1 Thursday, 15 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, kindly call the
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
10 the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Today is Thursday.
12 Good afternoon to everyone. Good afternoon, witness. The accused, the
13 Defence counsel, Mr. Stringer and his team. And good afternoon to all
14 the people assisting us.
15 I think I told you you had 2 hours and 22 minutes left, Mr.
16 Stringer. Without further adieu, you may proceed.
17 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon to you,
18 good afternoon, Your Honours. Counsel and everyone else.
19 WITNESS: MILAN CVIKL [Resumed]
20 Cross-examination by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
21 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Cvikl.
22 A. Good afternoon.
23 Q. When we left off yesterday I was just about to take you to
24 1D 02994, which is in binder 3. It's the constitution of the Socialist
25 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
1 A. 1D?
2 Q. I'm, sorry, 2994. During your direct testimony you referred us
3 to Article 256 of this document which relates to the role of the
4 municipality in respect of defence. It's on page 90 of the English
5 version. Do you recall that?
6 A. Yes, I recall that. I had referred to the role on the local
7 municipality in the constitution on in the role in defence and on
8 undertaking all other responsibility that they had had at the local level
9 including performance of the government functions at local level.
10 Q. Very well. And I wanted to take you then to Article 273 of the
11 same document, which is on page 95. This provides in part, I'll just
12 read some of it:
13 "In time of war in case of an immediate threat of war, a
14 presidency of the Municipal Assembly shall be formed which shall decide
15 questions within the competence of the Assembly. If it is impossible for
16 the assembly to meet, composition of the presidency shall be established
17 by law." And then it continues.
18 Now, can we agree, Mr. Cvikl, that on the 8th of April, 1992
19 the presidency of Bosnia-Herzegovina issued the declaration proclaiming
20 the immediate threat of war, that that declaration then triggered this
21 provision, Article 273?
22 A. Well, understand that the president issues such decree. And in
23 that decree [indiscernible] also had said that the presidency shall be
24 composed of the people that usually were in the presidency of Republic of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time, which means elected representative. And
1 then they also have said that they are extending the presidency with the
2 then prime minister --
3 Q. Okay. Excuse me that's a bit beyond the scope of my question.
4 I'm simply asking, let me ask in general terms. Does the declaration of
5 an imminent state of war in Bosnia-Herzegovina then trigger the
6 provisions found in 273?
7 A. As I have said, that's what was done at the level of the
8 presidency of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and most likely the level of
9 local community similar presidency had been established. It was a little
10 bit more complicated because between this constitution of socialist
11 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was adopted in 1974 and 1992
12 period, there were free elections, and I do not know whether free
13 elections have resulted in anything on the change of the structure of the
14 presidencies at the local level. But because of this, there should be
15 some kind of executive authority in a smaller group than the Assembly of
16 the local municipality.
17 Q. Can you please turn to Exhibit 1D 00558, and that is in the same
19 A. 1D 0?
20 Q. 558.
21 A. Yes, yes.
22 Q. This is a decision issued by the Mostar municipality HVO. It's
23 dated the 5th of June, 1992.
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 Q. And it's one of the documents that's referred to in your report
1 on page 82 when you are talking about financing. You don't need to --
2 you can go to it but I don't think it's necessary for you to go to your
3 report about that. My question is this, it relates to something I asked
4 you yesterday: When you were reviewing the decisions like this from the
5 Mostar municipal HVO, did you consider whether the Mostar municipal HVO
6 was the lawful entity under the law to be issuing decisions of this
7 nature, rather than a war presidency of the municipality of Mostar
8 A. As I have he said already, between the enactment of constitution
9 of Bosnia-Herzegovina which must be somewhere around 1974 and 1992 there
10 were free elections. How the free elections resulted in the change of
11 the structure of the executive authorities at the local community, I do
12 not know. But for certainly we know that there were free elections and
13 the representative of different quote parties, that went on the elections
14 in a particular local municipality. And out of that I understood in an
15 area of Tuzla
16 either presidency or Defence Council or meetings of the president of the
17 elected president of the local assembly with some other people were an
18 active executive authority.
19 Q. Okay. So I take it then --
20 A. So I don't know whether there was in existence at that time a war
21 presidency of the municipality of Mostar
22 been happening in a particular. But clearly, the decision on the
23 organisation the function in wartime finances in Mostar municipality is
24 in its substance similar to the decisions established by similar
25 executive authorities in other local municipality throughout
2 Q. All right. And that's without regard to whether such decisions
3 were issued by something that were called itself a war presidency or
4 whether it called itself a municipal HVO?
5 A. In the case of Tuzla
6 of the assembly and it was published in the Official Gazette of the
7 municipality of Tuzla
8 was quote done exactly in accordance with what had been envisaged under
9 the 1974 constitution where free elections had not been envisaged. The
10 presidency of the local municipality --
11 Q. Excuse me, I'm -- I'm going --
12 THE INTERPRETER: Can the speakers kindly slow down and not
13 overlap for the sake of the interpreters, thank you.
14 MR. STRINGER:
15 Q. Okay. We are going to have to speak more slowly. And with
16 respect, Mr. Cvikl, I think that you've answered the question
17 sufficiently. We are not done yet you are going to have an opportunity
18 to speak more to this issue. Can I direct your attention, please, to
19 Exhibit 1D 00244. This dovetails with what you were just saying about
20 the Tuzla
21 Now, do you recognise that?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. This is a decision issued by the president of the presidency of
24 the Tuzla
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. It's dated the 4th of December, 1992. And I believe this is one
2 of the documents actually you referred to in your testimony earlier as
3 having been issued by Mr. Beslagic of the Tuzla municipality.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And if I understood correctly, in fact, this is one of the
6 documents that you discussed with him when you interviewed him in
7 December of 2007?
8 A. Yes, I tried to understand the essence of the substance --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness speak into the microphone,
11 THE WITNESS: I apologise I will just need to... I discussed
12 this document with him as I discussed some other documents in order to
13 understand what was the economic rationale for undertaking these
15 MR. STRINGER:
16 Q. All right. And again, my only question here is in attempting to
17 understand the rationale for undertaking these measure, you didn't
18 distinguish or consider whether any given decision was issued by a war
19 presidency, such as the case here, or a municipal HVO as is the case in
20 the other document?
21 A. I have been seeing different documents with a different titles on
22 the top of the documents, and there were documents which were published
23 in the Official Gazettes or they were are simply typed out on the
24 different type machines in different local municipalities, and I was
25 comparing the substance of those documents. And the substance of those
1 documents were in my view, similar. And that is to undertake by the
2 local municipality efforts to collect fiscal resources. So for them to
3 be able to undertake what was the constitutional obligation and that is
4 financing the defence. And this is what I understood was done at the
5 local municipality in Mostar and that it was done in Tuzla, Zenica,
6 Jablanica, et cetera, and these institutions undertaking these measures
7 of different character. I can on Tuzla
8 Q. Excuse me, I think that you've addressed the issue that I've
9 asked you unless the Trial Chamber disagree, I am ready to move on.
10 Now, Mr. Cvikl, I do want to ask you a few more questions about
11 your meeting, your interview with Mr. Beslagic. As you indicated in your
12 report, it took place on the 20th of December, 2007?
13 A. Exactly.
14 Q. And I have the impression that, if you recall, it must have been
15 a fairly busy day for you. You had a number of these interviews on that
16 same day; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, I was in the morning in Zagreb and then was about 3 and a
18 half 4 hour drive from Zagreb
19 afternoon I met with Mr. Beslagic and also Mr. Tanovic.
20 Q. All right. First -- well, earlier in the day then as I
21 understand it you met with Mr. Neven Tomic and also according to your
22 report you met where Mr. Mile Akmadzic?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. So your interviews with both of those gentlemen took place in
1 A. Yes, both interviews with Mr. Tomic and Mr. Akmadzic took place
2 in Zagreb
3 and a quarter each, and then early afternoon 1.30, 2.00 I drove to -- or,
4 no -- around 2.00. 12.30 I drove to Tuzla.
5 Q. And then you met with Mr. Beslagic and Mr. Tanovic jointly?
6 A. Yes, it was a joint meeting. Yes.
7 Q. All right. Now, I want to direct you to Exhibit P 10763, which
8 is in binder number 2.
9 A. Will you repeat, 10?
10 Q. P 10763. You can take that and you might want to put it on the
11 table in front of you so that you can speak into the microphone.
12 Mr. Cvikl, this is a witness statement that was provided to the
13 Office of the Prosecutor by Mr. Beslagic based on an interview that
14 occurred on the 1st of September 2008, and it is subsequently earlier
15 this month certified by the witness under Rule 92 bis. And in this
16 statement -- do you have it there with you?
17 A. Yes, I have it. I see it there.
18 Q. In this statement Mr. Beslagic discusses his meeting with you he
19 is given an opportunity to comment on the various parts of your report
20 that are attributed to him. And I've got some questions for you based on
21 this. As you've indicated --
22 A. May I see this document first?
23 Q. I'm going to take you to specific parts of it and we'll give you
24 an opportunity to read --
25 A. But this is 17 pages long document and I would like to of course
1 see what is the structure of the document and read it.
2 Q. Well, if you will allow me I can explain the structure to you and
3 we can walk through it together, we are not going to rush.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, Your Honours, this document along
5 with the following two documents, which is P 10764 and P 10765 were
6 apparently statements taken by the Prosecution during the course of the
7 break. Obviously which saw these for the first time yesterday. I
8 understand the purpose of them, but however, if now the purpose is to
9 impeach the witness through this statement, it would seem only
10 appropriate to allow the witness the full opportunity to see this
11 statement because this statement is -- was directly taken as a -- in
12 response to the report prepared by Mr. Cvikl.
