list
9 of welfare beneficiaries, and it's dated 25 June 1995. We see that at
10 the top. Do you know for what period of time this list was for?
11 A. If I look at the date on this document, this appears to be June
12 1993, possibly May or June. I think June.
13 Q. It must be a translation error on my part or in the English
14 version. Okay. Now, looking at this document very briefly, I know we've
15 looked at it together, and there is a --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you're right. In
17 the English translation, it's dated 1995; but if you look at the
18 original, I see 1993.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Mr. President.
20 Q. And if we look at this document, there are 70 names. Can you
21 tell us by looking at the names whether within this list you have Muslim
23 A. More than 25 if my count is correct. 28, a total of 28, I think,
24 that I've come across.
25 Q. Thank you. Just as a representation, for instance, number 3,
1 number 6, number 7, number 10, number 12, number 15, number 16, number
2 17: These are all Muslim names, correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. We won't go through the rest.
5 If we look at the next document, 1D 02769, do you recognise this
6 document, and if so, what is it?
7 A. This is another list of eight beneficiaries in a different local
8 commune. This was drawn up to indicate categories of aid as well as a
9 status of beneficiaries and then various groups of those. The document
10 is quite complete, thorough. It has all the information: address,
11 father's name, name, ethnicity. It's all reflected in this document, and
12 it's crystal clear.
13 Q. It's dated 16 August 1993
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And can you tell us, who would have prepared this document? Who
16 was responsible for preparing this document?
17 A. This document was drawn up by the governing commissioner for this
18 local commune in cooperation with commissioners of the social welfare
19 centre and commissioners of the humanitarian organisations who worked in
20 these local communes.
21 Q. Now, we know at the time - that is August 1993 - you were still
22 with the Red Cross. Would you have come across this document or this
23 sort of a document in your work?
24 A. I had an associate who worked with humanitarian aid who would
25 have known about a document like this because he checked the status and
1 distribution of humanitarian aid and cross-referenced them with lists
2 drawn up by commissioners across local communes. Based on the final
3 result in terms of how many beneficiaries there were, we would distribute
4 aid. So this associate of mine probably had a chance to look at all
5 these documents in each of the local communes.
6 Q. All right. Now, if we look at the next two documents, 1D 0 --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for Mr. Karnavas, please.
8 MR. KARNAVAS:
9 Q. -- the next two documents, 1D 02768 and 2774. These are more or
10 less the same sort of lists, correct?
11 A. Yes, the distinction being this is a new local commune with new
13 Q. All right. Well, what about 1D 02770 dated 31 August 1993? It
14 says "list families of civilian victims of the homeland war." Can you
15 please tell us what this list is about, or is it somewhat similar to the
16 ones that we have seen already?
17 A. Yes, but this is a different kind of category. People who
18 suffered in the war. They were also, in a way, jeopardized and therefore
19 were entitled to special aid.
20 Q. All right. Let's look at the final document in this chapter, 1D
21 02659. 2659. This is a report on work in 1994. If you look at the end
22 of this report, before we get to the chart, we see your name as
23 president. That would have been president of the Red Cross of the
24 municipality of Mostar, correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And I assume since it bears your name and signature that you
2 would have been responsible for the preparation of this particular
4 A. Of course. I had to submit a report every year to the assembly
5 of the Red Cross on the work of the Red Cross over the previous year. If
6 you look at this report, particularly in relation to the one that we
7 looked at yesterday, you can observe a continuity in the work of the Red
8 Cross, a continuity in its work across a number of different areas.
9 Furthermore, there is new information here about newly arisen
10 situations in 1994. This report shows a somewhat improved situation as
11 compared to the previous year.
12 Q. And of course, if we look at the last page, the chart, we can see
13 that the food or the resources that were available month per month are
14 relatively good compared to what we saw in 1993, at least that one period
15 of April and May 1993; is that right?
16 A. Yes, that's precisely what it shows. This list is about the rate
17 of arrival of food in Mostar Red Cross in 1994. I sort of missed the
18 list in relation to the first six months because if we had that, we would
19 be able to see that there was sufficient aid. The quantities are no
20 longer as they were back in 1993 in the thick of the war. The quantities
21 of aid were also reflection of the trust in the work of the Red Cross,
22 the transparency of its activities, the quality of both reception and
23 distribution. This is one thing that I can state with the greatest
24 amount of certainty.
25 If you look at this report, you can see that on a daily basis
1 there were over 32 tonnes of various kinds of aid passing through. These
2 are no negligible quantities. In addition to its ambition to have aid
3 distributed to everyone, the Red Cross was facing a great deal of
4 trouble, and it required a huge effort to accomplish all of these tasks
5 in the best possible way. Needless to say, we could not have done this
6 alone. There were local commune commissioners always at hand to get
7 their men and go and get help, representatives of the civil protection
8 who helped us load and unload aid. There were various activists as well
9 as employees of the Red Cross who went about their work on a regular
10 basis. They would monitor the situation, incoming goods, goods being
11 distributed, as well as anything else included in this report.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: All right. Unless there are any questions from
13 the Bench, I'm going to move to the final chapter of my --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one minor question. We've
15 just seen this report. It concerns the year 1994. With regard to the
16 previous year, is there a similar report?
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may refresh everyone's memory,
18 we saw that yesterday, but we can go back to that if you wish to make
19 some comparisons; and that would be number 2651, Your Honour. That would
20 have been the -- I believe the third chapter of the list of documents,
21 and that was where we looked at some of the charts yesterday, if you may
22 recall, for the various months.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The reason why I was
24 asking you this is that I had not forgotten about Document 2651, and I
25 think that for the year 1994 you chose another format, is that right, to
1 show your activity?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it's obvious if you
3 cross-reference the two documents, but the substance remains the same.
4 There were different sectors in the work of the Red Cross, and reports
5 were submitted in relation to each of these in a slightly abbreviated
6 form. Later reports in relation to 1995, 1996, and on for as long as I
7 was still with the Red Cross were much shorter. None of the activities
8 and tasks performed were ever omitted, nevertheless.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, the time has come
10 for the break. We're going to break now, and you can deal with your last
11 chapter after the break. Let's break for 20 minutes now.
12 --- Recess taken at 3.42 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 4.08 p.m.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Court is back in session.
15 Judge Prandler has a question.
16 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Mr. President. Yesterday, we have
17 already talked about the international relationship as far as the Red
18 Cross movement is concerned and the Red Cross Red Crescent movement, and
19 I would like to revisit that problem and ask you, Mr. Simunovic, the
20 following question.
21 Just before we adjourned, the report, your report of the
22 activities of the municipal organisation of Red Cross Mostar in 1993 had
23 been mentioned by Mr. Karnavas; and then if we look at the report in
24 English translation of it, then we will see that the -- Red Cross Mostar
25 in the major heading, Red Cross Mostar, then Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 then Red Cross of Croatia, Republic Herceg-Bosna, and then again township
2 organisation Mostar.
3 Now, my question is about the following, that the -- as we also
4 mentioned yesterday, as a rule, the international Red Cross and Red
5 Crescent movement accepts one organisation from and in each country, and
6 we have here in the title Bosnia and Herzegovina, but as a republic, of
7 course, I assume, at the same time the name of your organisation is being
8 mentioned here as Red Cross of Croatia
9 question is, was that organisation as such and your name officially
10 accepted by both, by the international committee of Red Cross, that is
11 ICRC, and by the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red
12 Crescent Societies? I'm interested in this question also from the point
13 of view of my own experience that at that time in Hungary and Budapest
14 the regional delegation of the International Federation of Red Cross and
15 Red Crescent Societies had been established just for dealing with --
16 mainly with the problems which were created by the tragic events in
17 former Yugoslavia
18 So my question is, therefore, that was there any official
19 recognition by the two mentioned international organisations, that is
20 ICRC and the international federation of your organisation? Did you have
21 any - quote, unquote - "official" contacts with them, and did you have,
22 for example, contacts with their Geneva-based centres and organisations?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thank you for this question,
24 Your Honour. I can expand at great length on this subject since I have
25 witnessed all the developments surrounding the transformation of the Red
1 Cross in Bosnia-Herzegovina starting with Day 1 and my arrival in Mostar,
2 all the way up until my very last day with the Red Cross.
3 As for the use of the Red Cross symbol, the only legal Red Cross
4 in Bosnia-Herzegovina internationally recognised up until the war was the
5 BH Red Cross, which had a cross as its universally recognised and
6 acknowledged symbol. There was nothing that was questionable about the
7 use of that symbol.
8 As for international recognition by the International Red Cross,
9 that did not occur pursuant to a request from the Sarajevo body back in
10 1993 when the request for recognition was first submitted; the reason
11 being, that particular body did not exercise any control over the work of
12 the various institutions throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina. Nevertheless,
13 the use of the symbol and cooperation with the International Committee of
14 the Red Cross and the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red
15 Crescent Society was never placed in doubt because of this situation that
17 It wasn't before the 15th of December, 2000, at an international
18 conference of the International Red Cross that the BH Red Cross society
19 was fully officially recognised. The following year at the general
20 session, all the documents were adopted. On the 15th of December,
21 rather, we held a founding assembly of this unified body for all of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and then on the 8th of May, the Red Cross day the
23 following year, the international recognition followed. It wasn't before
24 then that these issues were resolved and the Red Cross symbol was
25 confirmed and ratified as our national symbol, as well, although that
1 symbol had up to then been used in all of the 169 local commune
2 organisations that had been hard at work, although there was no unifying
4 In the Republika Srpska, you had the Republika Srpska Red Cross,
5 which also submitted a request for international recognition; however,
6 the response they got seven days later was that this was unfortunately
7 impossible because their activities did not cover the entire territory of
8 an internationally recognised country. The Red Cross of the Croatian
9 Republic of Herceg-Bosna never submitted a request for international
10 recognition to begin with. It was established only for the purpose of
11 coordination in that particular area.
