Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 2559

 1                           Thursday, 13 November 2008

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The accused Coric not present]

 5                           [The witness entered court]

 6                           --- Upon commencing at 9.04 a.m.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, will you call

 8     the case, please.

 9             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, everyone in and around the

10     courtroom.  This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic

11     et al.  Thank you Your Honours.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.

13             On Thursday, the 13th of November, 2008, I bid good morning to

14     the accused, the Prosecution, counsel, and the witness, of course, whom I

15     will not forget, and the registrar, the usher, and the court reporter.

16             Let me first read an oral decision before we continue with the

17     testimony of this witness, because next week we're going to have

18     Mr. Tomic, and the Chamber is going to render this decision which is

19     rather long, so I'll go slowly.

20             Oral decision regarding the question of the Prosecution to be

21     given an additional 1 hour, 35 minutes for the examination of Witness

22     Tomic.

23             At the hearing of the 12th of November, 2008, the Prosecution

24     requested 1 hour and 35 additional minutes for the examination of Witness

25     Tomic, who will be appearing from the 17th to the 19th of November.

Page 2560

 1             In support of its request, the Prosecution said it needed to

 2     raise precise issues with witness Neven Tomic, and the time would be

 3     longer than the time left to them, that is, 2 hours and 17 minutes.  The

 4     question has to do with the federation between Croatia and Bosnia and

 5     Herzegovina, which was envisaged at a certain point in time.

 6             In more general terms, the Prosecution also refers to a

 7     disequilibrium between the total amount of time given to the Defence to

 8     examine and cross-examine witnesses on the one hand, and the time

 9     allotted to the Prosecution for the cross-examination of a witness.

10             The counsels of Stojic, Praljak, Petkovic, and Coric objected to

11     the request of the Prosecution.

12             In a preliminary manner, the Chamber recalls that in line with

13     guiding line number 5, the Prosecution has for the cross-examination a

14     hundred per cent of the time allotted for the examination-in-chief.  As

15     for the time available for the cross-examination conducted by Defence

16     counsel, the Chamber has ruled that they should have a total - that is

17     all the Defence teams conducting cross-examinations - 50 per cent of the

18     time allotted for the examination-in-chief.

19             The Chamber presents in detail the motives behind such a decision

20     based on the guiding line for the presentation of evidence dated on the

21     24th of April, 2008, and refers the Prosecution to those grounds

22     developed in that decision.  This guiding line was confirmed by the

23     Appeals Chamber by the decision of the 18th of July, 2008, a decision

24     prompted by an appeal by the Defence of Petkovic and Praljak and not by

25     the Prosecution.

Page 2561

 1             The Chamber does not find that there is any imbalance in the

 2     implementation of this guiding line.

 3             The witness Neven Tomic appeared before the Chamber from the 27th

 4     to the 30th of October, 2008, and on the 3rd and 4th of November, 2008.

 5     According to the calculation of time as communicated by the registrar,

 6     the Prlic Defence used 8 hours, 6 minutes for the examination-in-chief of

 7     this witness.  The Defence counsel 2D, 3D, and 4D used a total of 3 hours

 8     and 17 minutes for the cross-examination.  Finally, the Prosecution used

 9     5 hours and 49 minutes for the cross-examination of this witness, so that

10     the Prosecution has available 2 hours and 17 minutes to complete their

11     cross-examination.  However, at the hearing of the 4th of November, 2008,

12     the Chamber, on an exceptional basis, allotted 2 hours to the Prlic

13     Defence to proceed with additional examination of the witness.  The Prlic

14     Defence, therefore, had globally used a total of 10 hours and 6 minutes.

15     The Chamber notes that under these circumstances, in order to establish a

16     fair balance, it is appropriate to grant the Prosecution the additional 1

17     hour and 35 minutes requested.

18             The Chamber therefore grants the request of the Prosecution.  So

19     the Prosecution will have a total of 3 hours and 52 minutes to continue

20     and complete their cross-examination.

21             MR. KARNAVAS:  Just for clarification for the record.  I want to

22     make sure we're abundantly clear on this.  I indicated that I would need

23     about two hours for redirect examination.  Therefore, your findings, I

24     believe, are incorrect that I was granted two hours.  I indicated I would

25     need about two hours.

Page 2562

 1             Now, in light of you giving the Prosecution an hour and a half, I

 2     will probably need one additional hour.  So I'm asking at this point

 3     three, perhaps as much as four hours for redirect examination.  The

 4     problem is every time you cave in to the Prosecution's whims and fancies,

 5     this is what happens.

 6             They're asking for additional time without having made a proper

 7     basis.  It should be at the conclusion, it should be at the conclusion of

 8     their cross-examination that they should make that -- that request that

 9     they need additional time.  If you go back, if you go back and you look

10     at their cross-examination, they waste 60 per cent of it initially going

11     over material that's already in the record.  They then come at the end of

12     their time and like Oliver Twist with cup and can; then they say we want

13     more time.  This is a ridiculous way of allocating time in advance prior

14     to them at least putting on the cross-examination.

15             In the future, what I will be doing is I will be objecting on the

16     grounds that the material has been covered on direct examination and,

17     therefore, they're wasting their time.

18             Your Honour, I want to make sure we understand ourselves very

19     clearly.  I do not object when they cover ground already established on

20     direct examination because the way I see it is they're wasting their

21     time, and now what you're doing is you're giving them more time.  You're

22     encouraging them.  That's what's happening, and your findings are

23     absolutely incorrect.  And therefore, I'm putting down my marker at this

24     point in time that I'm going to need at least an additional one hour

25     based on additional time that you gave them, which I think is unfounded

Page 2563

 1     based on the reasonings that they gave.

 2             MR. STEWART:  Your Honours, the one thing we mustn't do, of

 3     course, is make a submission immediately after ruling by Your Honours,

 4     which amounts in substance to an appeal.  Your Honour, we would just like

 5     to say on the record, and this we know already from brief discussion, is

 6     the position of Ms. Nozica and Mr. Khan's client that the decision Your

 7     Honours have just delivered with great respect is deeply flawed in the

 8     way that you have equated the various times.  But Your Honour, I'm not

 9     going to argue it as if it were an appeal, but it is absolutely deeply

10     flawed.  What we do do is we strongly support Mr. Karnavas in everything

11     he said in relation to further time for re-examination because it must

12     follow, Your Honours, that when the Prosecution has more time for

13     cross-examination, if -- and if they don't, then why are they having more

14     time, if they do cover more ground of substance - because we certainly

15     hope they will; otherwise, the whole thing will have been a wasteful

16     exercise - if they cover more ground of substance, then necessarily in

17     fairness the Defence counsel who is re-examining must be given

18     appropriately more time to cover the ground.  Otherwise, justice just

19     didn't done because in the end, it isn't a question of timing.  After

20     all, Your Honours' decision is recognising these matters as guidelines.

21     Your Honours must give, with respect, Mr. Karnavas the fair time he needs

22     to cover the ground, to be reviewed, of course, ultimately after the

23     cross-examination when we see whether this extra time has in fact led to

24     covering ground of any further substance.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

Page 2564

 1             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me.  I'll be ever so brief.  But I do think

 2     given the comments that have been made, there has to be some, again,

 3     balance injected into the record.

 4             First of all, I'm grateful to the Chamber for the time, and I

 5     want to be very clear that the first thing I say is thank you for the

 6     additional time to all the Judges.

 7             Having said that, I suppose in many respects I'm not particularly

 8     happy with the analysis of the Chamber, either.  The Prosecution -- so I

 9     guess we're all unhappy this morning.  I'm happy with the final result.

10     I'm not so happy with the Chamber's analysis.  I do think that there is

11     an unfairness being practiced on the Prosecution in general.  The

12     Prosecution will continue to state its concerns, as we feel that we are

13     duly obligated to do so, but I'm most grateful for the additional time of

14     this particular witness.

15             Your Honour, Mr. Karnavas's comments are really, well,

16     unfortunate.  I'll leave it at that.  I don't think we used our time

17     improperly.  I think we covered helpful material, and I think ultimately

18     the Chamber hopefully found helpful and will continue to find helpful is

19     that with conducted -- is any examination conducted with 100 per cent

20     efficiency?  Probably not.  It's the nature of the beast.  There's a

21     matter of art, not science, but you -- to say that it was covered in

22     direct is -- doesn't say anything.  Of course things were covered in

23     direct; hence, the scope of direct; hence, cross-examination.  So -- but

24     that doesn't mean the Prosecution nor the Chamber has to accept what

25     the -- whether the case put by the Defence in their direct or the answers

Page 2565

 1     given by the witness.  We don't have to accept that at face value.  Of

 2     course we can go back and challenge that, so that just doesn't go

 3     anywhere.

 4             Now, if -- you know, to turn back on the Defence what has just

 5     been said to the Prosecution, if at the end of the cross -- all the total

 6     cross-examination, Mr. Karnavas with articulate a reason for additional

 7     time for redirect, of course he can -- he can attempt to do so, but I --

 8     I must observe that say -- to say baldly and as a general matter that if

 9     the Prosecution has -- is given an hour and 35 minutes of additional

10     time, which is still substantially less time than the Defence took,

11     substantially less, that for -- in return for an hour and 35 minutes, he

12     gets an hour, almost equal amount of addition many time in redirect, is

13     frankly preposterous.

14             Again, I'll end where I started by saying I thank you to the

15     Chamber, to each of you Judges for the additional time, and we will

16     proceed, and I hope you will find the time well used.  Thank you.

17             MR. KARNAVAS:  Let me give you an example, a concrete example.

18     Yesterday, we were talking about constituent peoples.  It seems every

19     time we have a new Prosecutor in here, we go through the same ground.  It

20     happen with Ms. West.  It happened a while back with Mr. Stringer.  They

21     don't have the singlest clue about what a constituent nation is.

22             For three years, we've been talking about this.  Now, if you go

23     back and you look at the transcript with Judge May, who is a very

24     experienced Judge from England who sat here, and you look at that

25     transcript, he would cut off counsel and say, Counsel, that's already

Page 2566

 1     been established, move on.  Counsel, that's already been established,

 2     move on.  Continually, throughout the process, he kept reins.

 3             Now, I've been keeping my powder dry because if the Prosecution

 4     wishes to waste their time on cross, that's their time.  I'm not going to

 5     interfere.  But now I'm put in a position where I continually will have

 6     to object on the grounds that they're going over established facts,

 7     wasting their time, in order to wear down the witness to then ask for

 8     more time, showing you statistics, and with statistics somehow claiming

 9     that numbers should be equated, and that's not how trials are conducted.

10     I find it very odd that this is the approach that has been taken, and

11     just as the Prosecution said yesterday, well, I think I need an hour and

12     a half more without giving a basis, that's the foundation that I give for

13     saying I need one more hour because they're going to -- going to

14     additional information; and with that, I think at this point I'm going to

15     make an oral submission for interlocutory appeal on this issue because I

16     think we are opening up a Pandora's box.

17             Part of my redirect examination has to directly contradict

18     matters that were brought up by the other Defence.  That's why I think

19     the Trial Chamber is moving rather hastily in granting this request by

20     the Prosecution who simply shows numbers, brings out the violin, and all

21     of a sudden we're supposed to feel sorry that they're being hampered.  My

22     client has been waiting for years to get a fair trial.  This is not

23     turning out to be a fair trial.

24             MR. STEWART:  Your Honour, we raise the question, what's

25     Mr. Scott so worried about?  Presumably by getting more time for

Page 2567

 1     cross-examination, he's expecting and hoping to strengthen his case and

 2     get more material out of the witness.  In those circumstances, why is he

 3     so dismissive of, then, Mr. Karnavas having more time for re-examination?

 4     Because the more Mr. Scott does achieve out of cross-examination, the

 5     more clear it is that, in fairness, the Defence should have time for

 6     re-examination.  And what is Mr. Scott so scared about?  If he's going to

 7     get what he wants out of -- out of cross-examination and if it is going

 8     to be solid evidence, then why isn't he more relaxed about allowing

 9     re-examination because then -- well, Mr. Scott, I'll sit down, and then I

10     will allow you to stand up when I sit down which I --

11             MR. SCOTT:  I'll wait --

12             MR. STEWART:  But I'll sit down, Mr. Scott, because I don't

13     really much care for the practice, with respect, Your Honours, of two

14     counsels standing up in court at the same time.  So I'm going to sit down

15     and give the floor to Mr. Scott.