13 Therefore I think in keeping with his request, the witness's
14 request, he should be entitled to look at the entire statement before
15 answering any questions. I think to just direct him to a particular
16 passage is insufficient. And it shouldn't be up to me on redirect
17 examination with the 13 minutes I have left to cover this material. And
18 when we get to the third document, I will be objecting because in that
19 document it would appear that the Prosecution is using the witness as a
20 way of trying to contradict parts of not what was said but to use him as
21 an expert witness as it were. And of course having no right of
22 confrontation of the gentleman, we would object to that statement even
23 being shown to the witness.
24 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, if I could just briefly respond I
25 think I can clarify one of the issues quickly that's been raised by
1 counsel. The statements are to the extent that they are maybe tendered
2 are tendered only for the purpose of impeachment. So there isn't any
3 intention on the part of the Prosecution to submit any of these
4 statements as evidence of anything for any other purpose. I know that is
5 a live issue with the Trial Chamber at the present time but this is
6 simply a matter for impeachment. What I propose is to continue with the
7 cross-examination. If the Trial Chamber is uncomfortable with the way it
8 unfolds or thinks the witness needs more time, I would suggest that we
9 can consider that at a later point.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, so Mr. Karnavas has sort
11 of emphasized the fact that the witness needs time to look at what Selim
12 Beslagic might have said, that's one thing, but the witness is very quit
13 witted so he must have seen everything. Secondly, it seems that at the
14 meeting of the 1st of December, 2008, Mr. Stringer was there because he
15 interviewed Beslagic, so he must know everything very well about what
16 might have been said. I can't see any interest or relevance in this type
17 of interview whilst the proceedings are underway, but it is allowed by
18 the case law of this Tribunal so it must be allowed here. But in civil
19 law countries, this would be totally banned.
20 Please continue, Mr. Stringer.
21 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 Q. Mr. Cvikl, let me direct your attention on page 2 of the
23 statement to paragraph 3. This begins with the meeting at the Hotel
25 indicates that he actually suggested that Mr. Tanovic could come or
1 should come because he had been more involved in financial issues for
3 A. Well, as I have said, I see this document for the first time. If
4 I may first comment on the document is I appreciate the effort which was
5 made and I can of course comment what was the fact, yes, we were together
6 with Mr. Beslagic and Mr. Tanovic. Even in discussions which was a free
7 flowing information where I was basically trying to understand what was
8 the basis for some of the decisions made by the municipality of Tuzla
9 where of course Mr. Beslagic confirms in the article, in the para 2, that
10 he was the president of the quote war presidency Tuzla municipality, I'm
11 saying this because I understood that he could also meet by himself as
12 the war presidency that was needed. But then during the discussion,
13 Mr. Tanovic was of course a man of more actual knowledge on the question
14 which I was asking because he had been stated in my report, the head of
15 basically finance department.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. And he had of course -- he had more knowledge. I also did
18 understood that Mr. Beslagic had some other private obligation that day,
19 if I can recall that now, and he left after sometime. Was it one hour or
20 one hour and quarter. I don't know.
21 Q. Okay. Now, on paragraph 4, Mr. Beslagic says here that:
22 "At the beginning of the interview, Mr. Cvikl informed me that
23 according to Mr. Prlic, Herceg-Bosna did many of the same things that
24 were done in Tuzla
25 Is that true, Mr. Cvikl, did you inform Mr. Beslagic of
1 Dr. Prlic's views on the similarities in activities between Herceg-Bosna
2 and Tuzla
3 A. I don't know how that he understood, but basically when I had
4 been preparing a list of the witnesses which I wanted to see or at least
5 the people which I wanted to see in order to ensure that I do understand
6 correctly what had been sent, I had two type of situation --
7 Q. Excuse me, my question was not what he understood, it was a
8 simple question. Did you make that statement to Mr. Beslagic informing
9 him of what Mr. Prlic's views were? Did you make that statement that's
10 attributed to you here?
11 A. No, I have said that I'm preparing -- may I finish?
12 Q. I think it's a yes or no question or perhaps you don't recall.
13 A. I have been preparing a report, and I have mentioned to him that
14 I'm preparing the report for the defence team of Mr. Prlic and it is
15 based on the documents which are provided by Mr. Prlic Defence team, and
16 I was referring to the documents. But I was not quoting that this is
17 Mr. Prlic or Mr. Tomic or Mr. Akmadzic opinion. I have been just coming
18 from Zagreb
19 country, try to meet some of the people, and this is what was the purpose
20 of my meeting.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. And I mentioned this because some of the witnesses which I wanted
23 to see when I contact them by the phone they were not willing to see me
24 once I mentioned that I was working for the ICTY. That's why I perfectly
25 made clear to those at the beginning what am I kind of doing. Some of
1 them were not even wanted to meet me, like I would mention later one of
3 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Beslagic continuing where he says that he
4 informed you that:
5 "In Tuzla
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina. We did not create new laws."
7 He said:
8 "I believe that all persons in Bosnia-Herzegovina were required
9 to follow the laws of Bosnia-Herzegovina whether or not it suited them at
10 the time."
11 Do you recall Mr. Beslagic saying that to you?
12 A. We were discussing the basis of their issuing particular
13 decisions, and we agreed that the decisions on the fiscal revenues were
14 based on an overall decision on this decree by the law on the providing
15 the needs to the socio-economic communities as identified and as
16 requested by the war presidency -- by the presidency of the Republic of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And of course since we were coming from the same
18 area, we both understood and know very well what is the -- what is the
19 responsibility of the municipalities as far as the defence is concerned.
20 Q. Okay. Now, paragraph 5, the first sentence, Mr. Beslagic states
21 in fact that: "During the meeting no draft report and/or other documents
22 were produced or discuss." So is it true, sir, that in fact you did not
23 produce or discuss -- you did not produce with him any specific documents
24 such as the one that we just looked at, the 1D 00244?
25 A. I was asking Mr. Beslagic on particular documents which they have
1 produced. And I have been asking what does it mean for them, let's say,
2 imposing the war tax on people that were actually trying to, you know, on
3 particular war tax. And we were discussing what were the roles that the
4 finance department was doing, and what they were doing in -- in the
5 provision of the necessary funds for the refugees and people there.
6 Q. All right. So are you saying that --
7 A. I had -- may I finish? I had my documents with me, I was making
8 some notes of the documents because I was in discussing with them I was
9 going through my document.
10 Q. Did you share the documents him? Did you provide him an
11 opportunity to look at them? He indicates that you did not; is that
13 A. This was not a formal interview, the one that you undertook on
14 the whenever it was. It was a discussion. I saw the documents. I
15 wanted to discuss with the people what was the basis of the rationale for
16 making these documents. I was not doing formal interviews. I was
17 preparing a study and I needed to understand on the basis of the IMF and
18 the World Bank study whether the events which were undertaken in Republic
19 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in particular local communities, were as depicted
20 in these documents and --
21 Q. We know the scope of the report.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Would the speakers kindly not overlap for the
23 interpreters. Thank you.
24 MR. STRINGER:
25 Q. Excuse me, we know the scope of the report. You say now it's not
1 a formal interview, but the fact is, Mr. Cvikl, that you have throughout
2 your report attributed many statements to Mr. Beslagic naming him in
3 interview foot notes, and you've done it for others as well. That would
4 certainly indicate that this was something more than just an informal
5 chat over coffee?
6 A. Well, Mr. Stringer, you have to be, you have to understand how
7 this report had been prepared. This report had been prepared on the
8 basis of the documents. I could write this report without seeing these
9 people. I wanted to be sure for myself what was actual developments.
10 That's why I did this additional effort and went down there, but I did
11 not approach in a formal manner the way you did. When I tied to approach
12 to some of the people they were scared away. And so I had not, you know,
13 called them upon formally. I have asked them would they be kind to see
14 me so that we can discuss what we were discussing in 1994.
15 I had met Mr. Beslagic for the first time in 1994, 1995. And at
16 that time, you know, we got an opinion and what was happening, and we
17 wrote this opinion, the World Bank team and the IMF in the report. Now I
18 had their own documents. I tried to understood the basis what these
19 documents were written. I have asked them whether there is a document
20 which usually goes with the particular decree and that is a proposal for
21 adoption of particular decision, and he said that something like that
22 does not exist. So we have done on the basis of that have a discussion
23 on the substance of those documents. But never as a formal interview.
24 Q. Excuse me, I am sorry to cut you off but I must. Therefore
25 because it was not a formal interview, you did not share the actual
1 documents with him that you've referred to or otherwise attributed to
2 him; correct?
3 A. Mr. Prosecutor, he has adopted these documents by himself as the
4 head of the war presidency. I wanted to understand what was the
5 reasoning for that. And the substance of these documents is known to
6 him. So I see no need to present him his own documents.
7 Q. Okay. This is a document from 1992. You are saying that you see
8 no need to present the document to him then when you met with him some 15
9 years later in 2007?