12 What was required was an institutional response to all of the
13 tasks that were arising after the law on the Red Cross of the Croatian
14 Republic of Herceg-Bosna had been adopted. Cooperation with
15 international societies of the Red Cross and the Red Crescent, the
18 visit to Budapest
19 chance to be involved in all of the activities surrounding the founding
20 session in Geneva
21 So as regards your question and the situation, this was something
22 that was seriously considered, and this was fully under the control of
23 the people who were involved with the work of the Red Cross. We were
24 also aware of the fact that in some predominantly Muslim municipalities
25 there was the Red Crescent, and they were active too. Nevertheless, they
1 didn't have the required structure, and they never submitted any sort of
2 individual request for any form of recognition whatsoever. Therefore, as
3 I said yesterday, for purely humanitarian reasons and needs - and that
4 was why they were around in the first place - we indicated the problem of
5 their existence. Nevertheless, we believed that the aid that they as an
6 organisation were providing was reason enough for us to not raise this as
7 a problem or an issue. At the time they were working in the area, it was
8 more important to get more aid rather than raise the issue of the symbol
9 they were using because they weren't using their symbol officially. But
10 since aid was coming in from that source, as well, we didn't mind,
11 although we did in fact indicate this problem. All the institutions of
12 the Red Cross were using one symbol and one symbol alone: the cross.
13 Today it is still the cross. And now it is an internationally recognised
14 association, a society in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
15 JUDGE PRANDLER: [Microphone not activated] Sorry. I would like
16 to thank you, Mr. Simunovic, for your very argumented answer, and I would
17 like to then say that it is what I also believed, that before 2000, that
18 is before the international conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
19 Societies in Geneva
20 and Herzegovina
21 confirmation of the respective international bodies; but of course, you
22 have done your work, and of course, then the official recognition came in
23 2000. Thank you very much.
24 MR. KARNAVAS:
25 Q. Just one point of clarification on the record. Page 41, line 7
1 to 8. It wasn't caught on the transcript. I did hear on the
2 translation. The gentleman indicated, and I will ask for a confirmation,
3 where he said that the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna never submitted
4 any documentation for international recognition, is that correct, to the
5 Red Cross?
6 A. Yes, yes, that's correct. We did not submit any request for
7 international recognition, being as we were aware of the fact that we did
8 not enjoy authority over the entire territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina and
9 aware as we were of the fact that the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
10 an internationally recognised country.
11 Q. I just wanted to make sure we got that clarification. And one
12 more point picking up on the question that was asked of you: The
13 international Red Cross, the ICRC was on the ground in Mostar during
14 1992, 1993, monitoring and assisting your work; is that correct?
15 A. Yes. This is certainly correct, but during the period of the
16 most intense clashes they moved their office to Medjugorje. The rest of
17 the time, we had worked directly with that institution. International
18 Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Associations only merged at
19 a later stage, and they got in touch directly with these Red Cross
20 organisations, including ours in Mostar.
21 Q. All right. I was --
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one point of detail. The
23 Red Crescent was mentioned. I wanted to ask a question yesterday. We
24 didn't have time for me to do so, so I'll put it straightaway. There was
25 a Red Cross crescent, and there was also Merhamet. How did they both
1 work? Did they work together, or were they rival organisations? I'm
2 talking about the Red Crescent and Merhamet.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Given the fact that upon obtaining
4 membership in the coordinating committee both institutions are the
5 representatives along with all the other humanitarian organisations,
6 there was no competition in the sense of causing each other problems.
7 There was a certain amount of rivalry in the sense of getting as much aid
8 into the country as possible. As to their mutual relations outside the
9 coordinating committee, I'm really not privy to that kind of detail.
10 However, I did work with both these organisations, and our relations were
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Your Honours, for those questions.
14 Q. And now let's go to the very last chapter. We'll be very brief
15 on this. This has to do with the issue of public kitchens. It has come
16 up before with one particular witness from the Prosecution, and I just
17 want to get some of your testimony in regards to this.
18 If we look at 1D 02773 -- do you have it, sir?
19 A. [In English] Yes.
20 Q. And it's dated 15 July 1992
21 establishment of soup kitchens, conditions and criteria, and I take it
22 you have looked at this -- you have looked at this document, correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And did you know the director, Mr. Enver Pavlovic?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. All right. Can you tell us whether, indeed, at that time in
2 Mostar there were soup kitchens?
3 A. If I may, I would like to interpret this document a little. This
4 is --
5 Q. We were going to get to that step by step. First, you're going
6 to -- so let me lead you with my questions, and then we'll get to the
7 document. So the first general question: Were there soup kitchens? So
8 were there soup kitchens at the time?
9 A. Yes. There are now, as a matter of fact.
10 Q. All right. And could you describe so at least we have some sort
11 of a mental picture of what a soup kitchen looked like and where they may
12 have been at that time.
13 A. Soup kitchens were set up in buildings where it was possible to
14 prepare food in an organised way and where there was sufficient room for
15 numbers of people to come and have a cooked meal. Sometimes, food that
16 was cooked would be taken elsewhere outside the building itself. Certain
17 locations were quite remote within the town itself, and some people who
18 were in need of this sort of service would have been at too much of a
19 risk going there on a daily basis to fetch their food.
20 Q. All right. How many meals a day were these soup kitchens cooking
21 or providing?
22 A. Depending on the capacity of each of these and depending on their
23 locations, the largest one was producing between 700 and 800 meals a day,
24 and this is the one that was based at the Herzegovina restaurant, which
25 enjoyed the best conditions, objectively speaking, for preparing an
1 amount of food like that.
2 Q. All right. Did you ever eat in any of these soup kitchens to see
3 the quality of the food?
4 A. Of course, I did.
5 Q. Please tell us, you know, how was it?
6 A. The chef would draw up a weekly plan of meals to be prepared.
7 That plan was then followed, and humanitarian workers had this
8 organisation scheme that we had and that we explained about yesterday in
9 terms of distributing humanitarian aid, so this was then distributed. As
10 for the basic supplies such as fresh meat or spices, which were the sort
11 of staples that hardly ever arrived as humanitarian aid, this was
12 something that was financed from the budget of the social welfare centre;
13 and the social welfare centre was one of the co-founders of the soup
14 kitchens. Each day, a warm meal would be cooked with the exception of
15 Sundays when beneficiaries would be given some sort of a dry ration.
16 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned "chef," and I was going to ask you, who
17 cooked these meals?
18 A. Professional cooks who were employees of these soup kitchens.
19 They were employees, as a matter of fact, of the social welfare centre
20 and were under the supervision of all the sanitary institutions, the
21 objective being to prevent any disease from spreading. They were under
22 the supervision of all the other medical institutions, as well, when it
23 came to the health and hygiene standards being applied to the food that
24 they were preparing. In addition to those professional cooks, there were
25 people there who helped with processing food stuffs in terms of preparing
1 them for cooking.
2 Q. All right. And if I understood your previous answers, the Red
3 Cross along with other organisations were providing some of the food
4 stuffs that would be actually cooked at these soup kitchens. Is that --
5 did I understand you correctly?
6 A. Yes. The Red Cross provided a quantity of flour to the bakeries
7 on both sides in order to allow the soup kitchens to bake enough quantity
8 of bread, and that was a daily obligation of the Red Cross.
9 Q. Did any of the international organisations such as UNHCR, ICRC
10 complain of the fact that soup kitchens were being set up in order to
11 feed the hungry and the needy?
12 A. Not to my knowledge.
13 Q. All right. Finally, before we get to the document, before we get
14 there, my last question is, does someone have to qualify in order to go
15 to the soup kitchen to receive a meal? Do they need some sort of a
16 ration card, or could they just show up? What was the procedure, if you
17 could tell us.
18 A. In order to make an assumption of the daily number of
19 beneficiaries to arrive, an assessment would be made of those who want or
20 need to go to a soup kitchen, and a certain number of people had cards of
21 soup kitchen beneficiaries; however, any soup kitchen was open for anyone
22 who on that particular day had no other possibility of getting a meal.
23 And this number accounted for perhaps 3 to 5 percent of the total number
24 of users.
25 Q. All right. Now let's go to the document. Now we're ready. 1D
1 02773. And if I may just point out a couple of things. You can see in
2 the middle of the page that there are facilities on the right bank and on
3 the left bank of the Neretva river. Can you confirm whether those
4 kitchens were indeed in place at this time, because this document is
5 dated 15 July 1992
6 A. Some of them, yes, but some of them were just -- only being
7 planned to be opened, so this document also contains an initiative for
8 new ones to be opened.
9 Q. All right. Now, you wanted to comment about this document. What
10 else is it that strikes you about this document?
11 A. Well, this document, in my view, was a good basis for launching
12 an important humanitarian initiative or category, and that is to ensure
13 warm meals for the needy; and this initiative was welcomed by
14 humanitarian organisations and the Red Cross. And from within the
15 schedule of work of the coordinating committee, one can see that the soup
16 kitchens were at the top of priority for providing locations and sites
17 where people would receive aid. But that, of course, applied only to
18 those locations that could be used for soup kitchens and preparation of
20 As far as the work of soup kitchens is concerned, as I said
21 earlier, they still exist in Mostar, one on the left bank and the other
22 one on the right bank, although Mostar is not a divided town any longer,
23 and they still have their beneficiaries. In other words, there are still
24 needy people who do not have proper conditions for making or cooking
25 their own meals.
1 Q. All right. Thank you. If we go on to the next document, and the
2 next set of documents, actually, are sort of related or interrelated. 1D
3 02767. We see this one is dated 12 November 1993, and this is the social
4 welfare centre, and we note the acting director is Marko Bevanda. I
5 assume that you know this gentleman.