16             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. Stewart.  Your Honour, I didn't intend

17     to respond further, but those comments are extremely personal and I

18     think, again, highly unfortunate.  I'm sorry --

19             MR. STEWART:  I will stand up to counsel and make an exception.

20     Of course they're not personal, Your Honour.  Mr. Scott happens to be the

21     lead Prosecutor making the submissions for the Prosecutor.  I do claim I

22     rarely, if ever, and I'd like to claim never, I do not make personal

23     comments about counsel in this court.  I challenge anybody to find on the

24     record that I've adopted that practice.  No.  Mr. Scott is the

25     representative of the Prosecution, and everything I say is a submission

Page 2568

 1     about the Prosecution.  But of course I name him as a courtesy because he

 2     is the counsel submitting on behalf of the Prosecution at this moment.

 3     Mr. Scott, through Your Honours, no, of course it's not personal.  Please

 4     accept that assurance.

 5             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me, Your Honour.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

 7             MR. SCOTT:  If I might have the floor, Your Honour.  If I might

 8     have the floor for a moment since the Defence have once again gone on --

 9             THE INTERPRETER:  Please slow down for the interpreters.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please.

11             MR. SCOTT:  Your Honour, I would like to be heard.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.  Mr. Scott.

13     [Overlapping speakers]

14             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me.  I would like to have the floor when

15     everyone else is finished.  I'm being patient.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Mr. Prlic, then.

17             THE ACCUSED PRLIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.  I do not wish to

18     make any comments regarding the ruling.  It has not surprised me.  You

19     can give the Prosecutor all the time in the world, and that will not

20     assist him.  Already in the initial stages of the proceedings, I gave up

21     my rights to an effective trial to give time to the Prosecutor to prove

22     something that I do not think can be proven in any way.  So I'm not

23     talking about the merits, but I wish to speak about the grounds and

24     argumentation for this decision.

25             My request is that this piece of paper given by the Prosecutor

Page 2569

 1     should be given an IC number.  Why?  It is my opinion that it is a

 2     paradigm of the overall proceedings here, and unfortunately, also of the

 3     manner of decision-making.

 4             Look at the arguments.  The same applies to your ruling.  You say

 5     the Defence, and that is flagrantly incorrect.  There are Defences here.

 6     There are six Defences here.  We accept adding up apples and pears.  I

 7     don't know who wrote this paper, maybe Ms. Tabeau.  These things are

 8     incomparable.  A comparison is made by the time used by the Defence in

 9     the cross-examination with the time used by the Prosecution in this part

10     of the Defence case.

11             First of all, my Defence did not have a single 92 bis or 92 ter

12     witness, so only viva voce time is not comparable.

13             Furthermore, as an example of lengthy examination by the Defence,

14     the Witness RA has been cited, and this is a witness who admitted his --

15     confessed his guilt, and a part of the document was his admission and the

16     facts established on that occasion.

17             Therefore, these are things that cannot be compared.  I'm talking

18     about the arguments given in this case.

19             What I wish to say is that my Defence counsel, and I believe the

20     others, too, wish to be treated individually.  I asked for the separation

21     of the indictment twice.  The Chamber rejected this both times.  I did

22     not write the indictment.  I did not confirm it, but I request to have

23     the same rights as the other accused.  I do not wish to have a sixth of

24     the rights enjoyed by the late Milosevic, Momcilo Perisic, or Seselj.  No

25     one agrees with that, not even the people I have mentioned, and that is

Page 2570

 1     why this is not my problem.  It's a problem for this Tribunal.

 2             And let me say once again, you can give all the time you wish to

 3     the Prosecutor.  He uses it mostly to undermine the credibility of all

 4     the witnesses that are being brought here.  That is common to all of

 5     them, from the first to the last, for the presidents of states, for the

 6     prime ministers, for ministers, ambassadors.  Perhaps Bosnia and

 7     Herzegovina is not such a well-known state, but for me it is important,

 8     and I represented it.  It is perhaps not like Switzerland, the United

 9     States, France, or Hungary.  Those countries are in quite a different

10     situation.

11             The Prosecutor may address a request for compromising material

12     for a particular witness from a country in the region, and they have to

13     find something.  If they don't, then the Prosecutor can say that that

14     country is not cooperating.

15             [In English] I have the right to say that.  This is very

16     important issue.

17             [Interpretation] The Prosecution can say that country is not

18     cooperative, and then the ability of that country going to the European

19     Union is questioned.

20             So to summarise, I would like an IC number to be given to this

21     piece of paper because I think it is a paradigm of all the arguments that

22     are being presented in this case.  Thank you.

23             MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning to everyone

24     in the courtroom.  Good morning, Your Honours.

25             I apologise to Mr. Scott, though I was on my feet before him, but

Page 2571

 1     he said he would speak at the end.  I just wish to make one point.

 2             I know the ruling is such as it is once it has been made, but

 3     something is not clear to me once again.  We had an earlier decision

 4     regarding instructions how time would be calculated, and it was said that

 5     the time given to the Prosecution for the cross would correspond to -- a

 6     hundred per cent to the time for the examination-in-chief, but with

 7     today's ruling we have a slightly different situation.  That is

 8     calculating the time used by the Defence in the direct examination, and

 9     we are told in advance the amount of time that will be used in the

10     redirect.

11             I'm referring to a hypothetical situation when the Defence will

12     not know until the Prosecution completes their cross-examination how much

13     time that Defence will need for redirect, particularly as we have already

14     seen during the cross-examination of the Prosecution that certain issues

15     are being raised with the permission of the trial that were not covered

16     in the direct because they are relevant.

17             For example, myself.  When presenting Mr. Coric's Defence, I will

18     not know whether I will need a redirect and how long it will last.  So if

19     my redirect is lengthy because of something said by the Prosecution, then

20     Mr. Scott or somebody else may get on its feet and say the Defence is

21     having so much time and I had so much and then I wish some -- to have

22     some additional time.  So this is leading to a vicious circle.

23             I appeal to the Chamber to reconsider its decision and see where

24     this could lead us in the future.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

Page 2572

 1             MR. KHAN:  I'm happy to wait until after Mr. Scott has addressed

 2     the Court.  I just want to note that after he speaks, I would ask for

 3     five minutes to make some observations.

 4             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me, Your Honour.  If this is going to go on

 5     and on, with all due respect, I'd like to hear all the Defence comments,

 6     and I'll respond all at one time.  I've been sitting here waiting.  I

 7     think I'm owed that much.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  Mr. Khan, conclude and

 9     then Mr. Scott will conclude, and we'll stop there because we are here

10     for a witness, and for the sake of this witness it's necessary that he

11     thinks we have him in mind, and at the moment we're evidently not

12     thinking about the witness.  So Mr. Khan, do proceed so that Mr. Scott

13     can then conclude, and then we will bring the witness into the courtroom.

14             MR. KHAN:  Mr. President, Your Honours, I'm much obliged.  The

15     last comment of my learned friend is perhaps indicative of some of the

16     problems in this courtroom.  It is:  "I think I'm owed that much."  This

17     case, this trial, and this institution is not about the rights of

18     individuals.  It's about, obviously, the fair administration of justice,

19     and one does see a tendency, and I would respectfully submit an extremely

20     unfortunate tendency, in this courtroom to reduce matters completely

21     unnecessarily down to the personal sensibilities of the actors in the

22     courtroom.

23             This is not about -- this case is not about Mr. Khan or

24     Mr. Karnavas or Mr. Scott.  It's about facts that Your Honours are

25     deciding, and counsel that are as experienced as the advocates in this

Page 2573

 1     courtroom and certainly as able and capable as my learned friends for the

 2     Prosecution really should -- all of us, all of us should have somewhat

 3     thicker skin than perhaps we have shown in this case thus far.

 4             One can trenchantly and robustly criticise one's opponents

 5     without it being viewed as a personal assault or an ad hominem attack.

 6     Of course, arguments should be politely constructed, but vivid language

 7     can be used, and personal offence should not be taken, because what it

 8     does, it wastes time, it distracts, and it adds heat to the courtroom and

 9     lends no light whatsoever.

10             Your Honour, yesterday I made a submission and Your Honours have,

11     of course, ruled, but it's well known the saying that there are lies,

12     darned lies, and statistics; and one cannot reduce a fair trial to a

13     simple mathematical formula.  Your Honours, I won't say more about that,

14     but on behalf of Mr. Stojic, we do join my learned friend Mr. Karnavas in

15     supporting an oral application for interlocutory leave to appeal given

16     the reasoning, not the ultimate decision only, but the reasoning of the

17     Trial Chamber in coming to this decision.

18             I would concur, with respect, to my learned friend Mr. Stewart.

19     For the life of me, I cannot see why there is any prejudice to the

20     Prosecution.  Well, firstly, I don't know why the Prosecution are

21     apparently a little bit -- are so concerned about matters, but in the

22     event that additional time has been given, Your Honours have made a

23     ruling that the Defence -- each Defence team has a certain amount of

24     time.  If Mr. Karnavas and later on if we decide in re-examination that

25     in the interests of justice additional time is needed - and we're not

Page 2574

 1     asking for additional time globally; we're simply saying we'll take time

 2     from another witness and use it in re-examination - why that would

 3     prejudice the Prosecution, why that would be somehow inappropriate.  I

 4     simply do not see it, Your Honours.

 5             Your Honours, a margin of discretion always must be given to the

 6     Prosecution as they know their case, and a margin of discretion must be

 7     given to the Defence.  We are not simple labourers hauled off the streets

 8     without knowledge.  There are some very experienced advocates here, and I

 9     think the way a courtroom will work is sometimes to give trust to the

10     parties when they say they do need additional time because they know

11     their case better than anybody else.  And so, Your Honours, I would ask

12     that a significant margin of appreciation be given when Mr. Karnavas asks

13     for additional time or later on if we ask for additional time.

14             My final point, and again, it's an awful American saying, but I

15     will say it.  You know, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the

16     gander, but -- well, I'm not keen on it, but, Your Honours, Mr. Scott, my

17     learned friend --

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Could you translate this in an understandable

19     language because --

20             MR. KHAN:  Yes.

21             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  -- I understand the words, but there must be

22     some meaning behind it.

23             MR. KHAN:  Well, Your Honour, I think it's parity of treatment.

24     It's parity of treatment, to put it --

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

Page 2575

 1             MR. KHAN:  -- more succinctly and in, perhaps, English.  But,

 2     Your Honours, yesterday I mentioned that the application as it was

 3     constructed based on statistics was unfounded because grounds had not

 4     been put forward.  That was my argument yesterday.

 5             Today, my learned friend very correctly, very correctly said,

 6     well, if Mr. Karnavas wants additional time he should put forward

 7     grounds.  Well, I agree with that.  But then the Prosecution should

 8     really put forward grounds that are not only predicated upon statistical

 9     evidence.

10             Your Honour, it has been said in this courtroom before, and there

11     may well have been more than a scintilla of truth in it - I don't deviate

12     from that possibility at all - that some parties sometimes cry you a

13     river.  They were the words used, cry you a river.  Well, if that

14     proclivity is present for the Defence on occasion, one should not close

15     one's mind to the possibility that the Prosecution may also cry you a

16     river on occasions talking about their huge difficulties and the lack of

17     time.  But that emotive argument about being owed time and the unfairness

18     shouldn't be a distraction to the substance, to the merits of a case put

19     forward by a party; and one must always go back to legal principle.

20             Your Honours, you do have a ruling.  You've made a ruling in the

21     past about allocation of time.  You have made a ruling about the Defence

22     allocation of time.  I don't see any prejudice or reluctance or argument

23     against giving the Defence additional time in re-examination if they have

24     that time of their own in advance.  It is for the Defence to best decide

25     how to present its case, and if they subtract time from a witness that's

Page 2576

 1     to come in the future, to add time to a matter that they think is that

 2     important, Your Honours, in my submission, should be very slow to

 3     intervene.

 4             Your Honours, those are my submissions on this matter.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

 6             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.  I suppose

 7     just to be consistent with the information we provide the Chamber about

 8     time and just to illustrate the point, this morning the Prosecution made

 9     very abbreviated and very measured comments that were not -- in no

10     fashion personal at all to counsel; and so far, until I just stood up

11     again, the Prosecution's comments were three minutes, three minutes.  The

12     Defence total time taken was 23 minutes.  So about -- about eight times

13     as much as the Prosecution's time.  The point is made yet again.