10 A. Mm-hmm. Mr. Beslagic has been immediately at the beginning of
11 the discussion informed me about his current discussions with authorities
12 in Sarajevo
13 he is making an attempt by which he ensure that the thermal power-station
14 in Tuzla
15 himself, has order for the coal to be used. And he had explained to me
16 that he had been sued by the federal authorities that he has been using
17 this coal to heat the refugees. So he was to my knowledge quite familiar
18 with what was happening in the 1992, 1996 period. He is currently a
19 politician, he is a member of parliament, one of the parliaments, he is
20 the federation parliament or republic of Bosnia
21 politician exact knowledge on this substance. On details on finance the
22 finance --
23 Q. Okay. I think I'll accept your answer. I think that's a
24 sufficient answer to my last question.
25 Let me ask you to turn to page 4 of this document. In paragraph
1 8 there is a reference and there's text that's linked to footnote 114 of
2 your report, and you see the text from your report is set out right there
3 in this statement beneath that in terms of format is the same text that's
4 been translated. And then underneath that is the comment of Mr. Beslagic
5 to the part of your report that is attributed to him, although we see
6 here that this part of your report is actually attributed not only to
7 Mr. Beslagic but to others as well. And this relates to the role of the
8 municipal president which is something that you have written about and
9 you've talked about.
10 And what Mr. Beslagic says here is that he agrees that:
11 "Under the constitution of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
12 the local municipalities played an important role and had much greater
13 responsibility after the declaration of a state of war in April 1992."
14 Then he talks about:
15 "The war presidency is the body that is envisioned under the
17 I could take you down a few lines. He says:
18 "However, I definitely did not say what is contained in the third
19 sentence of this paragraph, starting with 'that was emphasized.'"
20 Then he continues:
21 "In Tuzla
22 parties, HDZ, SDA, and SDS
23 Municipal Assembly and did not hold the position of president of the
24 Municipal Assembly. I was a member of the reformist party."
25 So would you agree with me, sir, that it is incorrect to
1 attribute to Mr. Beslagic this part of your report which indicates that
2 it was three political or the three national oriented parties that won
3 the positions and served those roles in the Tuzla municipality.
4 A. Thank you for the answer that. To your question let me answer
5 very detailed again. First of all the footnote 114 is a reference to
6 the -- to my presentation what happened in local municipality post-free
7 elections. And it confirms what I was saying before, that after first
8 free elections depending on the results during those -- these first free
9 elections there were, you know, the role of elected president of
10 municipality was even stronger. Now, in here I'm mentioning three
11 biggest political party. I apologise that I did not mention also the
12 fourth political party which was Reformist Party or the so-called SDP,
13 the former communist party or the former Markovic Party which was one of
14 the party established at the level of the whole Yugoslavia trying prevent
15 some of the events which were happening.
16 And that's why I'm hear of course saying that this information
17 was for me confirmed by the above-mentioned people, Mr. Pelivan, who was
18 the prime minister of then the social -- sorry, Republic of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina and Mr. Mile Akmadzic who replaced him as the prime
20 minister . I was aware that Mr. Beslagic was one of the, you know, the
21 political leaders that was in Tuzla
22 Bosniaks led or Muslims led SDA or the Serbian SDA would prevail, right?
23 But that's why I'm here saying that this interview with Mr. Pelivan, Mr.
24 Akmadzic, and Mr. Beslagic has been of course confirming to me what am I
25 saying in this paragraph after --
1 Q. Excuse me, I'm just focusing on Tuzla. Mr. Beslagic indicates
2 that this statement, the one he disputes, is not correct in respect of
4 branches of the HDZ, the SDA or the SDS
5 not correct as applied to Tuzla
6 A. Article -- paragraph 54 of my report talks about all local
7 municipalities, I have made a general statement. On all local
8 municipalities on the basis of the results of the elections, this is
9 not -- I did not making details on what was on each particular local
10 assembly, and here I'm mentioning that the people that were explaining to
11 me this were the one mentioned.
12 And Mr. Beslagic was explaining to me that his role or his --
13 even today situation when he is a member of one of the not prevailing
14 national based political party in Bosnia-Herzegovina was somehow
15 different. But for the for the purposes of this Tribunal what I wanted
16 to explain in the section 23.2, sectors contributing toward independent
17 measures upon the war is that fact that after the free collections, local
18 municipality elected officials being from one or the another party were
19 stronger than before the first free elections and thus measures --
20 Q. Okay. You've said that and I'm sorry to cut you off. You have
21 explained that in detail.
22 A. No but you are trying to --
23 Q. I don't think anyone is disputing the increased power and role of
24 the municipality in time of war. My question related to the political
25 party composition in Tuzla
1 A. Yeah, but I understand that Mr. Beslagic in his comment saying
2 that he is agreeing with my basic premise. He is disagreeing with the
3 fact that he was not one of the three parties but he is actually the
4 fourth party. But he is --
5 Q. On that we agree.
6 A. There's no doubt about that.
7 Q. So let me take you now --
8 A. That was always the case in with him.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. But that was not my argument. If the --
11 Q. Excuse me, I think Mr. Cvikl, we've exhausted this point. I
12 accept the distinction that you make, and if we could now move on to page
14 A. But I would like of course for the honours present that if the --
15 Q. Excuse me, Mr. President, my view of is that I don't frankly want
16 to take more of my time to examine or discuss this footnote. If the
17 Trial Chamber has any more questions on it I'm happy to defer?
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There's a footnote that I'm
19 interested in, 710, paragraph 36. You have written that the local
20 communities were indeed the only legal authority -- well, we will ask --
21 Mr. Stringer will ask the witness here what he thinks of that and will
22 add something by adding also the districts. So for Mr. Beslagic, the
23 local communities but also the districts that are the legal authorities.
24 Is that correct, Witness?
25 THE WITNESS: I am here in with the footnote 710 explaining the
1 situation 1992, 1993 in areas under control of the Army of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And I understood that it was the most of the
3 activity were undertaken by the local municipalities, I understand that
4 there was the decree with the power of law on the establishment and work
5 of districts established, but it was not fully put in place effectively.
6 I have not seen any documents that would -- that had been presented to me
7 where a particular decrees by particular districts in the area under
8 control of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina were put in place.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But in discussing with him, did
10 you both agree on the fact that given the situation at the time and the
11 siege of Sarajevo
12 local communities and the districts and that the areas under control of
13 BiH, that's how it operated, and in the areas under control of the HVO it
14 also operated in the same way? Did he agree with you on that or did he
15 say I disagree because the HVO was illegal?
16 THE WITNESS: He had said -- he did not comment on this whether
17 the HVO was legal or not. He had said to me that he was in contact with
18 the HVO because for the goods to come into Tuzla, the goods has to come
19 through the territory to which was at that time controlled under the, you
20 know, HVO. So in that context he was in contact with them. And in that
21 reference with your footnote, I also understood from his comment that as
22 he mentioned previously, I'm now reading what you, Mr. Stringer has
23 presented, page 16, as I mentioned previously, this must be comment which
24 Mr. Beslagic, the ability of districts to actually implement changes was
25 not great, however, districts as well as municipalities were the legal
1 authorities. And I'm saying that in case of Tuzla --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Continue.
3 THE WITNESS: In case of Tuzla
4 or practically all decision which I have seen been decisions made by
5 local municipality of Tuzla
6 had to apportion the strategic reserves in the strategic reserve
7 warehouse which belong not to just one local community, they made an
8 agreement at a regional district-wide level which means including other
9 neighbouring municipalities. I have not seen, and I have been not
10 presented on the -- for the area under the army of BiH controlled with
11 any, maybe there were, districts decisions of meaningful effect. And
12 that is exactly what he is also saying, that the ability of districts to
13 actually implement changes was not great.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer please proceed.
15 MR. STRINGER: Thank you Mr. President.
16 Q. Actually the next point of this statement that I wanted to take
17 you to goes to this issue of the districts or the regionalization. It's
18 on page 5. It's the text of your report that's linked to footnote 20
19 which again it should be statement to Mr. Beslagic, Tanovic, and others.
20 A. Footnote?
21 Q. I'm sorry. It's paragraph 10 --
22 A. Footnote?
23 Q. Found on page 5. If you can look at --
24 A. No-no, but which footnote is it?
25 Q. 120.
1 A. Okay. Yes.
2 Q. And the text that's linked to that footnote relates to the need
3 for -- well, it was just reading from your report:
4 "It was realised that there were social administrative services
5 that needed to be financed at a higher level than local community,
6 regionalization, or the merging of local communities into a larger
7 authorities within one budget took place..." and you continue.
8 Then the last sentence of that says:
9 "It must be noted that regionalization attempts were realised in
10 several areas of BiH, in the Republika Srpska's local communities with
11 Serbian majority population, in Herceg-Bosna's local communities with a
12 Croat majority population, and in the regions around Tuzla, Velika
13 Kladusa, Bihac, with the Muslim majority population."
14 Now, Mr. Beslagic who does reject part of your assertion that is
15 at least attributed to him, if you move down to his comment, he says that
16 he does not dispute the first part of this citations, but he adds:
17 "However, I never discussed the need for regionalization with
18 Mr. Cvikl. The second part regarding regionalization attempts I do not
19 accept this and I did not say this."
20 Then he goes on to say:
21 "The move toward regionalization in the Tuzla area came from the
22 BH law on the establishment of districts." That's the law that you have
23 referred to.
24 He says he was appointed to reform the district for Tuzla
25 however, he disagrees with the statement that the Tuzla district or
1 region was established with a Muslim majority.
2 He goes on to say:
3 "I was not completely in favour of the decision establishing
4 districts, but I followed it because it came from the presidency of RBiH
5 and was the law. This part of the report refers to Republika Srpska and
6 Herceg-Bosna districts in areas where Serb and Croat majorities lived.
7 Unlike the decree on establishing districts, like the Tuzla
8 establishment of regions such as Republika Srpska or Herceg-Bosna were
9 not in accordance with the law of the republic of BiH."