6 A. Yes, I know Mr. Bevanda.
7 Q. It says here in the very first paragraph: "By a decision of the
8 Mostar municipality HVO approving the opening of a soup kitchen in
9 Mostar, number 01-380/93 of 21 October 1993
10 Herzegovina GP construction company..." and it gives the address. Can
11 you confirm whether, indeed, that soup kitchen opened and was operating?
12 A. Yes, at this address.
13 Q. It then goes on to say that: "As this facility has no fixtures
14 and fittings and we have information that the Herzegovina Hotel has
15 fixtures and fittings that would serve this purpose, we hereby ask for
16 your approval for the requisition of the fixtures and fittings necessary
17 for the opening of a soup kitchen." Do you know the Herzegovina Hotel?
18 A. I do.
19 Q. Which side is it, the left or the right?
20 A. On the right-hand side.
21 Q. Okay. And what sort of fixtures and fittings are they talking
22 about, if you know?
23 A. Well, the premises of GP Herzegovina, that is, their former
24 canteen lacked chairs and tables. It also lacked big pots for cooking,
25 and it was not a suitable area to open a soup kitchen. Therefore, the
1 director of the social welfare centre addressed the bureau for economy of
2 the municipality of Mostar
3 for the Hotel Herzegovina, which was not operating at the time, in order
4 to establish the soup kitchen, and that is how it happened.
5 Q. All right. And let's look at some of the other documents that
6 would assist in that. 1D 02766 dated 16 November 1993. Here we see that
7 there's an approval of the requisition of the necessary fixtures and
8 fittings from the Herzegovina Hotel, and we see the header, "the economic
9 office," a Vlado Bevanda. I take it you know this gentleman as well?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And then going on to the next document, 1D 02765, this is 22
12 November 1993. This is from the acting director a Marko Bevanda writing:
13 "We hereby ask you to approve the following tools and feeding items for
14 the basic operation of the soup kitchen..." and we can see the various
15 items, and this is to the Mostar IRC. Do you know what -- what is this
16 -- who is this request to?
17 A. I know that's the international rescue committee, an organisation
18 which was active in Mostar; but in its programme, it was not involved in
19 providing humanitarian aid in food, but rather, helped by providing items
20 that were needed to launch businesses and other economic facilities. So
21 one could describe it more as providing something that was intended for
22 reconstruction of the town to clean the facilities.
23 Q. All right. And finally, 1D 02764. This is dated 8 December
24 1993. And here we have a report, and this -- have you had a chance to
25 look at this report? This is, again, by the deputy director, Mr. Marko
2 A. I saw this report only during an earlier preparation, but I know
3 that all this was happening at the time and that it happened as
5 Q. And I take it the soup kitchen functioned as it was expected to?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Thank you. I was going to ask you -- that concludes this
8 chapter. I was going to conclude my questioning by asking you about the
9 events after 1994, post-Washington agreement, but I believe we covered
10 that with Judge Prandler's question and you quite nicely told us about
11 the continuing evolution of the Red Cross in Bosnia Herzegovina.
12 So with that, I want to thank you very much, sir, for giving
13 evidence at this stage, and we hope that you would be as forthcoming with
14 the others as you have been with us.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, that concludes my direct examination.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Excuse me. I would also like to
17 thank you for leading this part nicely, and I thank to all of you who
18 asked me questions in this introductory section.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We shall now address the second
20 part and hear Defence counsel representing the other accused. Since Mr.
21 Karnavas has had three hours, so you will half an hour and a half. I
22 don't know how you are going to share your time.
23 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
24 Your Honour. Good afternoon to everyone in the courtroom.
25 Cross-examination by Ms. Pinter:
1 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Simunovic. On behalf of General Praljak's
2 Defence team, I would like to ask you few questions for the information
3 of the Chamber, and pursuant to the decision of the Chamber, I'm
4 referring you to a document that was used by Dr. Prlic's Defence team,
5 and that's document 1D 02761, which was mentioned on pages 68 and 69 of
6 the record of yesterday's session, as well as on page 89 of the record,
7 line 9, where mention was made of family cards and individuals who took
8 care of those cards.
9 Mr. Simunovic, you have the set of documents in front of you, and
10 I would kindly ask you to look at document 3D 03178. You would agree
11 with me that this is a family card similar to the one that we saw
12 yesterday and that was issued by the Rodoc local commune?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. This card refers to the Strelcevina local commune?
15 A. Yes. You can see that it --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Will the speakers please
17 pause between questions and answers.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This local commune covers the
19 centre of the town, and it is a pretty large local commune.
20 Q. I apologise to the interpreters. I'm going to repeat the
21 question because due to the pace the question was not recorded in the
22 transcript. My question was, what was the area covered by Strelcevina
23 local commune. Strelcevina.
24 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] I've just been warned that according
25 to the transcript, it seems that his honour Judge Antonetti is leading
1 this examination, and that was recorded on page 51, line 16; therefore, I
2 would like the transcript to be corrected in the sense that this
3 examination is being led Nika Pinter.
4 Mr. Simunovic, can we now go through --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I know that I ask a great many
6 questions, but you shouldn't attribute to me questions that I haven't
8 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Precisely, especially if you do not
9 agree with them.
10 Q. Let us now go through this card. On the left-hand side, it reads
11 what the nationality of the recipient of the aid is. Is that correct.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. We see that is he a Muslim?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. That he is teacher?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And also listed are his family members?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. They were all receiving humanitarian aid?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Who filled out these cards?
22 A. Government commissioners for a specific local commune after they
23 conducted the procedure that I described earlier in cooperation with the
24 social welfare centre and humanitarian organisations.
25 Q. As we can see, this first card refers to a person who is a Muslim
1 by ethnicity. Is that correct?
2 A. That's what it reads.
3 Q. On the next page, we see the dates indicating what?
4 A. The first column on the left indicates the type of the aid
5 received, and it's stated in codes. If we recall what we spoke about
6 yesterday, this was the list that was put up as public notices in local
7 communes, and it's indicated that the distribution took place. The
8 column on the right contains the dates, when the distribution actually
9 took place.
10 Q. Therefore, this is not the date until which the distribution was
11 provided but actually the date when it was delivered. Can you now look
12 at document 3D 03227, which comprises of a number of documents, and these
13 are family cards as well. However, on the first one, we see that it was
14 issued in the Zahum local commune?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can you tell us what these dates on the front cover indicate?
17 A. These dates indicate the dates when this card was certified or
18 confirmed by the social welfare centre.
19 Q. This family card was held by a Muslim person according to the
20 details there?
21 A. His name is Palandzic --
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: Will the speakers please
23 pause between questions and answers.
24 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation]
25 Q. So this is the Zahum local commune?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. This is a different street now, isn't it? This street is 8 Dzuka
3 [phoen], number 4, right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Is there a such a street in Mostar? Dzika [phoen], Dzuka?
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreters note: The English interpretation
7 will resume once the speakers have been kindly reminded to observe a
8 pause. Thank you.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So the address is 8 Dalmatian,
10 Assault, Corps. It's an acronym.
11 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Very well. Can you go back to the first file, please. What
13 address is this?
14 A. Ilicka 4.
15 Q. Is this a street?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Thank you. Can you please go to the next file now. Zahum again.
18 The person in question, Nusret Suta?
19 A. Yes, I've got it.
20 Q. Thank you. Again, Asim Duka, 8, right? The street?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Again, the date aid was received, right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And number of other files that we have here. Can you please go
25 to the one where it says "beneficiary, Ljubo Barasic."
1 A. I've got it.
2 Q. Oh, you have. Great. According to the information contained in
3 this file, he seems to be an ethnic Croat?
4 A. Yes, that's right.
5 Q. And we see that he was also receiving aid at almost the same time
6 intervals, right?
7 A. Yes, roughly speaking, without considering the detail.
8 Q. But all this can be checked, right?
9 A. Yes, of course.
10 Q. And you can confirm for our benefit that these files were issued
11 to all those who were entitled to receive these family files?
12 A. Yes, certainly.
13 Q. Fine. Can you now just leaf through these documents and tell me
14 if they're all in reference to these family cards or files that we have
15 been speaking about over the last two days? The commissioners filled
16 them out; and based on these, people received humanitarian aid?
17 A. Yes. The same procedure applied throughout Mostar municipality.
18 Q. Can you now please open 3D 03249. Again, this is a set of files
19 of family cards. Can you please just briefly skim through them. Have a
20 look and tell us if this is in reference to Mostar. And can you confirm
21 that these are the same kind of files?
22 A. Yes, these are two major streets, Stjepan Radic Street and
23 Vladimir Nazor Street.
24 Q. Fine.
25 A. Ante Zoric Street as well. That's what I see here.
1 Q. Fine. May I, therefore, conclude that we have a copy in front of
2 us of authentic files that were issued to citizens of Mostar back in 1992
3 and 1993? You are able to confirm that for me, aren't you?
4 A. Yes, no problem. I can confirm that for you.
5 Q. Thank you. Having looked at these family files recording the
6 dates on which humanitarian aid was received as well as the persons who
7 were the recipients, can you agree with the conclusion that in terms of
8 distributing humanitarian aid, the Muslims were at no disadvantage
9 whatsoever? They were in no way kept from receiving humanitarian aid,
10 were they? They were in fact receiving humanitarian aid under the same
11 conditions and under the same terms as the Croats, right?
12 A. Yes, but I would like to confirm this the other way around. They
13 were receiving aid under the same conditions, on the same terms. They
14 were in no way at a disadvantage as far as receiving aid was concerned.
15 If you look at the record, you will see that they were real beneficiaries
16 of humanitarian aid.
17 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. This concludes
18 my cross-examination.