14             I disagree, Your Honour, fundamentally with Mr. Stewart.  He says

15     it's not personal, but when Mr. Stewart stands up and says I don't know

16     -- such things as I don't know what Mr. Scott is so afraid, that's

17     personal.  And then when Mr. Khan gets up and makes similar things about,

18     we should have a thicker skin, nobody should -- we shouldn't be saying

19     these things, and then turns around and says -- talks about the

20     Prosecution, Mr. Scott crying a river, I submit to you this morning, Your

21     Honours, that the people who have been personal this morning throughout

22     have been the Defence, not the Prosecution, and then had the gall, and

23     then had the gall to criticise the Prosecution, and every comment --

24     personal comment this morning has come from the Defence side.

25             Now, coming back to -- coming back to the merits, and I want to

Page 2577

 1     address some of the broader comments made.  If the Chamber at one point

 2     wants to set time aside for other arguments, we can do that.  I'm not

 3     going to address Mr. Prlic's comments.  But Your Honour, this is a

 4     tempest in a teapot.  What I said and what should have been heard and

 5     none of this was really necessary is, I'll say it again:  I understand

 6     redirect flows from cross-examination.  I understand that.  Of course it

 7     does.  That's the whole purpose of it.  And I said a few minutes -- I

 8     said 23 minutes ago, I said 23 minutes ago, before the Defence started

 9     talking, that if Mr. Karnavas does need some additional time flowing from

10     my hour, 35 minutes, of course he will ask for it, and he may be entitled

11     to it.  I hope I -- I hope I make some points on cross-examination.  I

12     certainly hope I do.  And if Mr. Karnavas needs a few more minutes, then

13     he can ask for that.  My only -- the only observation I made that

14     apparently has led to all this is that to stand up and say because the

15     Prosecution gets another hour, 35, I will need -- I need to basically

16     have the same time again, an hour, for additional redirect is I think --

17     I'd say preposterous and I think probably it is preposterous.  That's the

18     only comment I made.  I don't rule out the possibility that Mr. Karnavas

19     may seek a few additional minutes to respond to the additional time given

20     to the Prosecution, for which, again, I'm most grateful.

21             Thank you, Your Honours.

22             MR. STEWART:  Your Honour, the Office of the Prosecutor --

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart, we'll stop there.

24     This is a game of ping-pong, of table tennis.  We have fully understood

25     the problem.  If you want to add anything else to the situation, well,

Page 2578

 1     I'll summarise the problem.

 2             Mr. Prlic wants an IC number for the document.  He asked for that

 3     yesterday in the afternoon.  We'll deliberate about that.

 4             There are two requests for interlocutory leave for appeal by

 5     Mr. Karnavas and Mr. Khan given this matter.  We would like to have these

 6     requests in writing because the Chamber will take a written decision on

 7     the matter, as it's an important problem, so we need these submissions in

 8     writing, these requests in writing.

 9             The Prosecution will have 3 hours and 52 minutes as we have

10     decided.  Mr. Karnavas has requested four hours.  The Chamber will

11     deliberate about this on Monday, and we'll see whether he has the need

12     for four hours for additional questions.  We'll see about that.  We'll

13     discuss this among ourselves.

14             Now, Mr. Stewart, I don't want to prevent you from speaking.

15     Perhaps there was something else you wanted to address.  If that is the

16     case, I'll give you the floor, but if you just want to go over what we

17     have been saying, it won't be necessary.  It's for you to judge what you

18     want to say.

19             MR. STEWART:  [Previous translation continues] ... what I was

20     going to say was intended to help to calm down the situation, but Your

21     Honour has done that, so I have nothing more to say.  Thank you.  Thank

22     you for the opportunity.  I -- I don't take it now.  Thank you.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Stewart.

24             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  We have almost lost 45 minutes by

25     now, and if I say "lost," I must say we have not much -- heard much today

Page 2579

 1     that we haven't heard many times even before, so I did not think this

 2     very fruitful.  I have, I must say, some hesitation in -- in -- that the

 3     custom that seems to come up that every decision of the Chamber gives

 4     rise to long discussions.  It's not really what the administration of law

 5     is about.

 6             I would just like to recall to Mr. Karnavas what he said

 7     yesterday, and you find this on page 43, lines 9 and 10.  I quote:  "I

 8     hope that I wasn't in any way suggesting that the Prosecution should

 9     not," and here a word is missing, I think it's "get additional time."

10     Thank you.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  But I did also -- to be fair to me, I did say that

12     they need to put their case forward, and as I argued yesterday and today,

13     they haven't provided sufficient grounds other than statistics.  So that

14     was -- it was in that context.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Madam Prosecutor, I

16     greet you again, and I give you the floor, and let's proceed in such a

17     way that the witness can leave at the end of the day.

18             MS. MOE:  Certainly, Mr. President.  Good morning.  Good morning,

19     Your Honours.  Good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom, and

20     to Mr. Batinic.

21                           WITNESS:  ZDRAVKO BATINIC [Resumed]

22                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

23                           Cross-examination by Ms. Moe: [Continued]

24        Q.   If we go to March 2001, Mr. Batinic, did you hold any positions

25     within the HDZ at that time?

Page 2580

 1        A.   Good day to everyone, first of all.  In March 2001, I was the

 2     vice-president of the HDZ in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 3        Q.   And a man named Ante Jelavic, was he the president of the HDZ at

 4     that time?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  I'm going to object to this line of questioning.

 7     It's a waste of time.  Where is the relevance?  How does it fit within

 8     the indictment?  How does it go to challenge this gentleman's credibility

 9     as to what occurred back in 1992, 1993?  I'm objecting on the grounds

10     that later on when they run out of time, they'll be asking for additional

11     time as they've done with Mr. Tomic.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I don't see the purpose of the

13     question, but the Prosecutor certainly has other questions that will

14     follow, so let's wait to see what she'll say.

15             Please proceed, madam.

16             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Mr. President, and I will not be asking for

17     additional time with this -- with this witness, just so that's clear.

18        Q.   Mr. Batinic, were you banned from political activities by the OHR

19     in 2001, and was Ante Jelavic as well?

20        A.   Yes, that's true.  There was a decision from the High

21     Representative of the 7th of March, 2001, according to which I was banned

22     from engaging in politics.  But with your leave, I would like to provide

23     you with an explanation.  May I?

24        Q.   We'll get to that.  I just have a few questions before we get to

25     that decision itself.

Page 2581

 1             Is it true that you and Mr. Jelavic were banned much on the basis

 2     of the same alleged facts put forward by the OHR?

 3             MR. KARNAVAS:  What are the alleged facts, Your Honour?  How is

 4     the gentleman supposed to guess what she's talking about?  Yesterday we

 5     were talking about the OSCE, which is a different organisation than OHR.

 6             MS. MOE:  I'm now talking about the OHR.  It's a different

 7     decision.  This is a state-level decision, and I can go directly to -- to

 8     the decision removing Ante Jelavic from his position that he had at the

 9     time.  These are decisions made by the OHR, not by the OSCE, just to make

10     that clear.

11        Q.   Could you please look at the small binder, Mr. Batinic, that you

12     have there, and look up P 10662, please.  Do you have the document, sir?

13        A.   I have now.

14        Q.   Now, we see that up in the right-hand corner, it says that the

15     date is 7th of March, 2001, and it has the logo of the office of the High

16     Representative, and the deadline -- excuse me, the headline is:

17     "Decision removing Ante Jelavic from his position as the Croat member of

18     the BiH Presidency."  And he was the Croat member of the BiH Presidency

19     at the time, wasn't he?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   We go down to the decision.  You see that a bit further down.  It

22     says the following:  "The decision is to remove Ante Jelavic from his

23     position as member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to bar

24     him from holding any official elective or appointive public office and

25     from running in elections and from office within political parties unless

Page 2582

 1     or until such time as I may, by further decision, expressly authorise him

 2     to hold or seek the same."

 3             Do you recognise this decision regarding Jelavic, Mr. Batinic?

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   I'd just like to read out a couple of portions from this, and

 6     I'll ask you some questions in relation to that, and I'll ask you to go

 7     to page 3 of the B/C/S version, please, and that's the top of page 3 in

 8     the English version.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is it, Mr. Praljak?

10             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours,

11     Judge Antonetti, while this political examination is in course and this

12     political trial is continuing, allow me to remain in that room of mine

13     over there.  I don't want to participate in this --

14             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone for the accused, please.

15             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Try and act in this

16     political way in America instead of terminating this trial here, because

17     we're taking away the right to elections here without any proceedings.

18     This is not understandable in Europe, in America.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Listen to what I have to say,

20     Mr. Praljak.  Sit down.  Madam Prosecutor is cross-examining the witness,

21     Mr. Prlic's witness.  As you are well aware, she has the right to test

22     the witness's credibility, which is what she is doing.  Her objective is

23     to discredit the witness in -- in the courtroom.  It's a well-known

24     technique.  She's doing this on the basis of certain documents that I

25     didn't know of.  Allegedly, this individual, the individual concerned,

Page 2583

 1     was barred from participating in elections, and now the High

 2     Representative also took a decision, so that's what was explained to us.

 3     The witness said he was going to tell us what his point of view is.  So

 4     let's wait to see what the witness has to say in response to the

 5     Prosecution's questions.  I want to know why the High Representative

 6     barred him from engaging in political activities.  This is not totally

 7     inoffensive, so let's remain calm and wait to see how things develop.

 8     That's the game.  That's our practice.  In your country, in my country,

 9     we would proceed differently; that's for sure, but this is how we proceed

10     here.  I didn't invent the rules.  I'm applying the rules.

11             Madam, unless I'm mistaken with regard to what you want to show

12     or to demonstrate, please continue.

13             MS. MOE:  Thank you --

14             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may.  I

15     appreciate the fact that you fully explained the situation to my client.

16     You also explained why you are allowing this line of questioning, which

17     appears to be irrelevant [Realtime transcript read in error, "relevant"]

18     to me and to my client, in spite of the fact that the Prosecution is

19     trying to address the issue of credibility for this witness or the lack

20     of credibility, but my client Mr. Praljak made a suggestion.  He asked

21     you to make it possible for him not to listen to this part of the

22     examination.  He finds it tantamount to torture.  So since you provided

23     him with this explanation, perhaps it will be good to ask him whether he

24     would still like to remain outside of the courtroom until this part has

25     been completed.  But I think it's his right to request to leave the

Page 2584

 1     courtroom.

 2             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you for that

 3     explanation, Your Honours.  Your explanation is the reason for which I

 4     don't want to listen to this.  In the world today, given all the

 5     international resolutions, one accepts that without sentence, without a

 6     trial, in a certain country one can bar the person a right to vote or to

 7     participate in elections.  I can't understand that this is being

 8     discussed.  I feel ashamed because there's a military and

 9     incomprehensible administration there.  The rights of this world, of this

10     Tribunal, of France, et cetera, is being violated there because it says,

11     for example, you without any laws, you don't have any rights.  You don't

12     have the rights of the citizen to be elected if you haven't been

13     sentenced, if you don't have a criminal record.  It goes back to the

14     French Revolution.  I understand that the Prosecution wants to ask this,

15     but having fought for certain rights for many years and the right to such

16     a trial, well, in that light I don't want to participate in this while

17     this lasts, so please let me leave the courtroom.  Because contrary to

18     the Prosecution who wants to discredit the witness, I'm supporting the

19     idea that the witness had certain rights, that the witness is a good man.

20     Political opinions are being sanctioned in a Hitler-like decision.

21             Please let me leave, not to listen to this.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If you want to leave the

23     courtroom, do so.  I thought it would be better for you to stay here to

24     listen to the witness's answer, but if you want to leave the courtroom

25     for a while, go ahead.  I'm not against that.

Page 2585

 1             MR. KARNAVAS:  Mr. President, Your Honours, here is the problem

 2     with what you're allowing the Prosecutor to do in this case.  It's not a

 3     matter of trying to discredit the gentleman's credibility.  You're now

 4     opening up an entire new issue, which perhaps most of you, if not all of

 5     you, are unaware you're doing.

 6             Now we're going into the politics in BiH post-Dayton and the

 7     aspirations of the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina to be treated as an equal

 8     nation, which they feel they have been disenfranchised as a result of

 9     being put together in this federation where effectively they no longer

10     choose their own leaders.