10 So isn't it true, sir, that it's not correct to attribute to
11 Mr. Beslagic these statements about regionalization and in fact you never
12 discussed these issues with him?
13 A. No, this is not true. First of all, let me again explain to you,
14 the discussion with Mr. Beslagic were on what was happening in the
15 territory of Tuzla
16 he had with the fact that refugees from the neighbouring local
17 municipalities were coming into Tuzla
18 refugees. Then of course we were discussing what was there really an
19 effected Tuzla
21 I understand that he nevertheless says here:
22 "I was not completely in favour of the decision establishing
23 district but I follow it because it came from the presidency of Republic
24 of Bosnia-Herzegovina and was the law."
25 I did understand that of course he was certainly the strongest
1 person in town and that town of Tuzla
2 region where there are many local municipality. But legally speaking, he
3 was the presidency of just of the municipality of Tuzla
4 relation with whoever was appointed at the Tuzla district head, I do not
5 know. But he was aware of the fact that there was a district, so he was
6 aware that these districts are regionalization of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
7 And that's why I am in the footnote 120 where I'm discussing overall
8 situation, I am of course quoting discussion with him, with his finance
9 person, people from Jablanica, people from Mostar, and people from Livno.
10 These were the people that were explaining to me that there was a problem
11 if the local municipality were just left alone, so in that context, they
12 were down the line, down the line, once they have seen that there are
13 some positive effect of a well running regions, they were positive for
15 Now, Mr. Beslagic was a person who was a mayor of as I have said
17 actually quote his people. So he was explaining to me what he was doing
18 in ensuring that -- that very function, and so in that context he was for
19 the people from the wider region the man that they had turned to him for
20 the help. He was providing the central heating, he was providing food,
21 he was ensuring what any local level -- local level responsible, not
22 politician but responsible technocrat would do to take care of the
23 people, that's what he was doing. And that's why we were discussing
24 that, yes, it was difficult for him when he had only the resources of
1 problems in Tuzla
2 goods from the north, south --
3 Q. Excuse me, Mr. Cvikl, I apologise for cutting you off. I think
4 my question was intended to be more direct, which was simply this: I'll
5 ask it this way: Mr. Beslagic say that the seconds part of that
6 paragraph regarding regionalization attempts, he does not accept that and
7 he did not say that to you. Do you agree with that or do you dispute his
8 statement here?
9 A. I disagree because you are quoting the footnote 120, is a
10 footnote which I'm commenting interviews with Beslagic, Bahrija Tanovic,
11 Mirko Zelnika, Milenko Musa, Ile Krezo. This is the view which I got
12 from all of them.
13 Q. Well, he is saying --
14 A. No-no.
15 Q. If I may --
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I -- sorry, may I intervene because perhaps
17 there is a misunderstanding. I get the feeling that Mr. Beslagic had a
18 different concept of "district" than the technical one. Because if you
19 look at his comments, he speaks of Republika Srpska and Herceg-Bosna
20 districts, and he -- I could imagine, and perhaps Mr. Cvikl, you can
21 comment whether you would agree, that you use the term "district" with
22 different meanings. Him thinking of Herceg-Bosna as a "district," you
23 thinking of districts within the decree on the establishment of districts
24 as districts which is of course much more work. Is it possible that
25 there was such a misunderstanding.
1 THE WITNESS: No. Districts, the way I defined them are the
2 districts as I defined in the decree of the presidency of the districts.
3 There are seven of them and the particular local municipality are
4 assigned to them. And what am I saying? By the presidency of Republic
5 of Bosnia-Herzegovina --
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, let's not stray.
7 THE WITNESS: Fine.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Are you convinced that your interlocutor,
9 Mr. Beslagic, had the same concept when he speaks of districts and of
10 regionalisation, because I think he had a different one.
11 THE WITNESS: For his own district, Tuzla, yes, but he of
12 course -- I don't know what was his view on Herceg-Bosna and Republika
13 Srpska, I had not been discussing this with him because I -- I, you know,
14 of course could only -- when we were discussing it is current legal
15 framework of -- for Bosnia-Herzegovina, the one that he is happy with.
16 He is not happy with it. Nobody is happy with it the way it is.
17 So we are not discussing, we are not going into the much details,
18 what does he thinks about the Herceg-Bosna and the Republika Srpska. But
19 they were -- these two entities were region-wide authorities that tried
20 to undertake what was envisaged in the presidency on districts to be
21 undertaken by the district. Maybe not in the same group of communities,
22 but the functions. There was -- there were a functions that were put to
23 an institution between the central government on the local municipality,
24 and he saw a need for such intermediate level to be established.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Stringer.
1 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. I think because of the time flying, what I want to do is move to
3 the next exhibit, Mr. Cvikl, which should be right behind the one of
4 we've just been looking at, it's 10764. We've discussed or the name of
5 Mr. Bahrija Tanovic has come up and just a couple of question questions
6 about Mr. Tanovic. You've already -- we've already discussed his role
7 and the reason why he was at your meeting with Mr. Beslagic.
8 What I want to do is direct you to the third page of this
9 statement, and on -- well, you'll see at the top he makes reference to
10 the meeting at the Hotel Tuzla, you were there with an assistant and an
11 interpreter. Meeting lasted about an hour. I want to skip down to the
12 second-to-last-paragraph there where he says that:
13 "Before commenting on specific parts of the report that are
14 attributed to me, I would like to clarify that I discussed with Mr. Cvikl
15 the period of time prior to my departure for Zagreb in September 1992 or
16 after, when I was appointed to the position of assistant to the president
17 of the executive council for Tuzla
18 Because I was not present in Tuzla
19 1993, and because I did not hold an official position in Tuzla
20 municipality until April/May 1994, I am not in a position to comment on
21 the various acts and decision of the Tuzla municipality or its war
22 presidency during September 1992 until April/May 1994.
23 "Any comments that I made for that period when I was in Zagreb
24 and when I was not acting in an official capacity, I made as personal
1 And do you recall that, Mr. Cvikl, that in fact Mr. Tanovic was a
2 representative of Tuzla
3 time trying to get humanitarian aid convoys arranged to come to Tuzla
4 from outside?
5 A. Well, I had first established contact with Mr. Beslagic, and
6 Mr. Beslagic suggest -- suggested that Mr. Tanovic shall be present at
7 the meeting. Since Mr. Tanovic, I believe even today, holds the position
8 of a director of a local branch of Tuzla Bank which is one of the, you
9 know, more, I would say best -- one of better financial institutions in
10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, I was very glad that he joined us to the meeting, and
11 from the discussion with him whether he was -- we were not discussing
12 what was his -- what was his official position. We were trying to
13 understand what was happening in this very territory.
14 Obviously, he had been connected with Mr. Beslagic and the action
15 of the war presidency because that's what I assume under the fact that
16 Mr. Beslagic actually suggested that Mr. Tanovic shall be in the meeting.
17 And I was glad and from, you know, we are both commercial bankers, that's
18 part of my career. We understood what we were talking when we were
19 talking the financial decrees and the necessary actions to be undertaken
20 to ensure that in Tuzla
21 much more difficult, efforts shall be made for those either humanitarian
22 convoys or other goods and services to be brought into Tuzla region were
23 done. So we were discussing as two economists, Mr. Beslagic I believe he
24 is not an economist, what needed to be done in war period. So he had a
25 very good knowledge of that war period.
1 Q. Did he understand that the things he was saying to you in this
2 informal meeting would be placed in your report as footnotes and
3 presented to the Judges in this case? At this Tribunal?
4 A. I have already said before, let me now explain this to you and to
5 the Judges. In preparing this report, I studied documents. I did not
6 want to finish the report without reconnect myself by going down to
8 Q. Excuse me, Mr. Cvikl, you've explained to us and we understand
9 fully your motivations and your wishes to go speak to people on the
10 ground in the region. My question was a different one. It was whether
11 Mr. Tanovic understood or knew that the things he was saying to you in
12 this meeting would find themselves and find their way into this report,
13 footnoted, attributed to him by name in footnotes, and then presented to
14 the Judges in this trial as evidence? Did he know that?
15 A. He understood that I am preparing a report. He was -- I was not
16 approached by him in the way because that was never the purpose of my
17 preparing the report. I was not running an investigation. I did not go
18 there to ask for the witness statement. I was making discussions in a
19 free flow with them to -- for my understanding of the situation on the
20 basis of the documents which I have reviewed, and they had a very good
21 knowledge of. And the way I approached this was because that was the
22 only way how I could have actual conversation with them. Because as I
23 have said, there were a couple of peoples that I wanted to see but they
24 did not want to meet anyone when I mentioned that this is linked with the
25 Defence -- sorry, with the ICTY Tribunal.
1 On the other side, there were documents and I needed to
2 understand those documents. And Mr. Tanovic and Mr. Beslagic were in a
3 free will presenting me the facts which of course are also -- were
4 confirming to me what the documents were saying.
5 Q. Are you saying, sir, that you withheld information or you misled
6 these people into meeting with you?
7 A. No, I did not misled them.
8 Q. Well, you didn't tell them that in fact they would find their
9 way -- their names would be footnoted in your report; correct?
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may -- excuse me, Mr. Cvikl. I
11 object to this line of questioning. Now, he is trying to insinuate that
12 Mr. Cvikl lied to these people. He had represented himself to be there,
13 to write a report, or to gather information because he was writing a
14 report on behalf of the Prlic Defence team. That was rather transparent.