19 Just for purposes of information, I would like to say that
20 information in relation to the family files is information that was taken
21 from a document or a CD that has the following number: 3D 03151 and 3D
22 03152. This is a database, and the documents that were presented are
23 mere samples, standing for dozens and hundreds of family files contained
24 in those CDs. Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a question for the
1 witness. Could you look at document 3D 03227 on page 3D 361611 and 3D
2 361612. Do you have it?
3 MS. PINTER: [Interpretation] This is in reference to Halil
4 Pintula, if I may be of assistance.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Halil Pintula.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I'm interested in are
8 stamps on all these cards. On the first page, even though it's not very
9 legible, the stamps are stamps that belong to who?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I look at the
11 files that I have, and they have been presented already, 1D 02761 and the
12 rest that we've been looking at, the stamp above, or rather, in this case
13 Halil Pintula, the right upper corner, is the social welfare centre.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, please turn the page and
15 you will see a stamp, which I believe is the stamp of the Red Crescent.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I see that, but it's quite
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we can see a crescent.
20 You agree with me on that?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I have a clearer view on the
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the fact that there is a
24 stamp of the Red Crescent, would this mean that this social welfare
25 centre and the Red Crescent were working together because the stamps are
1 used on the documents?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Red Crescent as an
3 organisation was a member of the coordinating committee for collection
4 and distribution of humanitarian aid. It is quite possible that this
5 particular person at this point in time received his or her own
6 allocation of aid on the premises of the Red Crescent. This individual
7 went on an individual basis to the Red Crescent. They brought their file
8 along and got some sort of aid. The date was subsequently recorded, all
9 this handover of aid.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which would explain why there
11 is a stamp of the Red Crescent here?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Aid was distributed in this case
13 on the premises of the humanitarian organisation known as the Red
14 Crescent, and this is something that I omitted earlier on. Sometimes aid
15 was distributed on the very premises occupied by these various
16 humanitarian organisations, especially in relation to some -- the
17 peculiar types of aid, orthopedic braces and tools, aids, that sort of
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I believe my
20 colleague has a question for you.
21 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, could you please look at
22 the card on document 1D 002761. 1D 002761. Please look at document --
23 the document which we've been shown awhile ago, 3D 003249. We have two
24 different cards; and like our Presiding Judge, I'm interested in the
25 stamps. On the first document, 1D 002761, I see the stamp which is the
1 stamp of the Serb brigade of the HVO, 9th battalion; and on the other
2 cards which were shown to us by Ms. Pinter, we have no stamps of any
3 brigade whatsoever. I don't know if you can give us an explanation for
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe that I can. In this
6 particular local commune, they recorded something else in these files,
7 too, namely who the members were of the military units.
8 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] If I've understood you correctly,
9 the family who was the beneficiary was a family of military people?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If we are to understand this
13 properly, there are HVO soldiers who did not have enough to eat, and they
14 had to resort to the social welfare centre in order to get aid, various
15 forms of aid?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] One could put it that way, but the
17 reason for any file to be issued was the social conditions under which an
18 entire family, for example, was living. I happen to know this very
19 family. The husband is an invalid. They had every right to be on this
20 list for aid distribution. These are cards and files from the local
21 commune of which I am a native; therefore, I know all of these people
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, just one correction. I believe the
24 gentleman said the wife of the -- the wife is the invalid, not the
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, it's the wife. The
3 husband is called Ahmo. Is that right? What's the husband's name?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Ahmo.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the husband was a member of
6 the Serb brigade of the 9th battalion, of the HVO; is that right? He was
7 a member of the Serb brigade. There was an error on the transcript.
8 I can't check the transcript and listen to what the witness is
9 saying. So he was a member of the HVO. Now, what you are saying is
10 interesting because if I look at the date, 6th of March, 1993; 7th of
11 April, 1993; 18th of August, 1993; 16th of September, 1993; 28th of
12 October, 1993; 18th of December, 1993; 1st of February, 1994. That
13 soldier, that HVO soldier, was he a Muslim or a Croat?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Muslim.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So he wasn't arrested, was he?
16 He wasn't captured by the HVO, was he, and taken prisoner since he
17 receives the aid throughout the year 1993? So he was still a member of
18 the HVO unit, I understand.
19 As far as you know, did a lot of the Muslims remain? A great
20 many or just a few? What percentage?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say. I can't talk about
22 the percentage, but I know that there were those who remained.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's sometimes a
24 small detail like this one that one is able to understand things.
25 Mr. Karnavas:
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Apparently, his answers are not getting into the
2 transcript because he's confirmed it. He said, yes, yes, this was
3 earlier. Now, I don't know whether it's not being translated or it's not
4 being picked up because of the court reporter. I just wanted to point
5 that out, and of course, the gentleman would have to affirm those answers
6 as opposed to shaking the head.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, witness. Please say it
8 again. This Muslim soldier remained in an HVO unit because it's not been
9 recorded in the transcript.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic.
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
14 Q. Mr. Simunovic, my name is Vesna Alaburic. I'm an attorney at law
15 from Zagreb
16 attorney from London
17 Witness, have we ever met? This is for the Chamber to be able to
18 judge my examination of you as a witness.
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. Since we haven't met, we've had no opportunity to discuss
21 this case as a result. Let me ask you questions now that only have to do
22 with the answers you provided yesterday when asked about your visit to
23 Heliodrom, about the clash of the 9th of May, 1993. I will quote certain
24 portions of your answers to you, and then we'll take one step at a time
25 and analyse your answers. If need be, I will be showing you certain
1 documents and confronting you with previous statements about these
3 If I'm not mistaken, you say that you lived near Heliodrom and
4 you're quite familiar with the area, right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What about the clash on the 9th of May, 1993? How many times did
7 you visit Heliodrom?
8 A. What period are you referring to?
9 Q. I'm talking about what occurred on the 9th of May. There were
10 civilians that were captured there. They were released on or about the
11 18th of May, so I'm talking about the nine or ten days. How many times
12 did you visit Heliodrom throughout that period?
13 A. I think at least three times, but the first day was my longest
14 stay there, or visit.
15 Q. When you say the first day, you mean the 9th of May, right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. My learned friend Mr. Karnavas asked you a question yesterday.
18 This is at page 61, lines 3 and 4. I'll quote in English.
19 [In English] At some point you were asked to be to the Heliodrom
20 on or about May 9.
21 [Interpretation] You answered affirmatively. Who asked you to go
22 to Heliodrom?
23 A. I came to Heliodrom having previously learned about the situation
24 that had come about involving the people who were inside. I can't
25 specifically remember right now whether there was such a thing as an open
1 invitation by anyone for me to come. I do know, however, that I went
2 there as soon as I had arrived in town and as soon as I'd learned about
3 the situation and the developments at the time.
4 Q. So you were asked this question that I quoted. Does that not
5 mean that your answer should be negative because no one had ever asked
6 you to actually go and visit Heliodrom.
7 A. Yes, you could put it that way.
8 Q. Later on in response to some questions - and again, the pages are
9 19, 20 and 21 - you say you learned what had actually happened. You go
10 on to say that a number of people that same night were put up at
11 Heliodrom. Mr. Simunovic, what exactly was it that you learned had
12 happened on the 9th of May in Mostar?
13 A. I learned that a lot of people from the town itself because of
14 the war had been moved to Heliodrom. I saw more of that later on when I
15 watched TV footage, more than I had witnessed myself at the time I was at
17 Q. If my understanding is right, you actually received information
18 that certain people who were living along the confrontation line had now
19 been moved to Heliodrom for security-related reasons. Is my
20 understanding correct?
21 A. I understood your assumption only as soon as I arrived at the
22 scene. I was a humanitarian worker, and all I knew at the time was that
23 some people had been put up there. A considerable number of people,
24 perhaps I should say.
25 Q. Can you tell us who shared that with you, the fact that people
1 had been put up at Heliodrom?
2 A. It's difficult to trace this information back to its source now.
3 I was with the Red Cross, and all those who were living in Mostar at the
4 time knew about what was going on, but I was living in Radoc, and I had
5 no idea. I had a different approach to information, generally speaking,
6 rather, different access to information that than the people who were
7 living in Mostar itself. When I met some people that morning, everybody
8 was talking about that and the situation that had occurred.
9 Q. What time of day was it, roughly speaking, on the 9th of May when
10 you reached Heliodrom?
11 A. This may have been at about 10.00 a.m. or thereabouts. I first
12 drove into town and then back, so this would take a total of about two
13 hours, roughly speaking, the round trip.
14 Q. Do you remember how many buildings were there at Heliodrom?
15 A. If you include the former aviation school, then there were quite
16 many buildings there. I would perhaps require some time to do the math
17 because there's this main street on the way in, and then there are
18 buildings either side of that road. And of course, there's a parallel
19 street with yet more buildings that were previously used for the purposes
20 of the aviation academy that at the time belonged to the former JNA.
21 Q. You told us yesterday at page 63, lines 19 and 20, that you
22 walked up to this building where the military command was, quoted. As
23 far as I understand, that was the only building you ever went to, right?
24 A. Yes, that's right.
25 Q. So you went a total of three times, and that was the only
1 building you ever went to. Is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you know who the warden was, the deputy warden and all the
4 other officials who were in charge of the Heliodrom prison?
5 A. The first person I was in touch was a man named Stanko. I think
6 his last name was Bozic.
7 Q. Do you perhaps remember what he was?
8 A. Oh, you mean his position? I think he was in charge of logistics
9 or security or something or other. Later on, I met Mr. Josip, as well,
10 who was a logistician or whatever. Anyway, there were these two persons
11 that I spoke to about their needs and what the Red Cross might provide in
12 terms of humanitarian aid.
13 Q. Let's look at this other gentleman who you say was called Josip.
14 Can you perhaps remember his last name? Josip Praljak, perhaps?
15 A. Yes, that's right.
16 Q. My learned friend Mr. Karnavas asked you whether you were in
17 touch with anyone who was in charge of coordinating all the activities
18 going on at Heliodrom, and your answer was that you were in touch with
19 the officer who was in charge of logistics in those buildings. This is
20 at pages 62 and 63 and then lines 22 through the bottom of that page 62
21 and the first three lines on page 63. So you were in touch with the
22 chief officer in charge of logistics in those buildings. Can you tell us
23 the name of that person?