11             This entire issue with Jelavic has to do with the Croats feeling

12     that if Bosnia-Herzegovina is to survive, they should have a third

13     entity.  So there could be a Republika Srpska.  There could be an entity

14     for the Bosniaks and an entity for the Croats, and that's why the

15     underlying issue behind Mr. Jelavic is this.

16             And so now, it seems that we're into -- we're engaging into an

17     area which has nothing to do with the trial itself, and I would -- that's

18     why I ask, where are the parameters?  At what point do we stop and say

19     1994, 1995.  Now we're into 2001.  How does this gentleman's rights

20     affect his credibility?  He wishes the place where he was born to be

21     termed "Uskoplje" because that was the Croat name used before the Turks

22     came into the area during the Ottoman Empire, and he's willing to have it

23     called Gornji Vakuf/Uskoplje.  For a variety of reasons, OSCE sanctioned

24     him.  Jelavic was elected, elected democratically.  And when the nations

25     that are running Bosnia didn't like it - that is, the OHR - they

Page 2586

 1     disenfranchise him.  For what?  Exercising his right to speak and his

 2     right to promote what he believed are the aspirations of the Croats in

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 4             These are political issues.  These have nothing to do with this

 5     trial.  We're here to see whether the Prosecution can prove its case, and

 6     that's why I'm suggesting that before we go into this area, we need to

 7     figure out, where are the parameters?  Because then you're forcing us to

 8     put on a defence on issues that deal with politics, that deal with

 9     post-Dayton implementation, that have nothing to do with this case, with

10     this indictment.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Prosecution -- Madam

12     Prosecutor, a minute ago it was clear.  I asked you whether the

13     cross-examination had to do with the credibility of the witness.  It

14     seems that you said yes.  Mr. Karnavas got on his feet and said it's a

15     political matter.

16             Madam Prosecutor, is this a matter of politics, or are you

17     testing the witness's credibility?  Mr. Scott can perhaps answer that.

18             MR. SCOTT:  Excuse me, Your Honour, and I apologise to my

19     colleague who is obviously extremely capable, but because of the long

20     history of these issues in this case and because of some of the comments

21     that have been made my lead counsel on the other side, I think it's

22     appropriate for me to address the matter, with the Court's indulgence.

23     Thank you.

24             Your Honour, this is not a new issue, and the fact that

25     Mr. Karnavas hopefully, whether he intended to or not, perhaps has

Page 2587

 1     assisted the Chamber in seeing, in fact, the direct relevance of this

 2     issue.  What this shows and what Mr. Karnavas has just, indeed, explained

 3     to the Chamber is the utter consistency of this political view and

 4     political Chamber, or political - excuse me - programme, political

 5     programme from 1991 to at least 2001 to create a Croat entity.  We go

 6     back to the Livno question -- excuse me.  We go back to the Livno

 7     question that we've seen again in the last few days, February 1992.  "The

 8     formulation of the referendum we want is one of each constituent people

 9     in three separate areas (cantons)."  It's exactly the same, and the only

10     thing the Prosecution has said in response to Defence allegations along

11     the way that this isn't, you know, this is not -- this is not relevant.

12     This was only a temporary thing.  It was only during the war.  We never

13     intended to do this.  It's all been a long-term consistent programme, a

14     third entity.  A third entity.  And that's the point.  And this -- and

15     as -- so that's one reason it's relevant.

16             The second reason it's relevant is because it does go to the

17     credibility of this witness.  This -- the Chamber should know and -- you

18     know, I'm not asking the Defence to agree with us.  The measure is not

19     whether anyone across the courtroom agrees with the Prosecution's case or

20     not.  I suspect they don't agree with the Prosecution case, but it does

21     go -- we submit it does go to the credibility of this witness.  This

22     Chamber, the Judges, each of you should be able to -- should know in

23     assessing the weight of this witness's evidence these matters.  This is a

24     witness who was highly Partisan, who has participated over time in the

25     same Croat cause to create a third entity that goes back to November

Page 2588

 1     1991:  We want our sovereign Croatian territory, and the international

 2     community rejected that.  Now, the Defence may not like that, but the

 3     people that the United Nations, the European Union, and the international

 4     community put in place to enforce Dayton said this is not permissible,

 5     and this man, the documents show, violated an act, committed and engaged

 6     in anti-Dayton activity.  The Prosecution submits it goes to his

 7     credibility, and the Chamber should have the benefit of that information

 8     in assessing the evidence.

 9             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, the third entity, first of all, has

10     to do within the context of BiH.  That's number one.

11             Number two, how is it that the Serbs get to have Republika Srpska

12     and the Croats cannot have their own entity?  That's the issue now that

13     we're getting into.  This is a political issue.  So let's take a country

14     in Western Europe that may have three different speaking nations - let's

15     say Italian, German, French - and we're going to disenfranchise one of

16     them and say, No, two of you are going to be in one.  That's -- now,

17     effectively you had Mr. Tomic who said, Look, the federation wasn't being

18     implemented the way it was envisaged.  The Croats are still entitled to

19     have political aspirations as a constituent nation.  Having political

20     aspirations is one thing.  How did that go to his credibility as to what

21     he was doing at the time that he testified about?  Pose one question.

22     Did OSCE or did OHR or did any other court issue any decisions against

23     the gentleman for any activities that he carried out in 1991, 1992, 1993

24     when he was holding those positions for which he was testifying?  That's

25     the real issue, and what I'm afraid of -- and I'm perfectly capable of

Page 2589

 1     discussing these issues because I worked in Bosnia.  They're very

 2     complicated, but we're turning this into a political trial.  We're going

 3     away from what we're here for, and even if, even if in 2001 or 2006 - and

 4     I will show you a document later on about what is happening today in

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina - even if the Croats today aspired to have a third

 6     entity within Bosnia-Herzegovina that guarantees their constituent rights

 7     as a constituent nation, it is not a crime; and that's why I think you

 8     have someone like General Praljak who feels offended by this sort of --

 9     of a process because now we're politicising this trial.

10             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I may --

11             THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, since we've

12     raised the issue, I will speak quite calmly without any value judgements

13     as to what was happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina and why and who is to

14     blame regarding the war, et cetera.  The fact remains that one day in

15     Dayton, under the leadership of the Americans, President Clinton and

16     Holbrooke placed before the delegations a divided-up Bosnia-Herzegovina

17     in which one people, the Serbs, were allotted 49 per cent of the

18     territory after everything that had happened, and they were told, Here

19     you are.  This will be called Republika Srpska.  Bosnia-Herzegovina is

20     not even a republic.  It's just called Bosnia and Herzegovina.

21             Two peoples, the Croats and the Bosniaks, received 51 per cent of

22     the territory with 43 per cent Bosniaks and 18 per cent Croats.  So you

23     add it up.  So after everything that happened and, after all, you know

24     quite a bit about it, the international community divided up Bosnia and

25     Herzegovina in the ratio 49 to 51 per cent; and now all this suffering

Page 2590

 1     that we've seen from dozens of documents, the HZ HB sought only equality,

 2     and the thought that they might be entitled to certain cantons is being

 3     treated here as a crime.  Isn't that absurd logically?  If that is so,

 4     let's bring Holbrooke and Clinton, because they -- we were forced to make

 5     a federation in Bosnia-Herzegovina covering 51 per cent of the territory.

 6     This was after Srebrenica.  It was after aggression, after Perisic, after

 7     everything that we have seen here for two years.  Surely one's brain

 8     stops because it is so illogical.  It is the logic of primary school.

 9     Bosnia and Herzegovina has been forcibly divided, statehood, the right to

10     self-determination that was given to the Republika Srpska.  You know what

11     a republic is.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, everyone knows

13     what you are saying, so it's not a revelation.  What I think is important

14     is for you to wait and hear what the witness will say regarding the

15     problem raised.

16             I give you the floor, madam.  Yes, Madam Alaburic.

17             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, good morning to

18     everyone, to Your Honours, and everyone in the courtroom.  I feel it

19     necessary on behalf of General Petkovic's Defence to say a few sentences

20     for the simple reason that I think Scott has misrepresented the contents

21     of certain documents, and I feel such misrepresentation at this point in

22     time can have far-reaching consequences for the continued deliberations.

23             Mr. Scott said that Dayton established that a third-Croat entity

24     in Bosnia-Herzegovina was impermissible.  Such a submission cannot be

25     found in the Dayton documents or the discussions conducted there with

Page 2591

 1     which I am familiar.  At the time, no discussion was conducted about the

 2     third entity because a year and a half earlier on after the Washington

 3     Agreement, the Croatian people agreed to enter into a federation with the

 4     Muslim federation.  So this is a misrepresentation.

 5             I think it is not in dispute that the Albanian people of Kosovo

 6     had the right to separate from the state of Serbia.

 7             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I interrupt you because I must state for the

 8     record that now we are hearing political speech after political speech,

 9     and this is an abuse of the publicity of this trial.  These are all

10     questions that can be discussed, and every opinion has pros and cons, but

11     this is not the forum to do it, and I hope that the Prosecution will

12     limit this line of questioning to the necessary.  I think that a lot have

13     been shown now.  I think the Chamber has got an impression of what the

14     political attitude of our witness is.  As Mr. Karnavas has rightly

15     pointed out, this is not something which is really directly going to his

16     credibility.  It shows his political views, but we think have abundantly

17     heard what they are, and I would really wish that we could go on and

18     terminate the questioning of this witness.

19             I'm not silencing you, but I want this to be on record because

20     I'm really feeling uneasy now.

21             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Trechsel, I

22     fully understand your need to interrupt this debate, but your

23     intervention was along the similar lines when you said that my colleague

24     spoke along political lines.  So I think your intervention is simply to

25     stop a political debate.  But Mr. Scott was not interrupted when he

Page 2592

 1     presented his political view that the Defence is saying that Herceg-Bosna

 2     was a temporary situation in the interest of the defence, and then he

 3     went on to say that its aim was a third entity, which was prohibited in

 4     Dayton, and this is a major crime for which the Croats in Bosnia and

 5     Herzegovina are to blame.

 6             I just wish to respond that a single political aim in itself

 7     cannot be a crime, and the attempt to organise a state as a federation,

 8     confederation, or anything else in itself cannot be a crime, but it is

 9     quite impermissible that Mr. Scott should be allowed to present certain

10     political aims as a crime in itself.

11             I would have plenty more to say on this issue, but I will sit

12     down in the interest of the witness.

13             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to correct the

14     record.  When I was speaking at the beginning of this discussion on page

15     24, line 18, the transcript says that this line of questioning is

16     relevant in the opinion of myself and my client.  That is not true.  On

17     the contrary.  I said this line of questioning was irrelevant.

18             But since I'm on my feet, let me add:  On the basis of this

19     discussion from the Prosecution on, you have finally seen for yourself

20     that it is irrelevant.  Let us stick to the rules, and let us do that.

21             There are two possible reasons in theory and according to the law

22     why the Prosecution may in the cross raise issues that relate to events

23     far outside the scope of the indictment, much later than the indictment.

24     It is either the question of credibility, and I think you've already

25     ruled about that on the basis of Judge Trechsel's comments, or is it a --

Page 2593

 1     or is it a continuation of something that happened in April 1993?  But

 2     that is nonsensical.  Then we have a sui generis form of mens rea, but we

 3     don't have actus reus anywhere in the indictment.  So again, it's

 4     irrelevant.

 5             As for credibility, I'm not sure that it has been clearly stated

 6     that this witness is not mentioned in this document.  He's not mentioned

 7     by name, nor does it refer to him; and we all know that as a result of

 8     these moves by the office of the High Commissioner, certain punitive

 9     measures were made and some people were acquitted, and in one case there

10     is no ruling.  So I repeat, there's no relevance to this line of

11     questioning, and this is an example of a waste of court time.

12             Your Honour, in view of the discussion, I feel that his last

13     comment -- the last instruction he was given is not clearly translated.

14     I don't think he was told that if he wishes to leave he may do so.  Thank

15     you.

16             The document I'm referring is P 10662, P 10662.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  The Chamber

18     believes that the witness should respond.  It's fine to listen to all of

19     you, but what is important is the witness.