15 Now, whether he indeed -- they obviously knew that he was writing a
16 report, they could see him taking notes. Whether he represented to them
17 that they were going to find themselves in, that's another story, but to
18 insinuate -- to insinuate -- let me -- if I -- may I be allowed to make
19 my record.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, what are you doing? You are
21 [Microphone not activated] if he answer then the witness [Microphone not
22 activated] Chamber what the witness did and what the witness could expect
23 it from the people with whom he spoke because that's a question
24 Mr. Stringer asked the witness. Now you are giving the answer and you
25 are not suppose today do that.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand what I'm supposed to do and not to
2 do. I think I've done this quite a bit, and I think I understand the
3 rules, Judge Trechsel. I certainly don't need a lecture from the Bench
4 on this issue. What I should reminds the Trial Chamber, however, is if
5 the Trial Chamber looks at the previous answers --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas --
7 MR. KARNAVAS: He has --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas --
9 MR. KARNAVAS: -- he has given -- I'm not saying anything that
10 hasn't been in the record. It's all in the record. And I would expect
11 from the bench to say, Asked and answered. Move on Mr. Stringer.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, the Judges are
13 not here to lecture you, but they are here to make sure that the
14 examination takes place in proper conditions.
15 Witness, it is true that in a footnote in your report you said
16 interview with such and such a person, for instance with Mr. Beslagic.
17 When you gave this report to the counsel, did he say or did he ask you
18 this, Well, you put it down in your report, but do you know that in so
19 doing the Prosecutor who's got enormous means at his disposal can go to
20 see those people and to ascertain that those people did indeed say that
21 to you?
22 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's why my response to Mr. Stringer
23 question. I have not misled the people. The people that were not
24 willing to discuss with me, I did not interview them. All the people
25 which I interviewed were the people that I have informed of what am I
1 doing during my visit. And in that context I was acting in the same
2 manner as we were acting 1994, 1996 period when we, the World Bank team
3 and the IMF team, have discussion with the people and presenting that
4 this is what we are going to put in the report.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I agree with you. But whilst I
6 was listening to you earlier on, I was under the impression that this
7 Tribunal is not well seen in the area because as soon as its name is
8 mentioned there's a kind of hostility that appears.
9 When you talk to these people, did you tell them that you were
10 going to quote them in your report and that possibly the OTP might ask
11 them to confirm what they said to you? Did you say that officially to
13 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, I never -- when I was writing an
14 economic report, I was not doing an investigation. I was righting an
15 economic report and I wanted to -- I could write this report without
16 having interviews. But then me myself would need other means, other
17 means to how to be --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, sir, but we are not going
19 to dwell on it because I know that you are a very busy man. But when you
20 met with these individuals who are well known people and you had this
21 informal interview as part of your study, find of the report, the problem
22 is that the report was handed in a court of law and everything is
23 examined minutiously, especially by the Prosecution since you are a
24 Defence witness. So in the future if you are asked to write a report
25 it's better to tell the person you are speaking to that you are writing a
1 report for the Defence, can I quote you. And the person can then say
2 "yes" or "no" and this kind of problem can be avoided. But that's for
3 the future. Now it's too late. Mr. Stringer, proceed, please.
4 THE WITNESS: That's exactly what I did. I have told to the
5 people that I am writing a report and that some of their -- or views,
6 some of their opinions would be part of my report. But of course I did
7 not go to see the people that would be only confirming what I intended to
8 say. I wanted to have different views. That's why I went to see
9 different people. I mean, that is the whole essence. And the discussion
10 with Mr. Beslagic and the discussion with Mr. Tanovic were for me
11 fruitful for my understanding.
12 MR. STRINGER: Thank you Mr. President.
13 Q. Mr. Cvikl, one last question on the issue of districts. I'm
14 looking at page 105 of your report. You can set aside the witness
15 statement. We are going to move on. Page 105 of your report, it relates
16 to what's been discussed the last couple of minutes. On page 5 -- sorry,
17 paragraph 5.
18 "Analysis of the development in Croat majority areas confirms
19 that, not surprisingly, later in the war period especially, in the second
20 and third phase, economic development in areas with a Croat majority was
21 very much in line with the authority vested in districts by the
22 presidency decree with power of law on the establishment of work
24 And I wanted to try to get a clarification of that. Are you
25 suggesting that the regionalization in Herceg-Bosna was pursuant to the
1 decree law that is a -- in a legal sense, if you will, or when you say
2 "very much in line with," are you saying that it was similar or
3 consistent with the provisions that are found in the decree law? Do you
4 see the distinction there?
5 A. No, could you rephrase it please, and please can you use another
6 term than "pursuant."
7 Q. Here you are saying that in the Croat majority area, which I
8 understand we can refer to generically as Herceg-Bosna, that the economic
9 development was very much in line with the authority vested in the
10 districts by the Bosnia-Herzegovina decree, right. And there are two
11 ways I think somebody could interpret that. On the one hand somebody
12 could say, Oh, yeah, there was a decree issued by the presidency of
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and on the basis of that decree, we followed that
14 decree and we accepted it and we formed a district which -- in
15 Herceg-Bosna which is very much in line, right, with the authorities
16 granted by the decree. That's one interpretation. Another possible
17 interpretation, I would suggest, is that what they did in Herceg-Bosna
18 was consistent with in many ways, the provisions of the decree, but they
19 did so independently. They did it on their own and not as a result of
20 the decree itself.
21 So my question is, when you say it was very much in line with the
22 authority, are you saying it was -- they accepted the authority and
23 followed suit, or did act in a similar way but independently?
24 A. Well, here my paragraph talks about that the analysis confirms
25 that the developments, economic development, in areas was very much in
1 line with the authority vested, which means that the presidency decree
2 with the power of law in the inception work of district define what
3 particular departments, line ministries of districts. Should there be
4 one supposed and allowed to do? And these are usually - and that was the
5 case in the case of district three - authorities of the central
6 government. So the presidency has decided that the authorities of the
7 central government is transferred down to the region.
8 At the same time, once under the base of the Bosnian
9 constitutions, local communities started to act, and they've acted on the
10 basis of the of the decree of the so-called necessary financing of the
11 socio-economic needs, they have the basis to take and to adopt fiscal
12 regulation, et cetera. But there was then a problem, that in local
13 municipalities of a different economic welfare, the situation was
14 different, so at the local level there was a need being to recognised
15 that there shall be a region-wide measures undertaken.
16 So whatever was I was seeing in the second phase of the HVO were
17 actually trying to make measures that were initially undertaken at the
18 level of the local municipality to be varied for the wider region, and as
19 I'm saying in the last paragraph -- last sentence in that paragraph, they
20 have not undertaken all the activities that was vested down by the
21 presidency decree of August 1992.
22 And I assumed that there were two simultaneous activities: The
23 presidency recognizing that they cannot control the country and that they
24 would not want to have 50 or 70 small economic areas, and at the level
25 the local communities there was a need to recognise that for the economy
1 of scale, in order to undertake measures that would not be good just for
2 one local community, there has to be some of those measures undertaken.
3 And I am mentioning two very cases --
4 Q. All right. Excuse me --
5 A. -- the road to salvation and starting of the school year.
6 Q. Thank you, thank you. Are you aware whether the leadership of
7 Herceg-Bosna expressly repudiated and rejected implementation of the
8 decree on establishment of work districts?
9 A. I'm not aware of that.
10 Q. Okay. The next topic goes to the issue of financing of the
11 military, and specifically, I want to focus on Herceg-Bosna and the
12 financing of the HVO.
13 And if I can take you again to your report, Mr. Cvikl, pages 72
14 and 73, there's some passages there that relate to this. I'm looking on
15 page 72 at section 4.3.1, Croat local community measures aimed at
16 financing defence. And here you first refer to the Mostar municipality
17 and you refer to some legislation; for example, the establishment of a
18 separate account that provided a framework to finance defence activities
19 in Mostar. And then turning the page you have a section there on
20 measures taken in Livno, again your citing some decisions taken by the
21 Livno HVO authorities with a view toward financing the activities of the
22 Bruno Busic HVO regiment.
23 Do you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And if I understand correctly, and let me ask this way: Correct
1 me if I'm wrong, in the earlier, perhaps the phase 1 period, as I
2 understand from your testimony, the municipalities were more active in
3 all ways or perhaps had more authority and were more active in financing
4 activities, but as time went on, just moving into 1993, it was the HVO
5 that - from a more central point of view - was funding defence
6 activities. Is that a correct understanding, or no?
7 A. It's not because it depends very much what was the situation in
8 particular local municipality, and we discussed this with one of the --
9 some of the documents which was yesterday presented where one of the
10 other Defence counsels, we were actually discussing this Bruno Busic HVO
11 regiment. But it was obviously that the funds that were supposed to be
12 given to Livno were not sufficient, so they went and undertake some
13 additional measures. The Livno municipality and the Mostar municipality
14 measures, and, yeah, are an examples what type of measures were aimed at
15 financing defence. The one that I have been collected. There must have
16 been some others. We have seen some of those, we could quote them here,
17 you know, what we were doing in Travnik, what they were doing in Zenica.
18 This is Travnik at the time of the -- of being in the first part. So
19 these are the type of the measures.
20 Q. Okay. I'm not clear when we see these measures, local
21 municipalities looking to fund the defence activities, when they get
22 those funds, when they've obtained those funds, do you know -- do the
23 funds go directly then to those units, for example, Bruno Busic in Livno,
24 or did they remit the funds to the central HVO in Mostar, the funds would
25 go into the HVO or Herceg-Bosna budget, and then would go out to
1 individual units from there?