24 A. I was only ever in touch with two persons there, the persons that
25 I mentioned a minute ago.
1 Q. Was any of them wearing a uniform?
2 A. They were both wearing uniforms, as far as I can remember.
3 Q. Was either of them or both of them, as far as you know, members
4 of any military unit of the HVO?
5 A. I don't know anything about that.
6 Q. Did either of them or both of them tell you about what was
7 happening at Heliodrom, why these people were being kept there, what were
8 the plans about these people?
9 A. Well, basically, we only talked and discussed how we can help
10 these people. There were many people there. I still -- up to this date,
11 I don't know how many people were there, and the longest conversation was
12 about one hour and one and a half hours, and it was focused on what they
13 needed for their kitchen and what we were able to supply to them. We
14 didn't tackle any other issues.
15 Q. So can you please confirm once again that apart from contacting
16 Mr. Bozic and Mr. Josip Praljak, you did not have any contact with anyone
17 else in Heliodrom and discuss the conditions prevailing there?
18 A. No, I didn't.
19 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this concludes my
20 cross-examination. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a follow-up question
22 arising from Ms. Alaburic's question. You met with two people in charge
23 of Heliodrom, Mr. Stanko Bozic and Mr. Josip Praljak. You met them for
24 humanitarian questions. You wanted to know what kind of assistance you
25 could provide since your mission was to provide assistance. Earlier on,
1 you said that there were a lot of people. You didn't know exactly how
2 many. It's very interesting because you first saw Mr. Bozic; did he give
3 you the impression that he didn't know anything about the situation that
4 prevailed and that he was, therefore, unable to tell you whether he
5 needed 1.000, 2.000, 5.000, or 10.000 meals because he could not forecast
6 the future; or was your impression that he knew that those people were
7 going to stay there for quite some time and he may have asked you to make
8 sure you could provide some kind of follow-up logistics for some time?
9 What was your impression? Did he seem to be overwhelmed by the events?
10 Did he seem to not to know at all how those people were going to stay
11 there, in what condition, or did he come across at somebody who was very
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Believe me, it is difficult to
14 recall the whole situation given the panic that was also enveloping me.
15 The quantity of aid that the Red Cross at the time was able to provide
16 gave me concern, and I was really worried to what extent I would be able
17 to respond to their requirements. That is why I remained for only a
18 short while and then went back to the Red Cross to check what we had
20 I believe that Mr. Bozic, as well, who was the first one who I
21 met, was also concerned about how we would be able to provide help and
22 assistance to such a large number of people. When he saw me, he was
23 somewhat relieved. However, our response in terms of humanitarian aid
24 was not an adequate one because we didn't have available goods on stock,
25 and that was perhaps the reason why I didn't go there many times
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you were not able to help
3 him much because you did not have much in your warehouses. That's what
4 you just said, isn't it? But at your level, did you think you could try
5 and contact international organisations that were present on the ground
6 for them to take care of the logistical problem because you were not able
7 to? But the organisational level had everything they needed. They can
8 organise air lifts. They have means and resources. Did you think of
9 such a possibility?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you put it very
11 nicely; however, the response of international organisations in such
12 situations was not as rapid as one would have expected. They had their
13 respective warehouses most often located outside of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 For supplying aid in wartimes, they requested extra security from
15 international army units in order to be able to pass through in a secure
16 way, and this issue could not have been settled in three or five days. I
17 sent out an appeal to the Red Cross organisations in the neighbouring
18 countries [as interpreted], and there was some response, but the
19 situation that we can see from these reports could not have been resolved
20 within ten days by which time many people had left.
21 I think that the major role in providing these people with aid
22 was the HVO reserve because there were no other organisations present
23 there. We were primarily concerned with hygiene and to a lesser extent
24 with food because we didn't have sufficient food as I explained
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, just two technical points. I believe
2 the gentleman didn't say "neighbouring countries" but "neighbourhood."
3 By that -- I'm told that he must have meant or would have meant
4 neighbouring municipalities. And also further down, he mentioned --
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I meant municipalities.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: Where it says "HVO reserves," the gentleman
7 indicated HVO logistics. Perhaps you could confirm that he said
8 logistics as opposed to HVO reserves. It does make a difference.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Apparently, there was a
11 problem. You mentioned logistics and the reserves the HVO may have had.
12 So if one is to understand properly, you realised there were problems,
13 but you did not have the means to solve them. Is that a possible
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, that is a possible
16 conclusion, not to resolve it completely. We responded to the extent
17 that we were able to.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
19 Now we've got the other Defence team. We've had [Realtime
20 transcript read in error, "2D"] 3D, 4D, now 5D.
21 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: Your Honours, I wanted to suggest that
22 since we are nearly at the time for a break to take one now, and I will
23 distribute binders to the interpreters' booths, and then after that we
24 can continue.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely. I said we had 3D,
1 4D, 5D. I didn't mention 2D. I can see there's 2D on line 3, page 70.
2 Ms. Nozica, I'm not mistaken. You didn't say anything, did you?
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. I would like to
4 greet everyone in this courtroom. We are getting up out of according to
5 our normal sequence. The first one was 3D.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Let's have a
7 20-minute break.
8 --- Recess taken at 5.30 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 5.52 p.m.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
11 Defence counsel, you have the floor, but there's always somebody missing.
12 The witness is not in the courtroom.
13 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: Your Honours, I would like just to advise
14 the Chamber that during the break we consulted with our client, Mr.
15 Coric, and on his suggestion we are not going to cross-examine this
16 witness. Thank you.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Ibrisimovic.
18 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Mr. Pusic's Defence is following your instruction when it comes to
20 questioning the contacts with the accused, and in that sense we decided
21 not to conduct any cross-examination.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Nozica, you are
23 the last Defence counsel, therefore.
24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. For the
25 record, I would like to say that the testimony of this witness does not
1 refer to Mr. Bruno Stojic in any way, but I would like to ask him a few
2 questions about the things that he apparently has knowledge of it. This
3 is going to be a cross-examination that will deal with only one issue. I
4 would like to the witness to try and explain to us on the basis of the
5 document that is prepared already in the binder which facilities at
6 Heliodrom the witness visited on the 9th of May, or rather, can the
7 witness try and identify these facilities for us. I would like to note
8 that we had attempted to do this with another witness before during the
9 Prosecution case, but we were not lucky enough to have a witness who was
10 able to identify this. However, we have today a witness who claims to
11 have been at Heliodrom, and I suppose he will be able to do that.
12 Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:
13 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Simunovic.
14 A. Good afternoon.
15 Q. My name is Senka Nozica --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, I have just had a
17 quick look at your document. You could have included some photographs
18 unless the photographs have already been downloaded in the e-court
19 system. Now, if you need to recognise something, it's better to have
20 photographs, I believe.
21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you for this
22 suggestion. We do have photographs in the documents that were supplied
23 to us by the Prosecution. However, I would like to ask the witness to do
24 the identification on this map. This is another Prosecution document.
25 If we put it on ELMO, I would kindly ask him to mark the facility that he
1 visited on the map.
2 Q. So, sir, as I told you, my name is Senka Nozica, along with my
3 colleague Karim Khan represent Mr. Stojic in this trial. Will you please
4 look at this document that's 2D 00136 [Realtime transcript read in error,
5 "0016"]. This is the only document that was given to you, and I would
6 like to ask the usher to put the last sheet of this document on the ELMO,
7 the last page, and I'm going to ask you to try, since on page 2 of this
8 document you have -- or rather page 3, you have an explanation of what
9 represents what. I haven't shown you this document before; is that
11 Sir, first tell me, have I ever had any contact with you, to make
12 it clear for the Chamber?
13 A. No, not in relation to this story, but we did meet during our
15 Q. Thank you for reminding me. You are younger than I am, and I'm
16 glad that you haven't forgotten it, but we never met concerning this
18 Can you please tell me, can you find your bearings in this map,
19 this layout of the former HVO barracks, and it also says "the Heliodrom
20 concentration camp." And I would like to repeat once again for the
21 record that this is an OTP document.
22 Can you please look at these numbers and the list of all the
23 facilities. I would like to hear which of these facilities you visited
24 on the 9th of May and where you met Mr. Bozic and Mr. Praljak as you
25 said. And my second question is, according to what you know, where these
1 detainees were kept in these facilities.
2 A. Believe me, I find it difficult to orientate myself with this
3 document since I cannot see any markings 1, 2, et cetera, except for
4 those ones that are larger and which are outside the border of the
6 Q. Sir, can you please try with what you had on the side, and it has
7 been enlarged on the screen. You can see what is written there, kitchen,
8 command, school, sports hall, and beneath it said "SVZ."
9 A. I was only in this facility marked "command."
10 Q. So that's the facility, and the usher will help you. Can you
11 just mark this building. Put a circle around it and put number 1. The
12 first one is "command" from left to right, it's handwritten; "kitchen,"
13 and above that -- I see where your pencil is, so there it is. Can you
14 please -- if that is the facility in question, can you mark it and just
15 put a line on the side and a figure 1.
16 A. [Marks]
17 Q. So for the record, we can say that this is the command building
18 which you visited.
19 If possible, can you tell us, did you know in what other
20 facilities and buildings civilians were being kept at the time? If you
21 cannot identify them on this layout sketch, do you know at least how
22 these facilities were called and what was their previous usage at the
23 time when this was a JNA barracks?
24 A. Believe me, I don't know where they were, these people who were
25 there. While this was a JNA barracks, we as children were strictly
1 forbidden to access it; therefore, I'm more familiar with the former air
2 force high school than the military compound itself, which at the time
3 was separated from the high school.