20             Mr. Scott, you're going to reintervene to prolong the discussion?

21             MR. SCOTT:  Well, Your Honour, with great respect, that's exactly

22     the problem.  The Defence goes on and on.  Everyone in the courtroom

23     becomes impatient.  The Judges become impatient, and I understand why,

24     then when minutes and minutes later the Prosecution finally has a chance

25     to be heard, then, Oh, it's -- the Prosecution's going to take more time.

Page 2594

 1     We've taken less time this morning than anybody else in the courtroom,

 2     substantially less.  Now -- so yes, I do want to be heard.  I do want to

 3     be treated fairly.  I want the Prosecution to be treated fairly.

 4             Now, first of all -- first of all, I'm not expressing any

 5     political view.  I've not expressed any political views this morning at

 6     all, and I'm not going to start now.  Number one.

 7             Number two, a number of the Prosecution positions have been

 8     completely misstated, completely mischaracterised.  I'm not going to go

 9     through them one by one, but I've heard counsel after counsel get on

10     their feet and completely misstate the Prosecution's position and

11     intentions and objectives.  Number two.

12             Number three, the Prosecution -- well, first let me go back.  It

13     does go to credibility, Your Honour, and to that -- to a very limited

14     extent, I disagree a little bit with Judge Trechsel.  It does go to

15     credibility and bias.  It goes to -- it goes to the Prosecution submits

16     -- the Chamber will ultimately, of course, give the weight to every

17     witness that they think is proper, and the Prosecution submits that in

18     weighing -- in weighing the evidence of this witness, the Chamber should

19     have this information, that this is a witness which we submit - the

20     Chamber may disagree, but the Prosecution is entitled to put its case -

21     we submit is a witness who is part and parcel, with great respect to the

22     witness, of -- of this particular programme and -- and that we've seen,

23     and the Prosecution -- the Chamber should be aware of that.  It doesn't

24     have to be a crime.  It's a particular political view.  It's a particular

25     political bias.  It doesn't have to be convicted of a crime to be

Page 2595

 1     relevant.  It's information that the Chamber should have.

 2             Now, finally, Your Honours, finally, and -- and then -- and

 3     again, a response to Judge Trechsel's comment, and I take it fully on

 4     board.  I'm not at all -- you know, sorry, Judge Trechsel.  I'm not

 5     picking on you, but it's -- we never intended to belabour this point.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  You may also pick.  The others may pick on me.

 7     You have the same rights.

 8             MR. SCOTT:  Thank you, Judge Trechsel.  I try not to, and I think

 9     the record -- well, the record will speak for itself.  My only comment,

10     Your Honour, is -- my only comment on that, Your Honour, the Prosecution

11     never intended to belabour these points.  My colleague has hardly had the

12     opportunity this morning to put questions.  We've put a few questions to

13     the witness about a couple of documents.  Had -- we would have been over

14     by now.  We would have been over by now if she would have simply been

15     allowed to put a few questions.  I've seen her outline.  I've seen her

16     outline.  She only asked a few questions.  She hasn't had a chance.

17     Maybe belabouring it, but if we can please proceed.  Thank you.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That is why I wanted her to

19     take the floor immediately.

20             Madam.

21             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

22        Q.   I'd like to go back to the document where we started out,

23     Mr. Batinic.  That's P 10662, the decision removing Ante Jelavic from his

24     position on the BiH Presidency.  And what I wanted to do was to read out

25     the reason for the ban, and I'd like you to go to the B/C/S version, page

Page 2596

 1     3, please, and it's the last paragraph, and it's the third last line, it

 2     should be, that starts with "Mr. Jelavic's unconstitutional behaviour."

 3              "Mr. Jelavic's unconstitutional behaviour culminated in his

 4     participation at what amounted to a party rally held at Mostar on 3rd of

 5     March, 2001, when those who participated were encouraged to make what was

 6     referred to as a 'decision' on the establishment on the" -- excuse me --

 7     "the establishment of an unconstitutional and illegal parallel structure.

 8     Mr. Jelavic must have been fully aware that this 'gathering' under the

 9     name of a Croat national assembly was incapable of making legal

10     decisions."

11             Were you present at this gathering, Mr. Batinic?

12        A.   I was.

13        Q.   I'd like to move to the decision that bans you from holding

14     public and party offices, and that's actually -- it's a 1D document.

15     It's number 1D 02800.

16             MS. MOE:  Maybe the usher can be of assistance.

17        Q.   Do you have it, Mr. Batinic?

18        A.   I do.

19        Q.   This is a similar decision on the layout.  We see up in the

20     right-hand corner it's the same date, 7th of March, 2001, and it's again

21     from the office of the High Representative, and it says:  "Decision

22     banning Zdravko Batinic from holding public and party offices."  And I

23     take it you recognise this decision, do you?

24        A.   I do.  I recognise it.

25        Q.   And if we go down to the decision itself, there's a headline

Page 2597

 1     saying "Decision," it says:  "To bar" -- "Decision to bar Mr. Zdravko

 2     Batinic from holding any official elective or appointive public office,

 3     and from running in elections, and from holding office within political

 4     parties, unless or until such time as I may, by further decision,

 5     expressly authorise him to hold or seek the same."

 6             And it says in the same paragraph that you also cease forthwith

 7     to be vice-president of the HDZ BiH.

 8             Those were the contents of this ban, weren't they?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   And if we go to the reasoning of the ban - that's continuing from

11     where I was reading - it says:  "Mr. Batinic has so conducted himself as

12     to make it clear that he does not respect the institutions set up under

13     the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina and

14     has thereby seriously obstructed the implementation of this Agreement.

15             "On Friday, 2nd of March, 2001, the day before a 'gathering' in

16     Mostar under the name of a 'Croat National Assembly' the High

17     Representative issued a public appeal in which he clearly stated that any

18     individual found to be engaged in illegal or anti-Dayton activities,

19     including the establishment and maintenance of parallel structures, will

20     be liable to sanction in accordance with my mandate."  That should be the

21     OHR mandate.  "Activities aimed at undermining the legal institutions of

22     the federation and state will not be tolerated."

23             That gathering in Mostar, that's the same gathering as was

24     referred to in the Jelavic decision, isn't it?

25        A.   It was not a gathering.  It was the Croatian National Assembly on

Page 2598

 1     the 3rd of March, 2001.

 2        Q.   But it's the same -- same -- the same incident or the same event

 3     that is referred to in the Jelavic decision, isn't it?

 4        A.   Yes, it is.  Not just Mr. Jelavic.  There were others too.

 5        Q.   And it goes on to say in the decision, and I'm reading from where

 6     I stopped before asking you the last question:  "Mr. Batinic deliberately

 7     chose to ignore this warning and the repeated calls of the international

 8     community that all should work within the legal institutions of the

 9     country.  The purported 'decisions' taken at Mostar on 3rd of March,

10     2001, are without legal effect but nevertheless represent a serious

11     attempt to disrupt and undermine the constitutional order which prevails

12     in the federation and in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

13              "Mr. Batinic has chosen to accept the position as so-called

14     vice-president of the Croat self-government.  By taking a leading

15     position in support of such behaviour, Mr. Batinic must personally bear

16     responsibility for his acts."

17             It's correct, isn't it, that you did accept the position of

18     vice-president of the Croat self-government as it says here?

19        A.   Quite so.

20        Q.   Is it also correct that the ban, this ban, was -- was lifted in

21     whole in 2006 by the office of the High Representative as part of the

22     closing-down process of that office?

23        A.   The office of the High Representative in Bosnia-Herzegovina has

24     not been closed, and they decided to lift the ban on political activity

25     of individuals who had been sanctioned.  I assume they realised that they

Page 2599

 1     had been wrong all that time.

 2        Q.   That ban -- sorry, the lifting of the ban, that didn't only apply

 3     to you, did it?  That applied to everyone that had been banned except for

 4     the persons who were banned for - let me call it - ICTY-related reasons?

 5        A.   All the persons covered by the decision of the High

 6     Representative were relieved of this ban or the sanctions, and they were

 7     restored their basic human and civil rights.

 8        Q.   And just one more short question before I assume the Trial

 9     Chamber would like to have a break, but the OHR did not only ban Croats,

10     did it?  They also banned Serbs and Muslims?

11        A.   The OHR issued such bans to representatives of all three peoples

12     in Bosnia-Herzegovina; but in relation to the total numbers of these

13     peoples, the Croatian officials were the ones who had the most sanctions

14     in relative terms.

15             MS. MOE:  It would be a good time for the break, I believe, if

16     that's in the Trial Chamber's mind?

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  We'll have a 20 -minute

18     break.

19                           --- Recess taken at 10.32 a.m.

20                           --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll now resume.

22             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

23        Q.   Based on something you said right before the break, Mr. Batinic,

24     I'd like to show you one document, and that is number P 10663.  That

25     should be in the second binder.  So in the -- in the smaller one.  It's P

Page 2600

 1     10663.

 2             That, Mr. Batinic, is, as you can see in the right-hand corner,

 3     again, from the 7th of July, 2006, and that's the decision lifting the

 4     ban from office within political parties in the removal decisions issued

 5     by the High Representative.  And that should be the decision lifting the

 6     ban -- the whole of the ban that also applied to you.  Isn't that

 7     correct?

 8        A.   That's quite correct.

 9        Q.   And I'd like you to look at the decision itself, and it should be

10     in the fourth paragraph of the decision.  It says the following:  "Noting

11     that pursuant to the GFAP and the Conclusions, the High Representative

12     has exercised his authority to remove officials from public office, thus

13     far, on 160 occasions."

14             Does that comply with your understanding that that number is

15     correct?

16        A.   I don't know whether the figure of 160 is correct, but I believe

17     that the office of the High Representative knew the exact figures, and

18     this is what they put down.

19        Q.   Before the break, when I brought up this lifting of the ban with

20     you, you said that -- and I'm quoting, "I assume they realised they'd

21     been wrong all the time..." as I understood it referring to the OHR, then

22     realising that they'd been wrong in applying the bans.

23             I'd like to go to the next page of the document, please, the

24     document you have in front of you.  And in the English version, it's the

25     second full paragraph on page 2 starting with "Profoundly convinced..."

Page 2601

 1     It should also come up on the screen in front of you, Mr. Batinic.

 2             And the OHR says as part of this decision to lift bans that it

 3     is:  "Profoundly convinced that the broad prohibition contained in the

 4     Decisions removing public officials was necessary to meet the challenges

 5     confronting Bosnia and Herzegovina in its bid to restore peace, build

 6     institutions, consolidate national identity, bridge ethnic divides and

 7     work towards regional integration, all at an accelerated pace to overcome

 8     the retrograde momentum of the country's past."

 9             So here the office of the High Representative sets out that they

10     thought it was necessary to imply these bans.  Do you have any comment to

11     that based on what you were saying before the break?

12             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honour, what is the relevance of all of this,

13     what he may think about what the OHR was doing at the time?  The

14     gentleman did ask for an opportunity to explain why he did what he did

15     and was not given the opportunity.  Now he's being asked to comment about

16     the office of the High Representative and their decisions.  I don't see

17     the point.  Perhaps the question should be, Why were you banned?  What

18     were the crimes?  What were the crimes for which you were banned?  That's

19     the real reason.

20             MS. MOE:  If I -- if I may --

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] He'll have the possibility of

22     expressing himself.  For the moment, I'm still waiting for his answer,

23     but let the Prosecution proceed, and if the Prosecution doesn't put the

24     question to the witness, I will.

25             Madam Prosecutor.

Page 2602

 1             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.  I'll rephrase my question.

 2        Q.   The OHR says here that it thought it necessary to ban these

 3     people, didn't they?

 4        A.   Well, that's what they have noted here.

 5        Q.   But your opinion is that that was wrong?

 6             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honours, he should be given an opportunity to

 7     also read the part where they say:  "... mindful, however, that the

 8     sanctions of a removal imposed against public officials pursuant to

 9     powers vested in the High Representative constitute an extraordinary

10     measure interfering with certain rights of the persons concerned."  We're

11     talking about human rights.  We're in Europe.  This is modern day.  So

12     perhaps he should be given an opportunity to read that because that may

13     go into his answer that he gave prior to the break.  Let's be fair to the

14     witness.

15             MS. MOE:  With all due respect --

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, your comment is

17     only relevant to the extent that the witness was never familiar with the

18     document.

19             Witness, have you already seen this document before, or is this

20     the first time?