2 A. No, you are talking here about two different examples. And this
3 decision, the one you mentioned, on assembling of financial aid to the
4 Bruno Busic HVO regiment was, in my view, up and above what had been, you
5 know, financed from the -- from the region-wide authority, but most
6 likely it was not sufficient. So that's why this decision has been
7 adopted, and we have seen these letters of exchange of opinions between
8 the region-wide authorities and the local municipality authorities that
9 fine, you know, let us just have one system eventually where everything
10 would be financed from the region. But that obviously was not possible.
11 That's what I have said a couple of times during this testimony and my
12 report, that there were attempts by the Croatian Defence Council, as the
13 temporary executive authority made, that always not accepted at the level
14 of the local municipality, especially those that would have sufficient
15 funds if one would not establish a region-wide measures.
16 Q. Okay. Now, if I could direct you to page 139 of your report,
17 another statement but it's on the related or the same topic. Paragraph
18 66 at the top. You make reference to local authorities finding new means
19 of financing, and there's reference to the Prozor-Rama legislation. And
20 you conclude that paragraph -- you say:
21 "Basically this was in accordance with the decree on the armed
22 force of HZ HB, which didn't envisage centralised financing of HVO.
23 Municipalities which were part of the HZ HB were obliged to cover those
25 And then you drop a footnote to 617, which refers then to Article
1 179 of the decree on armed forces. And so I want to go to that. If we
2 can go to the decree on armed forces, which is P 00558. It's in binder
3 1, I'm sorry, Mr. Cvikl, it's in the very first binder.
4 A. Yes. I just want to mark what we were discussing before because
5 it is disconnected.
6 Q. If you want I can ask the usher to come over and help clean up
7 some of that?
8 A. No-no, that's fine. So binder 1?
9 Q. Binder 1, Exhibit P 00558.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: 588.
11 MR. STRINGER: 588. Sorry.
12 Q. 588. Okay. Now, your reference here -- getting back to your
13 report, you -- saying that the HZ HB or the decree on armed forces did
14 not envisage centralised financing, municipalities which were part of the
15 HZ HB were obliged to cover those expenses. Now, you base that on
16 Article 179 of the decree on armed forces, which is toward the end of the
17 document, but if you will allow me, Mr. Cvikl, I suggest that's a mistake
18 or a typo and that you are in fact intending to refer to Article 170.
19 A. Yes. Question is?
20 Q. So the first question is, is this in fact intended to be a
21 reference to Article 170 rather than 179 of the decree on arms forces?
22 A. Well, that -- the decree on the armed forces we discussed just in
23 one of two parts the financing of -- could be typo.
24 Q. Let's go to Article 170.
25 THE INTERPRETER: The witness is kindly asked to speak into the
1 microphone, please.
2 MR. STRINGER:
3 Q. You may need to put the document in front of you so that you can
4 speak into the microphone.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Articles 170 on the decree of armed forces provides that:
7 "Funding of the armed forces of the HZ HB shall be carried out
8 according to the budget of the defence department, adopted by member
9 municipalities of Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna."
10 And the next paragraph refers to -- well, it says:
11 "Contributions of member municipalities of HZ HB to the budget of
12 the defence department shall be determined according to criteria
14 And then it continues:
15 "Relating to funds from the budget of the defence department
16 shall be utilized for the following purposes ..."
17 And it goes and lists various purposes including the payment of
18 salaries. So if you will the first paragraph there refers to money
19 coming in, which implies that money is coming in from the various
20 municipalities on the basis of the budget that they adopt, and that the
21 money then is to go out from the defence department.
22 Am I to understand that although this is -- this is written, it
23 may have actually not worked out that way in the real world? Is that a
24 correct statement, that in fact we see municipalities directly funding or
25 not making contributions in the way that maybe is envisaged under the
1 decree on armed forces?
2 A. Now, Article 170 had been issued and is a part of a decree which
3 was issued in October of, I believe, 1992. Right? And I have stated in
4 my report that at least in the 1992 we see very limited amount of the
5 budgets collected, even in 1992 we have seen of course a stronger budget
6 but we have seen that also there were other sources still being collected
7 at the local level. And only in 1994 we have seen some kind of the
8 full-fledged budget. Article 170 talks in principle how it shall be, and
9 it's not clear - and may I just look into the Croatian version - Croatian
10 version, Article 170 -- well, it is a plural, you know, so it could be --
11 it could be a budget defence in a particular -- a particular local
12 community. Or it could be a budget of the defence department that would
13 be adopted by all members of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna for
14 which you would first need to have an executive authority being there.
15 From referring to the page 139 where I'm explaining this what is
16 happening, if I'm not correct, this is 742, here we are discussing the
17 problems. This is the so-called section on continuation of independent
18 economic measures by local communities in Croat majority area. So
19 despite the fact that there were attempts in the phase 2, under the phase
20 2 was already there, and there were institutions established, still as we
21 have seen from some of the cases - one of them which you also mentioned -
22 there were of course -- there were independent measures undertaken. And,
23 of course, the most likely reason is as I explained, the budget was not
24 yet up and running.
25 And decision of -- just a second, that was the Prozor, that is
1 the Prozor that is February 18, 1993, what was the actual situation --
2 sorry, we have to be very careful. The HB Rama, if you are quoting the
3 Prozor -- Prozor-Rama, this is the January 16, this is one of the
4 decision which has to do with actually collection of funds abroad. So it
5 is a source of the budget of these very local community. With the, of
6 course, an attempt to finance the priority which is number one and that
7 is the defence.
8 Q. Okay. And --
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a question from
10 another standpoint, from another angle, and I think it is a capital
11 question. This Article 170, while we see that in during the events the
12 administration could come up very quickly with a text of close to 170
13 articles, you would think that all the beaurocrats were spending their
14 time writing text of the kind, but as to Article 170, it says very
15 officially, and that the budget of the defence department must be adopted
16 by the municipalities. Very well. But in a democratic system, the
17 budget of the Defence ministry is adopted by the parliament, but for a
18 few countries where the head of state can commit money for military
19 purposes, but as a rule, the budget is adopted democratically by the
20 members of parliament. But here we have adoption by the communities, as
21 part of the war effort. I have Mr. Prlic, I have Mr. Stojic, and the
22 members of the government which I put in relation to the municipalities.
23 What margin for manoeuvre did they have if indeed it was the
24 municipalities that had some power over their revenues, and secondly,
25 would approve or not approve the budget. In such a context what can a
1 government such as the HVO government do? You are an economist, you have
2 budgetary knowledge and you've held high-ranking political functions, can
3 you as such tell me what is the real scope of Article 170 in relation to
4 the ministry of defence, to Mr. Prlic, to Mr. Boban, tell me if this is
5 too complicated a question. You just say you don't want to answer and we
6 can move on.
7 THE WITNESS: Well, Your Honours, I think with you have, of
8 course, pointed to the gist of the problem. And that is that when some
9 of this legislation was written, especially the one on the decree on the
10 arms forces the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, I'm not aware and it
11 doesn't look like that they have taken into account, you know, the over
12 executive authority already been established. On the other side we have
13 seen some local municipalities undertaking a very similar measures to
14 adopt decree on how in the wartime over-financing shall be organised,
15 that there should be revenues and there should be expenditures. And so
16 if the first phase would continue throughout 1991, 1994 period, we would
17 most likely have a situation where local municipality would be, you know,
18 sitting on their own money, and region-wide measures would not be
19 undertaken and no region-wide even defence activity could be -- could be
21 So I do understood or I understand that whatever it was done in
22 the second phase and in third phase was an uphill battle, uphill battle
23 by the executive authorities being established there to somehow undertake
24 measures necessary at the level of the region. Okay, I have said already
25 as envisaged under the presidency decree of the districts, that would
1 ensure that, you know, this local municipalities would be much more
2 economically connected in all matters, including the defence, including
3 the provision of other social and state services. And that was ultimate
4 economic role of these executive authority. And I would, of course, say
5 that they were -- they were -- it was positive that they were undertaking
6 this, because if they would not have been undertaking this, you would
7 have 50 or 70 small economies all around Bosnia-Herzegovina which
8 ultimately -- 50, 70 small armies depending on who would be able to be
9 better equipped.
10 So Article 170 provides not, it could imply that this budget of
11 the defence department would be once upon a time a part of the overall
12 budget, and I have appreciated that in the second and the third phase
13 such things have happened, but, you know, the way initially was this
14 design, it's difficult to say what were, you know, views of the people
15 writing it.
16 Now, just my last comments on, you know, why 170 articles, you
17 know, lost -- this legislation had been, you know, put in place and at
18 that time, you know, this was, you know, you know, people have this --
19 had the skills, you know, local municipalities and people have the skills
20 preparing such legislation. That was not surprise to me. I've seen that
21 even in other local municipalities.
22 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I think we are beyond the time for
23 the break.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Stringer. You have 1
25 hour 13 minutes left. I'll try and not to step in, but sometimes it's
1 very important, you know, that it's hard not to keep silent.
2 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are back in session. Please
5 proceed, Mr. Stringer.