4 Q. After or before this event, did you ever come to this area
5 following the departure of the JNA?
6 A. No. I never went there to inspect the facility and look at it.
7 I very rarely went to that area.
8 Q. Did Mr. Bozic or Mr. Praljak tell you where the persons who were
9 brought there, in a way for their own protection, were being kept?
10 A. I don't remember them mentioning any specific buildings, no.
11 Q. Very well. Under number 1 that you have put, can you put today's
12 date - I believe it's the 21st of October, 2008 - and sign it, please.
13 And I would like to get an IC number for this layout, and with this I've
14 finished. Thank you, sir.
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You are welcome.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can we have a
18 number, please.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The diagram shall be given
20 Exhibit number IC 00869 [Realtime transcript read in error, "00369"].
21 Thank you, Your Honours.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, just a small follow-up
23 question. Ms. Nozica wanted you to recognise the buildings, and I
24 understand that so many years later, it's a tall task for you. As far as
25 you recollect, Witness, when you got there and arrived in your car, did
1 you have to pass a military checkpoint, or were there soldiers standing
2 at the entrance, or were you able to get straight to the buildings? If
3 you remember, of course. I understand if you don't.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I only passed through the
5 checkpoint at the very gate of the compound. This is at the far right
6 where this road ends. So that is the last point on the right, and that's
7 the road leading beneath these buildings that are marked black. This is
8 where the gatehouse was and where access to the building was, and this is
9 still a gatehouse where people enter this compound.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At the checkpoint, both you and
11 I when we did our military service, we had to pass checkpoints. The
12 soldiers that were there, did they have to refer to their superiors
13 before letting you go by? Did they check your papers, or did they ask
14 you to wait? What did they actually do, and did they have to wait to see
15 what they needed to do?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Since, Your Honour, I was in a
17 marked vehicle, and since I was a person known to people in the town, I
18 didn't have any problems gaining access. I only explained the reason for
19 my visit, and I was allowed to pass through without any problems.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, the soldiers
21 knew you. Since you had a vehicle with markings on it, it's true that
22 the enemy can enter in disguise. You were able to enter because they
23 recognised you; is that right? Ms. Nozica.
24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just a little
25 intervention. On page 72, line 12, I called up document 2D 00136,
1 whereas the transcript reflects 2D 0016; and my colleague is also
2 reminding me that IC number is also incorrect. That's on page 74.
3 According to my records, it should be 8. Probably, we have passed 369 a
4 long time ago.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Prosecutor, you
6 have the floor.
7 MR. LONGONE: Thank you, Your Honours. Good afternoon, Your
9 Cross-examination by Mr. Longone:
10 Q. Good afternoon, witness. My name is --
11 A. Good afternoon.
12 Q. My name is Miguel Longone, and I will conduct the
13 cross-examination on behalf of the Prosecution.
14 MR. LONGONE: Your Honours, before starting with the
15 cross-examination, yesterday was an issue raised with the witness
16 regarding some names of ICRC and Red Cross workers that the witness has
17 been in contact with during the war, and I wanted to ask the Trial
18 Chamber whether they want me to name those people to refresh the
19 recollection of the witness in closed session or...
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is better to mention the
21 names in private session since measures have been granted. It's better
22 to move into private session. Registrar, can we move into private
23 session for a few moments, please. Mr. Longone, do we have any
24 documents? I have nothing.
25 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
16 MR. LONGONE:
17 Q. Mr. Simunovic?
18 A. [In English] Yes.
19 Q. Yesterday, we were referring to the principles of the Red Cross
20 -- of the MUP, not the Red Cross. And in that respect, we were referring
21 to which were the principles of that movement. Do you remember that?
22 You mentioned that the aim of the Red Cross was to protect and to assist
23 all the victims of the conflict, isn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And the principles that they follow in order to protect those
1 victims of the conflict, all of them, were based on humanity?
2 A. Solidarity, unity.
3 Q. And humanity?
4 A. Humanity, solidarity, unity, neutrality, and there's one more,
5 but I can't remember it now.
6 Q. Do you remember the word "impartiality"?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So impartiality was another one of the principles, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And there's a Bosnia
11 Herceg-Bosna Red Cross of Mostar agree to respect and apply these
12 principles in their work, isn't it?
13 A. I have to tell you that you've misspoken. There was no Bosnian
14 Red Cross in Mostar. There was a municipal Red Cross organisation in
15 Mostar, which was part of the Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna. And if you
16 allow me, I would like this to be accurately stated.
17 Q. I would ask you again the question. Did the regional
18 Herceg-Bosna Red Cross and the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross of Mostar apply the
19 principles of the Red Cross movement that we discussed just a moment ago?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And would you agree with me, sir, that the work of the Red Cross
22 in times of conflict is to make respect agreement regarding specially the
23 safe passage of humanitarian assistance?
24 A. The Red Cross was in a different position. The Red Cross was to
25 be provided with safe passage of humanitarian aid by the authorities in
1 charge and not vice-versa, for the Red Cross to ensure secure and safe
2 passage; and on all ID cards of members of the Red Cross, it states that
3 safe and free passage should be guaranteed and participation in
4 activities. It was not, therefore, the Red Cross that secured the
5 traffic; rather, others on the basis of the conventions were supposed to
6 provide that for the Red Cross.
7 Q. It would be the government that was in charge?
8 A. Police, and some services that have been established, and if
9 there was some kind of congestion and other institutions with their
10 security services. In one word, all the institutions that the Red Cross
11 member would come across, once they show their ID -- Red Cross ID,
12 representatives of these institutions were supposed to let them pass
13 through provided they have a valid reason.
14 Q. And if those principles were not respected or their work was
15 stopped, you would request, actually, to let -- your mandate to be
16 executed, isn't it?
17 A. In that eventuality, we would send a report to the International
18 Committee of the Red Cross and the local authorities or whoever was
19 responsible in a certain institution or the superiors of whoever stood in
20 the way of the Red Cross, given, of course, the fact that the Red Cross
21 people had a good reason to want to be let through.
22 Q. And one other of the works of the Red Cross was not only
23 regarding a humanitarian system but to have access to prisoners and to
24 assess their condition, isn't it?
25 A. Yes, but this mandate is something that is determined only for --
1 by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
2 Q. And in this respect, sir, if we can go to the Exhibit that you
3 discussed with the Defence in your direct examination, 1D 02434. It's in
4 the Prosecution binder, in the first binder. Do you have it with you,
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And in this respect, sir, you see there is a representative of
8 the regional Red Cross and the Red Cross of Mostar that signed an
9 agreement in Geneva
10 51-0468 of that exhibit.
11 A. I'm sorry. I am afraid I don't understand what you're saying.
12 Can you please repeat that for my benefit. Thank you.
13 Q. That the agreement regarding those principles of the Red Cross
14 and the work of the Red Cross, the regional Red Cross and the Red Cross
15 of Mostar of the Herceg-Bosna regional Red Cross, were signed by a
16 representative of them in Geneva
17 that person is in the page I have indicated to you, 1D 51 -0468?
18 A. I don't see that person's name on this page.
19 Q. There are four persons mentioned in that agreement. Number 3, do
20 you recognise the name of Mr. Sito Coric, sir?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Could you please read what it says beside Sito Coric?
23 A. [In English] President of Croatian Democratic Community.
24 Q. Sir, Mr. Miljenko Brkic [phoen] was the representative of the Red
25 Cross - the regional Red Cross back in Herceg-Bosna?
1 A. No. Mr. Miljenko Brkic was president of the Croatian Democratic
2 Party, community, party at the time. It was on his behalf that he signed
3 this and was actually present.
4 Q. Sir, if you can please look at -- so you are saying that Mr. Sito
5 Coric was not representing the regional Red Cross at that time? Is that
6 your answer?
7 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, he said he doesn't recognise the name of
8 Mr. Coric. The question was quite clear, and the answer, also, was
10 MR. LONGONE: Thank you very much, counsel.
11 Q. Do you remember whether Mr. Sito Coric was a member of the
12 regional Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna, sir, in Geneva?
13 A. I'm sorry, my esteemed Prosecutor. I'm reading this document in
14 front of me. Mr. S. Coric was the representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkic.
15 There is nothing here that has anything to do with the Red Cross. In
16 addition to that, I have no idea what you are asking me. I might be able
17 to imagine how he placed Mr. Brkic in this context, but more about that
18 later, I suppose.
19 Q. I don't want to you imagine anything, sir. Let's focus on
20 Exhibit 1D 02433 dated 20 May 1992
21 A. I'm sorry. Can you repeat that number?
22 Q. 1D 02433.
23 A. [In English] Okay.
24 Q. You have your translation, sir, under the B/C/S. I think it's
25 under the English. The B/C/S and the English are together in that
1 document, is it? Have you find the translation under the same document?
2 Yes. If you go further you will see, I think, a translation in B/C/S.
3 A. Yes. No, no, no, I apologise. No, I've got a different document
4 now. Just a second, please. [English] I have not the translation for
5 this document. But it's not the same document. It's not translation of
6 this. I know English. That is absolutely different document. Different
8 Q. Sir --
9 A. Yes. Okay. Okay.
10 Q. Did you find it?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Right. Did you see, sir, at the end of that document who the
13 regional Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna is appointed as its representative in
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I think that's a misrepresentation of
16 the document. I suggest the gentleman read it correctly. Who is he
17 representing, the interest of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna and
18 the Croatian Democratic Union
19 MR. LONGONE:
20 Q. Sir? Would you please -- sir, would you please read the last
21 paragraph of that document, the regional -- starting "The regional Red
22 Cross of the Herceg-Bosna community appoints..." Will you please
23 continue with that sentence, sir.