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we received the

22     decisions the High Representatives -- or High Representative individually

23     when it came to decisions barring individuals from exercising political

24     authority or participating in governmental bodies in Bosnia and

25     Herzegovina.  We never individually received a High Representative

Page 2603

 1     decision of this kind.  I have heard about it, and many could download

 2     this decision from the website of the High Representative, but we didn't

 3     receive this decision individually.  I just had a brief look at it, and

 4     the essence was that on the 31st of December, the ban was to be

 5     terminated.  I didn't go into all the details, I have to admit.

 6             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  If I may add a small point, and I am

 7     a-addressing you, Mr. Karnavas.  I also know a bit, something about the

 8     European human rights system.  Interference is not at all the same as the

 9     violation.  There are interferences all the time, so perhaps it doesn't

10     quite have the weight that you seem to allocate to this word.  Thank you.

11             Please continue.

12             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Judge Trechsel, Mr. President.  I wasn't

13     planning to go into any other portions of this document.  I'll leave it

14     in the Trial Chamber's hands if the Judges have questions to the witness

15     on this.

16             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  Witness, I have a

17     question.  We saw this morning -- after a lot of meandering, we saw a

18     decision from the High Representative, not the one that we have before us

19     at the moment but a different one, banning all those who attended the

20     Mostar meeting from being politically active; and here in 2006, there is

21     a decision from another High Representative which revokes this decision.

22     It refers to the prior decision, as well, but in fact the ban has been

23     lifted here, and the decision states that there's reconciliation, the

24     European Union, et cetera, et cetera, to be considered.

25             You experienced all of this first-hand.  You were concerned

Page 2604

 1     personally.  So what reasons would you give for this change?  First, you

 2     were banned from participating in politics; then the ban was lifted.

 3     What I would like to know is, in your opinion, what were the objections

 4     that were made against you exactly?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your leave, I'd

 6     like to start from the beginning since yesterday in the afternoon the

 7     Prosecution tried to discredit my testimony when referring to the

 8     Decision of the Elective Council for the Organisation for Security and

 9     Cooperation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1995.  May I?

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12             The decision of the council of the OSCE dated the 20th of July,

13     1998.  The decision of The Electoral Council of the OSCE dated the 20th

14     of July, 1998, in which I was banned from participating in the bodies of

15     government in the Gornji Vakuf municipality.  I was also banned from

16     appearing as a candidate on the list of the HDZ in Bosnia and Herzegovina

17     just before the general elections in 1998, and I won't go on about that.

18     This all had to do with the failure to implement the results of the

19     elections in the municipality of Gornji Vakuf after the first local

20     elections held after the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  This was in

21     1997.

22             Why was I not prepared to implement the results of the election

23     in the municipality of Gornji Vakuf?  On the 29th of December, 1993, the

24     Assembly of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna issued a law on

25     amending the names of the municipality and town of Gornji Vakuf.  It was

Page 2605

 1     to be changed to Uskoplje.  On the 30th of March, 1994, at a session of

 2     the Constitutional Assembly of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

 3     a constitution for Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the Federation of Bosnia

 4     and Herzegovina was adopted in chapter 9 of the BiH federation

 5     constitution entitled "Transitional Solutions."  In Article 5, paragraph

 6     1, it states the following:  All the laws and other regulations and

 7     judicial rules in force in the federation at the time that this

 8     constitution enters into force shall remain in force to the extent that

 9     they do not contradict the provisions of these constitutions, whereas --

10     and until the legal authorities do not decide otherwise.

11             Before the first local elections in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1997,

12     not a single joint body of government in the Federation of Bosnia and

13     Herzegovina revoked the law of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna,

14     which referred to amending the name of the municipality and town of

15     Gornji Vakuf, which was to be called the town and municipality of

16     Uskoplje.  All we did was request that the elections should be held for

17     the municipality that was to be called Gornji Vakuf-Uskoplje.

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, as a rule I understand

19     things quickly, and I'll summarise the problem.  Your municipality on the

20     29th of December, 1993, adopted an amended name.  Gornji Vakuf was called

21     Uskoplje.  On the 30th of March, 1994, the federation at its meeting of

22     the Constitutional Assembly stated as you have said in chapter 9, Article

23     5, paragraph 1, that everything that had been adopted previously would

24     remain in force; and as a result, in constitutional terms, the change of

25     name was confirmed, but this is not something that the High

Page 2606

 1     Representative liked, and he then decided to impose sanctions on you.

 2     But the High Representative, didn't he have the possibility of contesting

 3     the constitutional text that was adopted?

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the electoral

 5     commission took the -- the decision in 1998, not the Office of the High

 6     Representative.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but this commission,

 8     didn't it have an appeals procedure or procedure that would have allowed

 9     them to control or supervise how legal this decision was?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wasn't aware of that possibility

11     at the time, Your Honour.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I continue?  I apologise.

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

16             With regard to the decision of the High Representative in Bosnia

17     and Herzegovina on replacing Mr. Ante Jelavic, Zdravko Batinic, and three

18     other colleagues of ours on the 7th of March, 2001, this is all related

19     to the session of the Croatian national parliament in Mostar on the 3rd

20     of March, 2001.  With regard to this matter, I would like to state the

21     following:  Prior to the general elections held in Bosnia and Herzegovina

22     in the year 2000, for reasons that were not clear to us Croats, the head

23     of the organisation for Bosnia and Herzegovina, the organisation for

24     European security and cooperation adopted a decision according to which

25     the rules and regulations for elections of deputies were being changed,

Page 2607

 1     for the election of officials of that nation in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

 2     and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina which had a two-chamber

 3     parliament, there's the House of Representatives and representatives are

 4     directly elected through elections, and there is the people's house or

 5     chamber which protests the vital interests of the people in the

 6     Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 7             In his decision, the head of the European Organisation For

 8     Security and Cooperation terminated part of the constituent nation of the

 9     Croatian -- constituent nature of the Croatian people in Bosnia and

10     Herzegovina.  The political leadership of the Croats in Bosnia and

11     Herzegovina responded by convening the Croatian national assembly in Novi

12     Travnik in October 2000.  At this Assembly in Novi Travnik, all important

13     deputies were present.  They had been elected at the previous elections,

14     and these were deputies came -- that came from municipalities and from

15     the state, the representatives from the Croats; there were

16     representatives of the Catholic church and of cultural associations of

17     the Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

18             That session, a declaration was issued on the rights and on the

19     positions of the Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  Somewhat

20     later, a decision was adopted according to with the Croatian people in

21     Bosnia and Herzegovina should be called to participate in a referendum.

22     The Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina had a referendum on the 11th of

23     November, 2000.  Over 90 per cent of the Croats who had come of age

24     participated in the referendum and voted for the declaration on the

25     rights and the positions of the Croatian people in Bosnia and

Page 2608

 1     Herzegovina.

 2             After the general elections that were held in November 2000, the

 3     HDZ in Bosnia and Herzegovina won over 90 per cent of the Croatian votes

 4     in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  In spite of that fact, the HDZ in Bosnia and

 5     Herzegovina was not allowed to participate in the governmental bodies of

 6     Bosnia and Herzegovina and of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 7     In the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is an article that

 8     states that municipalities and counties can link up in order to cooperate

 9     on an economic and cultural basis and for other reasons.  The Croatian

10     national assembly at its meeting of the 3rd of March, 2000, adopted a

11     decision on associating municipalities and counties in which the

12     inhabitants were mainly Croats or where the Croats were well represented.

13     These decisions were supposed to enable some institutions of strategic

14     importance for the Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina to -- to

15     survive, as they were to participate in financing these institutions.  I

16     have the Croatian university in Mostar in mind, the Croatian radio

17     television of Herceg-Bosna and certain other institutions of particular

18     importance for the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

19             The Croatian national assembly and the decisions that it passed

20     in Mostar on the 3rd of March was the expression of the political opinion

21     of the Croatian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in that expression

22     of the political opinion of the Croats, one wanted to warn everyone who

23     dealt with Bosnia and Herzegovina that the basic rights of a

24     constitutional people in Bosnia and Herzegovina were under threat and

25     someone would have to deal with the issue.  However, the international

Page 2609

 1     community through its then High Representative, Mr. Petritsch, acted as

 2     it did.  They even selected us in a certain way and said that we were

 3     trying to overturn the constitutional order of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 4             Mr. McNair, a Canadian prosecutor, we were taken to trial at the

 5     court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The Chamber was composed of two

 6     international Judges and one Muslim Judge.  This was supposed to be in

 7     our favour.  After a certain period of time when they failed to provide

 8     evidence for the prosecution, the prosecution itself withdrew in March

 9     2005.  They gave up or, rather, the Judges, the trial decided to put an

10     end to the trial against Ante Jelavic, Zdravko Batinic, Ivo Andric,

11     Zuzanskic [phoen], Marko Topic, and Petar Milic.

12             That would be all I have to say about this, Your Honour.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for your answers.

14             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

15        Q.   Just one clarification on what you were just saying, Mr. Batinic.

16     You referred to a trial, but that's different from the ban by the OHR,

17     isn't it?

18        A.   It is closely linked, Madam Prosecutor, as the decision of the

19     High Representative says that it was anti-constitutional activity.

20        Q.   But it was not the High Representative that brought a trial

21     against you or, in fact, no trial was brought against you in the end, was

22     it?

23        A.   I don't know how to tell you in different terms.  We were accused

24     on the basis of the fact that the High Representative removed us on the

25     basis of anti-constitutional activity, and we were put on trial; but as

Page 2610

 1     they were unable to prove anything, they withdrew the indictment

 2     themselves.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The prosecutor, was he an

 4     international prosecutor or a national?  And the Judges, were they

 5     nationals or internationals?

 6             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, at that point in time

 7     an indictment was issued against us by the international prosecutor,

 8     Mr. McNair, attached to the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The

 9     trial chamber consisted of three Judges.  Two were foreigners or, rather,

10     they were not citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and one as I said to

11     console us, a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina but a Muslim, a lady.

12             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me, Ms. Moe.  We can't see each other.  A

13     related question.

14             What was the charge?  Of what crime were you indicted, accused?

15             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't answer, Your Honour, this

16     question of yours.  It wasn't clear to us, either, what we were charged

17     with.

18             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  Sometimes that happens,

19     unfortunately.

20             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Judge Trechsel.  I'll move on to what is

21     planned to be my last document that I'd like to show the witness.

22        Q.   And that is, Mr. Batinic, number P 10621.  It's a newspaper

23     article.  Do you have it, Mr. Batinic?

24        A.   I do.

25        Q.   And that is a newspaper article from Oslobodjenje from the 1st of

Page 2611

 1     March, 2001.  So that would be right before these decisions by the OHR,

 2     time-wise, and it says:  "Gathering in protest against Kordic and Cerkez

 3     judgement..."  And it's a gathering that's supposed to have taken place

 4     in Busovaca.  Were you present at this gathering?

 5        A.   I was present at this gathering.

 6        Q.   Have you seen this particular article before?

 7        A.   No.  I don't read Oslobodjenje.

 8        Q.   Okay.  I will read out -- this is about the gathering, the rally,

 9     and I'll read out some portions, and I'd like to ask you some questions

10     in relation to that.

11             It starts with saying that it's from Busovaca, and it says:  "The

12     president of the Croatian Democratic Union and member of the BH

13     Presidency, Ante Jelavic, said that from Wednesday, the BH Federation

14     would become a 'Bosniak entity' and called on Croats in BH to go to

15     Mostar on Saturday to celebrate the session of the Croatian National

16     Assembly, at which historic decisions would be adopted."

17             Do you recall, Mr. Jelavic making that comment or something

18     similar?

19        A.   I can't remember precisely what our president, Jelavic, said.  We

20     were there next to one another.  I paid more attention to what others

21     were saying, as I was familiar with the views of President Jelavic.

22        Q.   But this reference to go to Mostar on Saturday and reference to

23     the session of the Croatian National Assembly, that's the same - I'll

24     call it an event to try and be neutral - that was taking place on the 3rd

25     of March, 2001, that we've seen references to in other documents, as

Page 2612

 1     well, isn't it?

 2        A.   Yes.  On the 3rd of March, the Croatian National Assembly met in

 3     Mostar, and it's not illogical that the president should call on those

 4     present to attend the rally.