6 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
7 Q. Mr. Cvikl, just before the break we were talking about the decree
8 on armed forces, and the manner in which there was funding of the defence
9 units of the HVO. My question is, is it true that in preparing your
10 report, you did not consider any level of funding that was provided from
11 the Republic of Croatia
12 A. Well, I was looking into the economic developments on the
13 economic territory, and I was not looking into the -- of course as a part
14 of that, we have seen that there were some -- they asked for ASPRA
15 [phoen] funds being provided. So we looked that from the point of view
16 of how in the budget of the Croatian community and later Croatian
17 republic, revenues and expenditures were presenting, but I was not
18 looking into the -- into the neither the Republic of Slovenia
20 Q. Okay. I only asked you about Croatia.
21 A. I have not looked into other independent country's budget and
22 then transfers to Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, though there were a lot
23 of that. Even in Slovenia
24 Q. Excuse me, thank you, Mr. Cvikl, I think your answer is
25 sufficient. I appreciate your willingness to expound but we are under
1 limited time constraints. This is what I want to do: I want to take you
2 to a series of documents, we'll walk through them together, I'll show
3 them to you, we won't talk about them. Then after we've gone through the
4 series of documents, then we can talk about them and I want to try to
5 relate those to the budgets of Herceg-Bosna that you have been talking
6 about in your testimony.
7 So if I could direct to you the binders, the first document is
8 P 000 --
9 A. Which binder?
10 Q. This is binder -- it's P 00606?
11 A. In which binder?
12 Q. Which is in binder number 1.
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. 606.
15 A. Okay, yes.
16 Q. And this is a document dated 20th of October, 1992, overview of
17 the deposit bank accounts of the budget of Croatian Community of
18 Herceg-Bosna. And I want to direct your attention to the account number
19 1 there, non-resident dinar account, Croatian dinar account, at the
20 Privredna banka Zagreb
21 16 in Opuzen.
22 Before we move on to the first -- the next document. Looking at
23 this, do you recognise this? Is this a document that you've seen before?
24 A. Yes, this is the one of the documents which of course refer to
25 the non-residential accounts and I'm familiar with this document, sir --
1 these accounts.
2 Q. Okay. This specific document -- I'm sorry, let me just ask
3 again, have you seen this specific document before if you recall?
4 A. That I can't recall, but I am aware of the non-residential dinar
5 accounts with branches of banks just across the border as well as the
6 foreign currency accounts as well as the budgetary accounts in dinar as
7 stated in the point 4, in Bosnian dinar and in Croatian dinar by the way
8 it is described in this document, yes.
9 Q. Okay. Now, the next document is P 10290, which is in binder
10 number 3. I'm sorry, binder 2. 10290.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And this is actually, this exhibit is comprised of a couple of
13 different things, and it might be more useful for you to --
14 A. P 10290.
15 Q. Correct. The first page of this is a Croatian Defence Council
16 defence section document, the translation, Mr. President, has this as the
17 18th of December of 1992, but if we look at the original language
18 version, we'll see that it is actually the 18th of October, 1992. It's a
19 document that lists various units of the HVO, and it -- at the very end
20 results or comes to a total for salaries. This is over the signature or
21 the name of Bruno Stojic. And then underneath that there's an approval,
22 stamped approval, of Mr. Gojko Susak who is the defence minister for the
23 Republic of Croatia
24 card report on endorsement, and if you'll just follow along with me, Mr.
25 Cvikl, do you see where essentially what is happening here is that we
1 have a list of salaries of soldiers and officers of the HVO, and the
2 total of those salaries of the various units comes to 197.793.905
3 Croatian dinars, then there's a 2 per cent tax added to that for the
4 total, 201.830.515 dinars. And then if you turn to that card which is
5 the report on endorsement, you'll see that that sum, that figure will
6 then correspond 201.830.515, and this is then going into the non-resident
7 Croatian dinar account of the HVO that we looked at in the previous
9 And then the next document or the next exhibit, if I could take
10 you to it --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can I go back to document -- to
12 document 10290. In the English version because you speak English,
13 Witness, look at the third page, please. On page 3, it appears that the
14 Croatian SDK in Metkovici is going to transfer the amount mentioned on
15 the right-hand side to the account of the business bank in Zagreb
16 THE INTERPRETER: The commercial bank, interpreters correction.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And this is a document that
18 relates to the document addressed to the Republic of Croatia
19 Republic of Herceg-Bosna, therefore there is a transfer of an amount from
20 the budget of the Republic of Croatia
21 supply money to provide for the expenditures mentioned in the document.
22 So we see that this is funded by the Republic of Croatia
23 At the level of Croatia
24 former Yugoslavia
25 paid for?
1 A. No, there was -- there was a control, but what I see in this page
2 3 of the document is a normal transfer which is done in the closest
3 Social Accounting Office of Metkovici, closest to where the
4 non-residential account, the non-residential account was actually being
6 So what I don't see in this -- I don't know what is the source of
7 these funds. I don't see that in this -- what is this charge against?
8 Because it says, booked telephone and telegraph, money orders. So I
9 can't see what is the source of these 201 million dollars. Is this a
10 source which is basically -- I don't know what is the source.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we are not going to go
12 into technical detail, but can you confirm that there was indeed a budget
13 transfer from the Republic of Croatia
14 Herceg-Bosna? That is my question.
15 THE WITNESS: The document says "charged against the account,"
16 and then it says, "booked telephone and telegraph, money orders,
17 illegible, Metkovici." I do not see which -- I see that this came to an
18 account of the HVO, which is a non-residential account, but I don't see
19 who -- from where this money is originating. I can't see that on the --
20 on the -- on this English translation, because it says "illegible," and
21 also when I'm reading on -- in the Croatian version, here there should be
22 an account but which is the account, I don't know, because I mean, I
23 can't see.
24 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I might be --
JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but the SDK in Croatia
1 that the state institution?
2 THE WITNESS: That is an agency for payment. If somebody brought
3 the money in cash and deposit it to that account, that would be here --
4 could be presented with such report on endorsement. Because this is a
5 report on depositing amount. I don't see a report on withdrawal from the
6 whichever budget. That I don't see. I see, a report on -- you know,
7 this is the deposit slip. And it says -- or it's information about the
8 cashless transaction between one account, which I don't know who owns
9 that account, who control it, to the account of the obviously --
10 obviously non-residential account if that is correct, given the fact what
11 he was -- what this -- the --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Agreed, but if Mr. Stojic were
13 to send letter to his counterpart in Croatia with a table listing by
14 local HVO -- HVOs the various expenditures with the signature of
15 Mr. Susak. These are document that intervened prior to funds being sent,
17 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm seeing these documents for the first
18 time. I'm only asking whether on the page 3, I see what is this account
19 charged against, and here I don't see that is changed accounts. Yes,
20 implicitly what you are saying it is most likely true, but I don't see
21 that from the document. Somebody could bring this money on the public
22 auditing services and transfer it to that account.
23 Now, I also understand from the letter of Mr. Stojic that on the
24 top of it it says, Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatian Community of
25 Herceg-Bosna, Croatian Defence Council, which means that, yes, they were
1 requesting assistance from the Republic of Croatia
2 the time of the war and they were receiving such assistance.
3 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 Q. The next document, Mr. Cvikl, is -- the next exhibit, I should
5 say is 10674 which is in binder number 2, 10674, it's the same binder
6 that I think you are already in.
7 A. Yes. 10 --
8 Q. 10674.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Yes. Now, this is an exhibit that actually is comprised of a
11 number of separate documents, so we can just walk through. You'll see
12 this is an order -- this is a letterhead of the Republic of Croatia
13 defence ministry, first page is an order to the finance administration.
14 This is defence Mr. Susak ordering 160 million Croatian dinars from the
15 funds of the ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia
16 to the Croatian Defence Council, and then ordering, secondly, that the
17 money order is to the paid immediately into the HVO giro account which, I
18 think, we can agree is that account that we were looking at in one of the
19 earlier documents.
20 If you will turn the page, this is another similar document,
21 different date, this is for 83 million dinars. Going to the 2nd Stolac
22 Battalion and the Neum Battalion, again into the same account.
23 And then the third one, which is the one of greatest interest to
24 me at the moment is dated the 19th of November, 1992. And here we see
25 that same amount that corresponds, if you'll allow me to suggest,
1 corresponds to the amount -- the total funds that came from the earlier
2 documents on the salary, 201.830.515 Croatian dinars, ordering that those
3 funds from the funds of the ministry of defence to the Republic of
5 intended for the HVO, HZ HB, and Bruno Busic Regiment. And again
6 ordering the funds to be immediately paid into that giro account.
7 Now, there are more of these orders, and we can look at more of
8 them, but they are all essentially the same format. Then you see there's
9 an additional list request for more payments for salaries from
10 Mr. Stojic, just continuing through the document. That one is dated the
11 10th of January, 1993.
12 And then after that there's another order from Mr. Susak dated
13 the 16th of February, 1992, for the funds to go to the HVO Bruno Busic,
14 I'm looking next at one dated 12 March, 1993, 805.077.000 dinars again to
15 Bruno Busic. Then I'm going to skip ahead two documents to one dated 8th
16 of April --
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Stringer, did you want to say Busic?
18 MR. STRINGER: Busic.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Not Stojic?
20 MR. STRINGER: No, I'm sorry the document is ordering monies to
21 be transferred and that the money is strictly intended - I'm reading the
22 document, Your Honour --
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry.