24 A. [Interpretation] "Authorised representative in Switzerland
25 regional Red Cross of the HZ Herceg-Bosna hereby appoints Mr. Simon Sito
1 Coric." And I, by your leave, have never seen this document before. I
2 wasn't with the Red Cross at the time, and I was not familiar with these
3 kinds of powers.
4 Q. Sir, the document that we were discussing before is from Geneva
5 You mentioned that you started to work in June 1992 with the Red Cross,
6 with the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross, isn't it? That was your testimony
8 A. What I said is I started working with the Mostar Red Cross in
9 late June; and after I came to that position, I became familiar with the
10 activities of the regional Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna at the time.
11 Q. And, sir, you said that you knew the principles of the movement
12 of the Red Cross, isn't it?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You have to get familiar with them.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You have to read agreements, isn't it?
17 A. Yes. The agreement was never in the archive of my Cross.
18 Q. Sir, you said that you have read the statutes and the agreements
19 of the Red Cross?
20 A. I read the statute and the booklet with the mandates of the
21 international movement of the Red Cross. To a large extent, they were
22 adopted by this agreement. Then I had looked at the agreement with the
23 Defence team. The first time I laid eyes on this document was during my
24 proofing by the Defence but not before that time.
25 Q. And in that agreement, if we go back, now, then, to the agreement
1 of 2, 1992, that we were previously discussing, exhibit 1D 02434, Mr.
2 Sito Coric was representing the regional Herceg-Bosna Red Cross in
4 JUDGE PRANDLER: Mr. Longone, I would really like to say that,
5 first of all, the number of the exhibit had not been listed here in the
6 transcript; so therefore, please kindly repeat that number. And another
7 remark of mine is that you, both of you, you are overlapping each other,
8 and please kindly slow down, both of you. Thank you.
9 MR. LONGONE: Yes, Your Honour. I repeat the exhibit number that
10 we were discussing previously, 1D 02434.
11 Q. You have it with you now?
12 A. Yes, yes.
13 Q. And there in page 2 of that exhibit --
14 MR. KOVACIC: I'm sorry to interrupt, but in 1D 0234 [sic] there
15 are a couple of documents. Which one the Prosecutor is referring to now
17 MR. LONGONE: I was referring to the -- I will give you the page.
18 1D 51-0469.
19 MR. KOVACIC: And how can you be sure that the witness is looking
20 to proper one if he is not given the sub-number?
21 MR. LONGONE:
22 Q. Witness, did you find the page?
23 A. Yes, yes. I've found it.
24 Q. Would you agree with me, sir, that the action plan signed and
25 agreed by the regional Red Cross Herceg-Bosna was according with the aim
1 of the International Committee of the Red Cross?
2 A. What action plan are you talking about? This is a plan by the
3 International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC. [In English] It's not
4 plan for international -- local Red Cross.
5 Q. Sir, if we go to page 1D 51-0477 of that exhibit. You see the
6 signature of Sito Coric, a representative of the regional Red Cross?
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, he keeps saying the representative of
8 the regional Red Cross. Where does it say that is he a representative of
9 the regional Red Cross?
10 MR. LONGONE: We have seen that the regional Red Cross appointed
11 Mr. Simon Sito Coric as his authorised representative in Switzerland.
12 Q. Sir, do you see the signature of Sito Coric on that page?
13 A. [Interpretation] Yes. I would like to ask you, though, to go to
14 1D 570101 at the very beginning of the transcript so you see what the
15 respective capacities of participants in this meeting were. It reads
16 here, representative of the HZD -- representatives of the HDZ. The HDZ
17 was represented by at that meeting Mr. Coric -- Saric [phoen].
18 Q. He was representing the regional Red Cross in that meeting?
19 A. This is simply not alleged by this document. I do apologise, but
20 I think we are just going around in circles with no need at all. We are
21 fusing, as it were, two documents that are really not from the same
22 source, are they?
23 Q. Sir, let's go to Exhibit 1D 02655 from the Defence. 1D 02655.
24 That's the statute of the regional Red Cross of the Herceg-Bosna
1 A. Yes, I've got it.
2 Q. In Article 2 of that statute, on page 2, it says that the
3 regional Red Cross is a voluntary humanitarian organisation.
4 A. Yes. Go ahead. Shall I go on reading it, or will you oblige?
5 Q. Respond my answers. Article 2 says that the regional Red Cross
6 is a constituent part of the Red Cross of Bosnia-Herzegovina, isn't it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And that was on the 20 May 1992
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Article 3 states that the regional Red Cross consists of
11 municipal Red Cross organisations, isn't it?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And that the main objective or among the purpose of work if we
14 see -- if we go to page 3 of the same document, if you see in Article 8,
15 is to ensure preservation of peace among people, among the purposes of
16 their work.
17 A. Yes, in keeping with international principles.
18 Q. In Article 9 of the following page, to assist victims in armed
20 A. [In English] Which bullet?
21 Q. To take part in organising and providing social, medical, and
22 material aid. Do you see that paragraph, sir?
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Why not point to the right -- you know, just say.
24 Which one is it? Make it easy for the witness.
25 MR. LONGONE:
1 Q. Point 7. Under Article 9.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Third from the bottom.
3 THE WITNESS: [In English] Okay.
4 MR. LONGONE:
5 Q. Did you agree with that, sir?
6 A. [In English] Yes.
7 Q. And the following -- the following bullet point it says is to
8 collect, organise, keep, and provide the data on victims of armed
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And carry out other activities of tracing service?
12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We cannot interpret a
13 witness who keeps talking in two different languages at the same time.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. LONGONE:
16 Q. Could you please repeat your answer, sir. It was not recorded.
17 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry. Mr. Simunovic, the interpreters
18 would like to ask you to use only one language because you sometimes
19 speak Croatian, and sometimes you speak English, and it is very difficult
20 for them to follow you. And also, I ask you again to be really a bit
21 slowing down more because it is a very difficult question and to also to
22 name the very paragraphs or mention the very paragraphs about which you
23 would like to ask the witness to speak. Thank you.
24 MR. LONGONE: I will, Your Honours.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I am still
1 waiting for a question from the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor is asking me
2 to read the text. Is that really necessary? If so, I'll just oblige and
3 I'll read this text, which by the way has already been recorded and
5 MR. LONGONE:
6 Q. Sir, would you agree that the regional Red Cross and the Red
7 Cross of Mostar among the basic programatic tasks had to collect,
8 organise, keep, and provide the data on victims of armed conflicts and
9 carry out other activities of a tracing service?
10 A. Yes, and we did that.
11 Q. And they have to inform - that's the following bullet point -
12 they have to inform citizens with human rights stemming from the Geneva
13 Conventions and additional protocols with the conventions and to inform
14 citizens about them?
15 A. Of course. We did that, too, whenever we could.
16 Q. And if we go to page 5 of the same article, of the same exhibit,
17 you have Article 13, and there is a structure of the Herceg-Bosna
18 regional Red Cross. You have the basic Red Cross organisation, the
19 municipal Red Cross organisations, and the original Red Cross. Could you
20 please indicate, were -- the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross from Mostar that you
21 were belonged to that you were the president, where in this category you
22 will put that Mostar Red Cross?
23 A. The Mostar Red Cross was a municipal organisation of the Red
24 Cross. It comprised basic organisations of the Red Cross in schools,
25 local communities, and other areas throughout Mostar municipality.
1 Q. If we can go now to 1D 02660.
2 A. [In English] Okay.
3 Q. And if we can see -- at the bottom of Article 2, do you recognise
4 the statute, sir?
5 A. [Interpretation] Yes.
6 Q. Is your signature at the front of the statute?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So this is a statute of the Mostar municipal Herceg-Bosna Red
9 Cross, isn't it?
10 A. That's what it says, and that's how it was.
11 Q. And Article 2 of that statute, in page 2 at the bottom, it says
12 that the regional -- that the Red Cross of Mostar is part of the regional
13 Red Cross, isn't it?
14 A. No. It reads that the municipal organisation was part of the Red
15 Cross of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.
16 Q. And the Red Cross of the republic of Herceg-Bosna
17 original Red Cross, sir?
18 A. At the beginning, yes, but then later it became what it says.
19 Q. Sir, one of the reasons you mentioned the creation of the
20 regional Red Cross of Mostar and the local Red Cross was a broken
21 communications, isn't it?
22 A. Yes, but I would really like to ask you one thing. Don't keep
23 linking the regional Red Cross and the Mostar Red Cross all the time.
24 There was no regional Mostar Red Cross. There was the regional Red Cross
25 of Herceg-Bosna and the municipal Red Cross in Mostar, and that's what
1 all the documents say. And that's just for ease of understanding, and
2 that's why I would like to kindly ask you to keep the two terms apart, if
3 at all possible.
4 Q. Sir, the local Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna from Mostar was part of
5 the regional Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna, isn't it?
6 A. The municipal Red Cross of Mostar was part of the regional Red
7 Cross of Herceg-Bosna and later part of the Red Cross of the Croatian
8 Republic of Herceg-Bosna.
9 Q. And you said in the beginning of your testimony that the regional
10 Red Cross and the Red Cross of Mostar, the Herceg-Bosna one, so the
11 Herceg-Bosna regional Red Cross and the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross from
12 Mostar were an integral part of the Red Cross from Bosnia-Herzegovina,
13 isn't it? That's what you said in the beginning of your testimony?
14 A. The municipal Mostar Red Cross was part of the Red Cross of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the regional Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna up until
16 the establishment of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna. After that,
17 the municipal Mostar Red Cross was only part of the Red Cross of the
18 Croatian Republic
19 Cross did not function and could not perform these tasks.
20 Q. And if we move to Exhibit 1D 2661 -- do you have the exhibit with
21 you, sir?