 5        Q.   I'd like to read out a different excerpt, and that should be in

 6     your B/C/S version, should be the third column and the second paragraph,

 7     I believe.  In the English version, it is on page 2, and it's the first

 8     full paragraph, and it says the following:  "Jelavic called on the

 9     Croatian people to come to the HNS, Croatian People's Party, Assembly on

10     Saturday to celebrate the session in the name of Kordic, Blaskic, Cerkez,

11     and all the other Croatian prisoners at which historic decisions will be

12     adopted that will mark a new phase in Croatian freedom and equality."

13             I'll first ask you if you remember Mr. Jelavic making that or a

14     similar -- a comment to that -- a similar comment at the rally.

15        A.   I can't confirm that.  I don't remember the exact words used by

16     Mr. Jelavic or anyone else who spoke at that meeting.

17        Q.   When I asked you about Mr. Jelavic's previous comment, the one I

18     read out, you said that you were familiar with those views of his.  Were

19     you familiar with these views of his as well?

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  Again, Mr. President, I'm going to ask for the

21     relevancy.  I don't believe this line of questioning was allowed or was

22     conducted when -- for the Kosovo case, for instance, the Haradinaj, who

23     was also allowed while on provisional release to politic, none of this

24     while they were holding mass rallies for him -- proclaiming him to be a

25     hero as the others that were being tried.  What is the relevance of this,

Page 2613

 1     years later with the testimony that he has given about the time that is

 2     relevant to the indictment?  I really fail to see the purpose of this.

 3     I'd like a ruling at this point in time, Your Honours.

 4             MS. MOE:  Mr. President, I'll be moving on.  My general view is

 5     that this goes to the credibility of the witness, and I'll get to him in

 6     particular as well.

 7        Q.   A little bit further down, Mr. Batinic, it says, and that's

 8     about -- well, a little bit further.  It's about two paragraphs further.

 9     It says:  "In the main square in Busovaca where several thousand

10     protesters had gathered, Ante Jelavic put forward the proposal to declare

11     the Croats detained at The Hague heroes and men of greatness."

12             Was that your opinion, as well, Mr. Batinic?

13             MR. KARNAVAS:  Again -- again, Your Honour, I'm going to object

14     to this line of questioning.  What does Jelavic have to do, what he

15     thinks?  What is -- I mean, I'd like a ruling, Your Honours.  I made an

16     objection.

17             MS. MOE:  My question --

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor has just asked

19     the witness what he thinks, whether he agrees.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  But what does it have to do with -- why is this

21     relevant to the trial?

22             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  Why is this relevant to the trial?  That's the

24     whole point.  I'm objecting because I want a ruling.  It is not relevant

25     what Jelavic thinks, and since when is a public gathering impermissible?

Page 2614

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  [Overlapping speakers] [Previous translation

 3     continues] ... [Microphone not activated]

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, there's a press

 5     article dated March 2001 which we have just discovered.  There's a

 6     meeting following the judgement in the Kordic and Cerkez case.  The

 7     witness is present.  Jelavic is present.  The journalist is telling us

 8     things.  Maybe he's wrong.  Maybe he's adding things.  But as the witness

 9     was present, the Prosecutor is asking whether this is right.  The witness

10     says, "I don't know.  I don't remember exactly what Mr. Jelavic said."

11     Then the Prosecutor continues and asks him what his opinion is about

12     this.  Perhaps he has a point of view.  Perhaps he hasn't.

13             What is your intervention for?  It is he who is testifying, not

14     you.

15             MR. KARNAVAS:  My intervention, Your Honour, is because we need

16     to take control over this trial as to what is it that we're trying?  Are

17     we trying Mr. Jelavic for his political views?

18             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's the Judges who are

19     ensuring control and not you.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, Your Honour, then why are we discussing

21     Mr. Jelavic's political views held at a rally in 2001?  If you could

22     point out to me where in the indictment Mr. Jelavic is and how his views

23     in 2001 regarding a -- a decision made by this Tribunal, how that fits

24     in.  Many people are disappointed about the judgements that come out.  So

25     what?  They're entitled to express their positions.  But what does that

Page 2615

 1     have to do with this gentleman's credibility as to what he saw, what he

 2     heard, what he did in 1991, 1992, 1993?  That's the relevant period of

 3     his testimony.  That's my objection.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Madam Prosecutor --

 5     your objection has been recorded in the transcript.  Please continue.

 6             MS. MOE:  Thank you, Mr. President.

 7        Q.   My question, Mr. Batinic, was based on the quote that I read out

 8     to you that Jelavic had put forward the proposal to declare the Croats

 9     detained at The Hague heroes and men of greatness, and then I asked you

10     whether that was your opinion as well.

11        A.   We never had a serious discussion about that matter.  I'm not

12     sure that Mr. Jelavic said this, and if he did - which, I repeat, I'm not

13     sure he did - it was because of the atmosphere at such a meeting.  And

14     generally, let me tell you, rallies of large numbers of supporters of a

15     particular policy, all kinds of things can be said.  What is important is

16     the official policy, which is established at bodies and written down in

17     documents.

18        Q.   Thank you.  There is -- there is a quote from you in this

19     article, or it's a reference to what you said, and that is if you go to

20     page 2 of the article, page 2, so that would be the next page from what

21     you're looking at right now, and it's the last paragraph in the first

22     column.  Do you see your name there?  Last paragraph in the last column.

23             Can you -- did you give an interview to Oslobodjenje, or did you

24     take the floor, so to speak, and make a speech at this rally in Busovaca?

25     And I'll read it out to you.  I'm just asking you first if you can

Page 2616

 1     remember being interviewed or making a speech at this rally.

 2        A.   I didn't give an interview in those days that the beginning of

 3     March 2001 to Oslobodjenje.  I did speak at the rally in Busovaca.

 4        Q.   I'd like to read out what it says here that you said, and I'll

 5     ask you a question after that.  And it says:  "Zdravko Batinic,

 6     vice-president of the BH HDZ, told the leaders of the world that the

 7     Croats could not be broken during the war, let alone in peacetime, and

 8     that Kordic's and Cerkez's sentences once more confirmed doubts about The

 9     Hague Tribunal, that not a single act had been proved and that they had

10     tried the policies and the people. "

11             And then there's a quotation mark starting, and this refers to

12     you:  '"These sentences have been handed down to all of us.  We reject

13     the qualifications presented in court about the HDZ being a nationalistic

14     party, about the HVO being an aggressor force.  This is a heinous

15     frame-up by some people in the international community.  We are proud to

16     have participated in gaining Croatian freedom,' Batinic said.

17              "He said that Croats must put up fierce resistance to these

18     international leaders through wisdom and Croatian unity."

19             Is that -- that's what you said at the rally, wasn't it,

20     Mr. Batinic?

21        A.   I spoke at the rally in Busovaca.  I didn't send any message to

22     any international leaders.  I was addressing those present, and it is

23     true that I said - and that is what I still think - that we are not a

24     nationalist party, that is the HDZ of BiH.  We are a peoples, a national

25     party of the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The Croatian council was

Page 2617

 1     not an aggressor against Bosnia-Herzegovina, because I as a member of the

 2     armed forces of the HVO cannot be an aggressor in the country in which I

 3     was born, in which I live, and in which I work.  It is my country.

 4        Q.   Am I understanding you correctly, then, that these statements

 5     repeated in Oslobodjenje attributed to you, that's what you said at the

 6     rally?

 7        A.   I cannot confirm that they took down precisely what I was saying,

 8     because bear in mind that the journalists of Oslobodjenje are mostly

 9     Bosniaks and that they mostly write things that correspond to their

10     political views regarding the positions of the Croatian leaders.  But the

11     essence is what I have just said, and I stand by that.

12        Q.   Just one more excerpt then, Mr. Batinic, that I'd like to show

13     you.  Can you recall Mr. Praljak being present at this rally?

14        A.   I don't remember that General Praljak was present.  He may have

15     been, but I don't remember him.

16        Q.   I'll read out one more portion to you of the article and see if

17     that refreshes your memory, and that's the third column on the same page,

18     and you can see there's a headline:  "Including Stipe Mesic," and it

19     says:  "In his usual way, retired HV General Slobodan Praljak first held

20     a brief history lesson about the last war and said that 'Alija

21     Izetbegovic broke through to Central Bosnia after the Bosniaks had been

22     slaughtered like cattle in Srebrenica.'

23             "He added that Robert Barry was not the Croats' ruler, that Mate

24     Granic cannot set up cantons in BH as he has done, and that the Croats do

25     not recognise Stjepan Mesic."

Page 2618

 1             Do you recall Mr. Praljak making that statement at the rally?

 2        A.   Madam Prosecutor, I said a moment ago, I don't remember that

 3     General Praljak was present there.  Then how can I remember his words?

 4        Q.   I will leave it at that.

 5             MS. MOE:  And that concludes my cross-examination.  Thank you,

 6     Your Honours.

 7             MR. KARNAVAS:  If I may [overlapping speakers] my redirect, Your

 8     Honour.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a moment, please.  I have

10     a follow-up question.

11             Witness, the phrase that General Praljak may have said, I don't

12     understand what it means.  In the, text in the B/C/S, could you read it

13     again, please?

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll do my best, Your Honour.

15     "Retired General of the Croatian army Slobodan Praljak, in his usual way,

16     in addition to a brief history lesson regarding the last war, said that

17     Alija Izetbegovic had reached Central Bosnia when the Bosniaks had been

18     slaughtered like cattle in Srebrenica.

19              "He added that the Croats' ruler is not Robert Barry, that Mate

20     Granic cannot make cantons in Bosnia and Herzegovina as he has done, and

21     that the Croats do not recognise Stjepan Mesic."

22             End of quotation.

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

24             MR. KARNAVAS:  Very well.  I will just pick up --

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I didn't know that we would get

Page 2619

 1     this far, but we have.

 2             MR. KARNAVAS:  Well, hope springs eternal.

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I had a lot of fear about it.

 4                           Re-examination by Mr. Karnavas:

 5        Q.   Just to help translate this part or at least clarify what

 6     General Praljak is saying with respect to Srebrenica, that was what had

 7     occurred with the Serbs and what happened to the Muslims in Srebrenica at

 8     the time or that actually began in 1992.  There was an incident in 1992,

 9     1993.  There were -- that drove Muslims out of Srebrenica, that area; is

10     that correct?

11        A.   No, it's not correct, Mr. Karnavas.  In 1992 and 1993, the

12     Muslims were in Srebrenica.  They were slaughtered in 1995.

13        Q.   All right.  In 1995 they were slaughtered, but when they moved

14     towards Central Bosnia, the Serbs did drive Muslims to Central Bosnia as

15     refugees, did they not, as they were setting up the Republika Srpska?

16        A.   Correct, Mr. Karnavas.  Most of the Bosniaks or Muslims, as they

17     were known at the time, were expelled from Eastern Bosnia.

18        Q.   Robert Barry was the head of OSCE at the time?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Granic was associated with setting up the federation, which had

21     envisaged cantons, did it not?

22        A.   That's right.

23        Q.   And it says here, the Croats do not recognise Stipe Mesic.  Mesic

24     is from the Republic of Croatia, so I believe what Praljak is attempting

25     to say is that the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina do not recognise Stjepan

Page 2620

 1     Mesic, who is from another country, after all?

 2        A.   That's right.  We didn't vote for Mesic.  Therefore, he is not

 3     our president.

 4        Q.   Okay.  And when you say "our president," meaning those of us in

 5     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 6        A.   I mean the majority of Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the enormous

 7     majority.

 8        Q.   All right.  Let's go back a little bit because your credibility

 9     has been challenged, in other words, that you were lying about 1991,

10     1992, 1993, what you did, what you saw, what you experienced as a result

11     of political thoughts or activities post-Dayton.  So first, let me ask

12     you this question.  I'll go through them very quickly.  The OSCE decision

13     that we saw yesterday, were you given a hearing?  Did you appear before

14     this commission to actually give testimony, and were witnesses there to

15     testify against you or on your behalf?

16        A.   Never did anyone talk to me, not any one of those who finally

17     made the decision to remove me from the bodies of authority of Gornji

18     Vakuf, and especially not when they made the decision to bar me from

19     being a candidate on the HDZ list prior to the general elections, and

20     finally, something the Prosecution didn't mention but I will, all these

21     documents, Your Honour, I gave to the Defence counsel so that everyone

22     can use them.  I have nothing to hide.