22 A. Yes. I apologise.
23 Q. There were some questions about whether -- about the neutrality
24 and impartiality and independence of the regional Red Cross or the
25 Herceg-Bosna Red Cross, as you want to name it. And would you agree with
1 me, sir, that in October 1994 the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross was not anymore
2 in a humanitarian organisation and non-governmental one but a state
3 humanitarian organisation, isn't it?
4 A. This is true in part.
5 Q. Well, sir, could you please read the first sentence of Article 1
6 of the exhibit I just mentioned to you. It's on page 1. Could you
7 please read that aloud. The Red Cross of the Croatian Republic
8 Herceg-Bosna. Could you please read it.
9 A. "... is a state humanitarian, voluntary social organisation of
10 general benefit and interest, which embodies the work of the mission and
11 the principles in the International Committee of the Red Cross and enjoys
12 the special protection --
13 [In English] Excuse me. I --
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Slow down.
15 MR. LONGONE:
16 Q. So the first part of the sentence was: Until a state -- could
17 you please read it back again, sir.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Slowly.
19 MR. LONGONE:
20 Q. And slowly for the benefit of the Court.
21 A. "The Red Cross of the Croatian Republic
22 state humanitarian, voluntary social organisation of general benefit and
24 Q. Sir, in the same article but the second paragraph. Would you
25 agree with me that this Red Cross, the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross was
1 established by the law and other regulations of the Herceg-Bosna
3 A. Yes. The activity of the Red Cross is determined by other
4 regulations because the activity of the Red Cross is about issues of
5 social welfare, health issues, education.
6 Q. Sir, if we move to Article 4 in page 2 of the same exhibit,
7 Article 4 of the statute of the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross, the last
8 paragraph of that statute.
9 A. [In English] Excuse me --
10 Q. The last paragraph of Article 4, sir.
11 A. [Interpretation] I apologise. You confused me. You talked about
12 the statute, but this is probably the law, not the statute.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me --
14 MR. LONGONE: The law of the Red Cross, sir.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: And perhaps the gentleman could be looking at the
16 hard copy because the hard copy is provided to you as opposed to looking
17 at the screen. It might be easier for you.
18 MR. LONGONE:
19 Q. You always have -- under the English version. You have the B/C/S
20 one in the hard copies. But if you have Article --
21 MR. KARNAVAS: It's in the binder. Help him out.
22 MR. LONGONE:
23 Q. In Article 4 -- did you find it, sir?
24 A. Yes. Go ahead, please.
25 Q. In Article 4, the last paragraph Article 4, it says that "The
1 government of the Herceg-Bosna republic and the relevant ministry shall
2 approve the statute of the Red Cross of the Herceg-Bosna Republic
3 Isn't it?
4 A. That's what it says, yes.
5 Q. It was not as you mentioned in the beginning such an independent
6 and neutral organisation, isn't it?
7 A. Again, in part, this was an auxiliary organ helping the federal
8 institutions in the sense of carrying out its mandate and its commitments
9 under the Geneva
10 determine what the purview would be of its Red Cross. As far as I know,
11 in most countries that are members, this is something that is determined
12 by law. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, a law was adopted on the Red Cross at the
13 federal level.
14 Q. Sir, you didn't answer my question. Isn't it true that the
15 relevant ministry of the Herceg-Bosna republic monitored the activities
16 of the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross and had the authority to approve the
18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Objection. Just a minute, please.
19 This question contains two questions, two separate matters. I move that
20 my friend keep the matters apart, or the questions. One is the relevant
21 ministry of the Herceg-Bosna, can it monitor the activities of the
22 Herceg-Bosna Red Cross; the other issue being a different issue
23 altogether, did it have the authority to prove the statute? And we've
24 heard evidence about that too: When a social organisation is set up,
25 then the statute is later submitted for approval, and these are two
1 entirely different matters.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Longone, in your questions,
3 two topics have been addressed. Please take one after the other.
4 MR. LONGONE:
5 Q. Sir, isn't it true that the relevant ministry of the government
6 of the Republic of Herceg-Bosna was entitled -- was in charge to approve
7 the statute of that Red Cross?
8 A. That's not what it says. The government approved the Red Cross
9 statute. The Red Cross statute was drafted by the members of the Red
10 Cross assembly. The reason the statute was approved --
11 Q. Sir, we just read Article 4, and it says, The government of the
12 Herceg-Bosna Republic
13 of the Red Cross of the Republic of Herceg-Bosna. Isn't it, is what it
14 says there in the law?
15 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, it's not going to be very helpful -- as
16 the witness articulated earlier, the document says what the document
17 says. If my learned friend is trying to get the witness's evidence about
18 what lays behind the document or how it operates in practice or what laid
19 behind it, that's an entirely different matter, and it was one, in my
20 respectful submission, that the witness was attempting to answer at page
21 93, line 21. Sorry, line 18.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the Prosecutor through
23 these documents and his questions would like to establish a connection
24 between the fact that the Red Cross of Herceg-Bosna was dependent upon
25 the government. You answered briefly by saying that in democratic
1 states, if I remember correctly, the law provides for the creation and
2 monitoring of Red Cross organisation. I must say that I don't know much
3 about this. As far as you know, in various countries - let's take the
4 case of Spain
5 prepares a text on the Red Cross, and the statute needs to be approved by
6 the government? Is this how it works?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know specifically about
9 statute needed approving by the relevant federal body and the relevant
10 ministry because the government works like this: A particular ministry -
11 in this case, ministry of social welfare - puts forward a proposal, and
12 that is why the ministry is relevant here, the reason being this: In the
13 law on the Red Cross in the Red Cross statute, there are activities that
14 are listed. There is work that is specified that is directly linked to
15 the mandate of the Red Cross. If there is no correlation, if there is no
16 document that has been adopted, it is as a result difficult to protect
17 and preserve one's mandate.
18 And then let's go back to the original story. It's very
19 difficult to persuade someone to let through an employee of the Red Cross
20 carrying a Red Cross card. It is highly important for everyone,
21 including the appropriate authorities, to be familiar with the function
22 and nature of the work of the Red Cross. The country itself was
23 duty-bound under a set of international conventions that it would monitor
24 and support such activities, so this is the gist, and that is why laws
25 are passed. That is why approval is granted for the statute in order not
1 to have any contradictions there.
2 In its later work, the Red Cross would be implementing
3 everything, all of its commitments under the statute. The law provides
4 general principles and modalities in the broadest possible sense as to
5 how the organisation would work and what its links would be to the
6 authorities, in essence.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Longone.
8 MR. LONGONE: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Q. Sir, this was a Red Cross that was supposed to work for all the
10 people, isn't it?
11 A. All those facing certain situations. All those in needs but
12 always in keeping with its own needs.
13 Q. And this organisation, sir, was the one that -- the only reason
14 why they was not working with the Bosnia-Herzegovina Red Cross was
15 because there were broken communication links and because of the war
17 A. Yes. If we go back to the Red Cross statute, the regional Red
18 Cross of Herceg-Bosna, this invokes in its preamble the statute of the
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina Red Cross, which allows for the possibility for the
20 Red Crosses throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina to be established in
21 municipalities, in regions, too, if that is what the circumstances call
22 for, the statute from before the war.
23 Q. Thank you, sir. On Article 20 of the same document we were
24 discussing, the same decree in page 6.
25 A. Can you please repeat the number.
1 Q. Article 20.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. It refers again that the government of Herceg-Bosna of the
4 Republic of Herceg-Bosna and the relevant ministry shall monitor
5 application of the law in the activities and work of the Red Cross of the
6 Republic of Herceg-Bosna
7 A. That's what it says, and I find it logical.
8 Q. And did you find logical also Article 21: The Red Cross of the
9 Republic of Herceg-Bosna shall take over all rights, obligations, and
10 property of the Red Cross of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the territory of
11 the Croatian republic of Herceg-Bosna
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. This is the Red Cross, the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross that you
14 mentioned that was working for all people during the war?
15 A. Yes, because part of the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross was the municipal
16 Red Cross in Mostar. All the property that the Red Cross had, the
17 municipal organisation in Mostar, now became the property of all the
18 organisations that were active within the Herceg-Bosna Red Cross, not
19 just Mostar.
20 Q. Sir --
21 A. Any Red Cross.
22 Q. And sir, isn't it true that the reality was that the Herceg-Bosna
23 Red Cross didn't want to work with the Bosnia and Herzegovina Red Cross
24 and didn't want to work with the Bosnian Muslim people, isn't it? You
25 were part of it. You know that very well, isn't it?
1 A. I don't know where you got this conclusion. Personally, I
3 MR. LONGONE: Mr. President, I have two exhibits to finish, and
4 they're very important, and then we finish with this part of the
5 cross-examination. If you allow me, two more minutes.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is already 7.00. If it's
7 only a few minutes, yes.
8 MR. LONGONE: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. If you see Exhibit P10691.
10 A. Can you please repeat the number.
11 Q. 10691. P10691. It's in the binder. That one.
12 A. It's not in this binder.
13 Q. It's in the second binder, sir.
14 A. [In English] One minute. [Interpretation] Just a moment.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours, I'm told that this is not in
16 e-court, and if it is not, I would object to this document being shown to
17 the witness at this point in time. We certainly should be entitled to
18 look at the document and to raise any objections that may be necessary,
19 and it seems to me that even going through two documents assuming that
20 they are in e-court is going to take about ten minutes at this rate. So
21 I would ask, given that the translators have been working very hard, that
22 we end the day. We can begin again tomorrow. We've got plenty of time.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Longone, you have heard the
24 objections. We need to check whether this has been downloaded into the
25 e-court system. Since we are in no hurry, we can resume tomorrow. It is
1 now a few minutes past 7.00. I would like to apologise vis-a-vis the
2 interpreters because we have overstepped our time. We shall look into
3 this again at a quarter past 2.00 and address this document tomorrow,
4 P1069. Enjoy your evening.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.
6 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 22nd day of
7 October, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.