23        Q.   And they would have been translated for the Trial Chamber's

24     convenience, as well, some of them.

25             Now, as far as -- as far as the OHR, did OHR provide you with a

Page 2621

 1     process, some due process, a hearing of some sorts prior to

 2     disenfranchising you, in a sense, taking your right away to engage in

 3     politics?

 4        A.   Never did anyone call me, hear me, or discuss the matter with me.

 5        Q.   Now -- and before we go to the judgements that -- or the

 6     withdrawal of the charges that you spoke of, for the period that you

 7     testified about, that is, the period that's about this indictment, 1991,

 8     1992, 1993, were you charged at all, either by OSCE, Barry and company -

 9     in this case it would have been Judge Finn Lynghjem who was running the

10     subcommission for elections on behalf of OSCE - or OHR, were you ever

11     charged for any illegal activity that you carried out in 1991, 1992,

12     1993, especially when you were acting as president of the Executive

13     Council and as a member of the Crisis Staff and Presidency up there in

14     Gornji Vakuf?

15        A.   No.  None of the people you mentioned or any other bodies did

16     this.

17        Q.   Now, you spoke of a -- the withdrawal of the charges.  If we

18     could focus your attention to 1D 0 --

19             MR. KARNAVAS:  Usher, I will need your attention -- your

20     assistance here.

21        Q.   If you could -- if you could look at 1D 02782.  It's -- should be

22     the third -- the third document in the binder.  And -- do you have it,

23     sir?  1D 02782.  Have you found it?

24        A.   Yes, I have.

25        Q.   All right.  And over here it talks about, this is a document

Page 2622

 1     which says it requests to withdraw the charges from the indictment.  And

 2     if we look at the first paragraph, do you see your name there?

 3        A.   Yes, I do.

 4        Q.   All right.  And of course, we see the date of this is 8 March

 5     2005.  Was this the document that you were indicate -- you were talking

 6     about earlier, about the withdrawal of the charges from the indictment?

 7        A.   It is.

 8        Q.   And if we look at the following document, which is 1D 02783.  1D

 9     02783.  Here, we have a ruling, and it's by a Steven Swanson.  Under the

10     statement of reasons, we see the indictment number KT-291/04.

11             MR. KARNAVAS:  And if we go to the previous document, Your

12     Honours, you'll see that right above the name of Mr. Ante Jelavic.

13     You'll see the same.  It's a bit hard to find, to locate.

14        Q.   And it was based on this ruling that the charges were completely

15     withdrawn against you; is that correct?

16        A.   That's quite correct.

17        Q.   All right.  Now, irrespective of your political views and

18     position concerning the internal organisation of Bosnia-Herzegovina held

19     in 2000 -- in 1997, 1998, 2001 or even today, does that in any way,

20     shape, or form change the substance of your answers to the questions that

21     were posed to you on direct examination or from the Bench or from the

22     Prosecution concerning the events of 1991, 1992, 1993?

23        A.   No, Mr. Karnavas.  I came to testify here at your invitation.  I

24     came to testify truthfully and to inform you of what I knew and of the

25     events I had participated in.

Page 2623

 1        Q.   And your political views, the views that you hold today, for

 2     instance, or as of 2001, do they in any way change the substance of what

 3     is contained in the documents that were contemporaneously made back in

 4     1991, 1992 that we saw and which you were participating in?  The

 5     documents I'm referring to are those that were generated by the

 6     Presidency, the Crisis Staff, the Executive Council.  Do your political

 7     views alter in any way the substance of what was contained in those

 8     documents?

 9        A.   They don't alter the substance in any way.

10        Q.   Now, going back to the OSCE, the first document that we saw

11     yesterday when they went after your credibility, we saw a gentleman --

12     another gentleman's name, Abdulah Topkic, I believe.  Topcic.

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   And who is this gentleman?

15        A.   Mr. Abdulah Topcic was the president of the SDA party as of the

16     first multi-party elections held in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as of 1990,

17     in fact; and he was also the president of the SDA in 1998.  That's a year

18     in which reference was made to the electoral commission of the OSCE.

19        Q.   Now, during that -- those events back then in 1997, were you and

20     Mr. Topcic somehow were trying -- were you trying to undermine the

21     democratic process in any way in Gornji Vakuf?

22        A.   No.  As far as I'm concerned, I wasn't trying to do that.  I just

23     insisted on using the name of the municipality, of using the name

24     Uskoplje, too, because historically speaking, that was correct.

25        Q.   All right.  Now, yesterday there was some questions asked of you

Page 2624

 1     about the Croats aspiring, I underscore that, aspiring to be a

 2     constituent nation.  That's how it appeared from the Prosecution, and you

 3     told us that there was no need to aspire, that the Croats were in fact a

 4     constituent nation as were the Serbs and the Muslims, now Bosniaks, in

 5     Bosnia and Herzegovina; and in fact, you said every square inch or foot

 6     or metre in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

 7             So -- and then you were asked some questions about the -- the --

 8     what was envisaged by the HDZ platform.  So now I want to show you a

 9     document, 1D 00398.  This is the -- goes to the Cutileiro Plan.  And we

10     don't have the -- I'm told that we don't have the B/C/S, so I will read

11     that part for you and see -- and then ask you to comment on it.  My

12     apologies for not having it -- having it in your language.

13             It says at the beginning, it says --

14             MR. KARNAVAS:  And I'm reading from page 24, Your Honours.

15     You'll find that on the top left-hand corner.

16        Q.   It says:  "In Bosnia" -- "Bosnia and Herzegovina would be a state

17     composed of three constituent units based on national principles and

18     taking into account economic, geographic, and other criteria."

19             It then goes on to say that the existing border would continue.

20     And then it says:  "Sovereignty resides in the citizens of the Muslim,

21     Serb, and Croat nations and other nations and nationalities who realise

22     it through their civic participation in the constituent units and the

23     central organs of the republic."

24             And let me read one other part before I ask you the question.

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  On page 26, Your Honours, a couple of pages

Page 2625

 1     further down where -- where the title D.  The constituent units.

 2        Q.   "1.  Within Bosnia and Herzegovina, constituent units would be

 3     established, which are defined in part E below."

 4             If we go to part E, it reads:  "A working group will be

 5     established in order to define the territory of the constituent units

 6     based on national principles and taking into account economic,

 7     geographic, and other criteria."

 8             Now, could you please tell us, how different is what is proposed

 9     by Cutileiro at this time, one of the international players, and what was

10     being -- what was part of the platform for HDZ?

11        A.   In our opinion, there was no difference.  This Cutileiro Plan or

12     proposal for the internal organisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina followed

13     our political thoughts and proposals that we put forward when it comes to

14     the internal organisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

15        Q.   Let me go on to the next document, 1D 00526.  This deals with

16     the Stoltenberg -- it should be the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan.  And again, I

17     must apologise.  I don't have the Croatian version, but I will read the

18     relevant parts.  They're very short, and hopefully you'll be able to

19     follow.

20             MR. KARNAVAS:  Your Honours, if we could -- if I could draw your

21     attention at the very -- at the top of the page.  It's 286, 286 of this

22     particular document, and you'll see under Roman numeral I, it talks

23     about -- it says "Constitutional agreement of the union of republics,

24     Bosnia and Herzegovina."

25        Q.   And it says, I'll just read the first part:  "The constitutional

Page 2626

 1     agreement of the union of republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina is set out

 2     in appendix I hereto."  And then it goes on about this agreement.

 3             Now, if you go further down and -- and we go to appendix I, and

 4     that would be on 290.  It started off with Article 1 under "The union of

 5     republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina..."  we see it says:  "The union of

 6     republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina is composed of three constituent

 7     republics and encompass three constituent peoples..."  I underscore

 8     "constituent" so we don't have to, hopefully, deal with this issue again.

 9     "... and the constituent peoples are, according to Article 1 by

10     Owen-Stoltenberg, the Muslims, Serbs, and Croats, as well as groups of

11     others.  The union of republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina will be a

12     member of the state of the United Nations..." And it goes on.

13             And then if we turn to Article 2 under Roman numeral II, which is

14     the constituent republics and their responsibilities, it says:

15     "Each of the constituent republics shall adopt its own constitution which

16     shall provide for democratic forms of government including democratically

17     elected legislatures..." and so on.

18             And then if we look at Article 3, it says:  "All government

19     functions and powers, except those," "except those assigned by the

20     constitutional agreement to the union of republics of Bosnia and

21     Herzegovina or to any of its institutions shall be those of the

22     constituent republics."

23             MR. KARNAVAS:  And finally, Your Honours, if you go to page 29 --

24     294 and on to 295, we see under Roman numeral V, "Human rights and

25     fundamental principles."

Page 2627

 1        Q.   And -- and so my question now to you, sir, is having just read

 2     parts of this agreement that was being proposed by the internationals,

 3     which recognised that there are three constituent peoples, nations in

 4     Bosnia and Herzegovina, how different is that from the platform which was

 5     being advanced by the HDZ at that time?  How different is it?

 6        A.   I don't have a Croatian version of the Cutileiro -- or, rather,

 7     Vance-Owen Plan, but in the light of what you have just said, there is

 8     absolutely no difference between the platform of the BH HDZ and this plan

 9     for the internal organisation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

10        Q.   And I was reading, actually, from the Owen-Stoltenberg Plan.  The

11     Vance-Owen is slightly different, but --

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   -- [overlapping speakers] basically what we're talking about --

14     essentially what was in the platform is in these proposals by the

15     internationals themselves, right?

16        A.   Yes.  I would just like to emphasise a very important fact.  In

17     each peace plan, it was explicitly stated that it was a peace plan for

18     Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there was an attempt to find a solution for

19     its internal organisation, and it was explicitly stated that the

20     constituent peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina were the Croats, Serbs, and

21     Muslims.

22        Q.   One final question.  There won't be any need to go to any of the

23     other documents.  Just one final question.  Sir, at the time that you

24     were serving in the Executive Council for Gornji Vakuf, did you do

25     anything to undermine the lawful authorities of Gornji Vakuf of which you

Page 2628

 1     were a member of?

 2        A.   No, Mr. Karnavas.  I did my utmost.  I acted to the best of my

 3     ability and strove to ensure that things ran smoothly in the area of the

 4     municipality of Gornji Vakuf, that they ran normally.  We wanted to have

 5     good cooperation between the two ethnic groups, and we didn't want any

 6     incidents to break out.  I really did my utmost.

 7        Q.   And have you testified truthfully here today, yesterday, and the

 8     day before, and the day before that?

 9        A.   I made a solemn declaration, and I have spoken the truth.

10        Q.   I want to thank you, Mr. Batinic, for coming here to give your

11     evidence.  Good luck, and have a safe trip back home.

12        A.   Thank you.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll ask my colleagues whether

14     they have any questions, follow-up questions.

15             Very well.  Mr. Batinic, I would like to thank you on behalf of

16     my colleagues to have come to testify here and to answer all of the

17     various questions put to you by Mr. Karnavas, by the Defence, by the

18     Prosecution, by the Judges.  I wish you a safe trip home, and I will now

19     ask the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.

20             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, and I

21     would like to greet everyone here.

22                           [The witness withdrew]

23             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As everyone knows, according to

24     the schedule for next week, we'll have Mr. Neven Tomic on the 17th and

25     18th.  We should conclude with him on the 18th, and we should hope that

Page 2629

 1     there won't be any objections or various problems that will require

 2     additional time.

 3             Mr. Tomic is very busy.  He's already been here once.  He's

 4     coming here for the second time now, and I think that Monday and Tuesday

 5     should be sufficient for us to conclude with the hearing of this witness.

 6             The week afterwards, after that week, well, there shouldn't

 7     really be any problems that week.

 8             Mr. Scott, are there any other matters you would like to address

 9     apart from the matters addressed this morning?

10             MR. SCOTT:  There was just a few more points I really wanted to

11     make, Your Honour.  No, Your Honour, I think we're done for the week.  I

12     think everyone wants to be done for the week.  Thank you very much.

13             THE INTERPRETER:  Microphone, please.  Microphone for

14     Judge Antonetti, please.

15             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.  I was saying that I hope

16     everyone will have a good rest for next week.  We will commence our

17     hearing on Monday at 2.15.  Thank you.

18                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.11 p.m.,

19                           to be reconvened on Monday, the 17th day

20                           of November, 2008, at 2.15 p.m.