24 MR. STRINGER: It's strictly intended for the HVO, HZ HB, and
25 Bruno Busic Regiment. And the one I'm looking at now is dated the 8th of
1 April, 1993
2 Q. Now, yesterday, you were shown an exhibit, I believe by counsel
3 for Mr. Stojic, 1D 00307. And that one's in the -- actually, that one's
4 in the separate list of exhibits that you were provided by the Stojic,
5 the separate group of documents provided by the Stojic team in the pink
6 folder. I think it's in the little group. 1D 00307. Do you have that
8 A. Yes, I have it.
9 Q. So this is dated 26 March, 1993
10 municipality on funding for the HVO Bruno Busic unit. So this is -- I
11 want to talk about these documents and the funds which appear to be
12 coming in from the ministry of defence as loans to the HVO from the
13 Republic of Croatia
14 funding as is indicated in the documents that we've just looked at?
15 A. Well, as you know, I presented in my report when we looked into
16 the budget of 1993 that there were some loans. And I think that the most
17 important, if I may comment what you have just showed to me, on these
18 document is actually that these are the loans to be provided to the HVO.
19 I don't know what was happening with the return of these loans, but this
20 is in a situation where you have two independent sovereign entities,
21 which means on one side HVO of the republic -- HVO of wherever it is,
22 sorry, Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatian Community of
23 Herceg-Bosna, Croatian Defence Council as an independent entity, he is
24 receiving a loan from another independent entity which is in that case
25 the Republic of Croatia
1 Q. All right.
2 A. That is a perfect sensible assistance in the time of war.
3 Q. All right. Excuse me --
4 A. May I finish?
5 Q. No, I think you've answered sufficiently. I've got more
6 questions on this and I'm sure we'll cover all of it.
7 A. You show me the documents for the first time, and I just want to
8 say what I think is the most important in this document.
9 Q. Looking specifically at these documents where Mr. Susak is
10 ordering funds to be loaned, do I understand correctly, sir, you've never
11 seen those documents before, you were not aware of them before now?
12 A. I have seen thousands of documents. As I have said, that
13 substantially I covered this type of assistance with the presentation of
14 the 1993, 1994 budget where on the revenue side you had level of loans
15 that are given to these -- to this very entity. And as I've said, loans
16 between two independent entity --
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, Witness, I'm sorry, the question was
18 have you seen these documents before and that is yes or no full stop. No
19 explanation is needed or called for. You are losing the time of the
20 Court by giving uncalled for explanations. I think the answer is no, did
21 I understand you correctly? You have not seen these before, have you?
22 THE WITNESS: Some of them I have seen.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Which ones?
24 THE WITNESS: I have seen certainly the one on the assistance by
25 the Livno. I have seen the budget, I have not seen the detailed orders
1 from the defence. That's why I -- for me the one with which
2 Mr. Prosecutor presented the ones on so-called loans, I have not seen
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay. Thank you, that's the answer.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may be of some assistance.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No, Mr. Karnavas, this is not necessary. I mean
7 we have certain rules, you have always insisted that they be respected,
8 and I think you should accept that they are also expected to be respected
9 from the other side.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: I wasn't aware that I was disrespecting any of the
11 rules. You haven't heard my comment.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Karnavas, please turn on your microphone.
13 Thank you.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: My mike isn't working. But it goes beyond the
15 scope of the examination.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: -- beyond the scope of the purpose of the report.
18 That's what I wanted to point out. Nor did I ask the gentleman to look
19 over documents as so as far as a what Saudi Arabia, Iran
20 provided the Muslim government in financing their war. That wasn't the
21 purpose. That was my point. The point is it goes beyond the scope of
22 his examination, of his expertise, and therefore all of these questions
23 are irrelevant. And I'm entitled to make my record.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, you are. I'm sorry I thought you wanted to
25 do something else.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: No.
2 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, the witness is purporting to make
3 expert submissions on how the HVO military was funded. His suggestion is
4 that it was funned largely by municipalities or possibly by the central
5 HVO and Mostar. I'm putting to him in fact that there is a very
6 different, very substantial level of funding that's coming from the
7 Croatian ministry of defence which, with respect, is not an issue that he
8 has addressed or accounted for in his report.
9 I'm ready now to go to the budget and to talk about the budget of
10 the Herceg-Bosna for 1993 and how this relates to the Herceg-Bosna budget
11 for 1993.
12 Q. So, if I could, Mr. Cvikl, ask you to turn to page 157 of your
13 report, and we can put that up on the screens. We've got it in Sanction
14 because it might facilitate all of our work in looking at this particular
15 page. Sorry, you are seeing it on the screen. Thank you.
16 This is, Mr. Cvikl, from your report, but can we agree that these
17 figures -- actually, you took these directly from that HVO report on work
18 for 1993 that had the work of the different departments, and this came
19 from the Ministry of Finance or the department of finance section and is
20 their budget.
21 A. We discussed that yesterday, this is the source, this is the
22 economic department, the reports by different departments I guess
23 collected by the economics department and those are the revenues which
24 obviously went through the budget of the Croatian Community of
1 Q. All right. And for the record, Mr. President, the exhibit on
2 that is P 09551. That's that HVO work report.
3 Okay. A couple of questions on some of these numbers, Mr. Cvikl,
4 if I could direct your attention first of all to item 1.6 which relates
5 to customs. And of course we are on the revenue side of the budget now,
6 the money coming in to the HZ HB budget during 1993, item 1.6 relating to
7 customs. Do you see that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Now, if I understand correctly, this figure is represents
10 the amount of money that would have been raised by the Herceg-Bosna
11 authorities in collecting duties and customs, taxes, if you will, as part
12 of obviously the customs function that's being carried out by
13 Herceg-Bosna; is that correct?
14 A. That would be most likely the budget prepared under the cash
15 principle, which means that those budget, those customs, and those
16 transfer which were made in cash and were going via budget would be, if
17 normal practices were respected, presented here.
18 Q. All right. And would you agree with me, sir, that that figure
19 accounts for nearly one-quarter of the budget revenues of Herceg-Bosna
20 for 1993?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. As presented in this --
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. And under the assumption that all revenues are cash revenues.
1 Q. The next item I wanted to ask you about is item number 3, which
2 is toward the bottom, which relates to revenues from credits, i.e.,
3 financing of deficit.
4 Now, in your testimony earlier, you indicated that you thought
5 that these funds represented commercial borrowing by the Herceg-Bosna
6 authorities, isn't that true?
7 A. Just a second.
8 Q. Can I assist you to find something?
9 A. P 09 -- yeah, just ...
10 Q. While you are finding that, I'll just read you an excerpt of your
11 testimony from earlier this week, page 35303. You were asked about this
12 and you said --
13 A. It says the report, the Croatian version, it says, number 3
14 revenues from credits. I added that this in a normal budget
15 presentation, these revenues of credits would be financing the deficit.
16 Q. All right. And in your testimony earlier you said that:
17 "I understand these are the revenues from credit mainly provided
18 by commercial banks because we have not seen and I have not seen any
19 central bank being created on the territory of Croatian Community of
20 Herceg-Bosna which means that also these revenues from credits have been
21 backed by some savings in commercial banks. And I guess that that was at
22 the time mainly so-called Hrvatska banka, Mostar."
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And my question, sir, is do you know - and I'll put it to in
25 fact - you don't know whether in fact all of these loans from Croatia
1 that we've seen are reflected on this item, line item 3, in the budget of
2 Herceg-Bosna, isn't that true?
3 A. Well, first of all, when I say that these are the revenues from
4 the credits and that means that they are not printed monies, my statement
5 goes in connection that there were no central bank authority at the level
6 of Herceg-Bosna, which means that the revenues of credits were replaced
7 by real savings.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. And that's -- and the reason why I, of course, emphasized this is
10 because in 1993 the lower inflation --
11 Q. Thank you.
12 A. -- in this very territory --
13 Q. Thank you.
14 A. -- was lower than in --
15 Q. I am sorry, I'm going to have to cut you off here.
16 Do you know whether the loans represented in the documentation
17 we've been looking at is reflected anywhere in the budget of
19 A. Well, I have taken as a basis the report of the so-called
20 Croatian Defence Council.
21 Q. Right. And isn't it true that that report does not indicate that
22 the Republic of Croatia
23 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?
24 A. Can you repeat that question because I --
25 Q. Isn't it true that --
1 A. Can I see the transcript, please, on my left screen.
2 Q. I'll re-ask the question. Isn't it true, Mr. Cvikl, that the
3 work report does not indicate or reveal that in fact Republic of Croatia
4 is providing these loans. It's not in the document, is it?
5 A. But that -- my purpose of analysis was not comparing whether in a
6 particular revenues of the budget of Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna
7 was everything what was happening.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. I was not doing the external audit of the Croatian Community of
10 Herceg-Bosna --
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. -- and financing.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 A. I had been presenting --
15 Q. No-no, we understand what you have been presenting --
16 A. I have been presenting that in --
17 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Cvikl, the answer is no, I think, and that's
19 it, okay. You continue, you continue not to follow the rules and you
20 talk and talk instead of simply giving answers. I'm sorry, this is --
21 THE WITNESS: Your Honour --
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No, you do not have to comment. The rules are
23 here we make the rules you have to comply with them. I'm sorry.
24 THE WITNESS: I cannot answer --
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Stringer, please continue.
1 THE WITNESS: I cannot answer "no" to a question which is not
2 correctly put.
3 MR. STRINGER: My question --
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: How is the question of whether these loans
5 figure in the papers not correctly put? You can say they do, they don't,
6 I don't know.
7 THE WITNESS: Nobody had made analogies and so that's what in my
8 answer is not no, my answer is I don't recall, or I don't know because I
9 did not make this analysis.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: That's okay. That's okay. You can answer like
11 this, perfect.
12 THE WITNESS: That's how I answered, I answered that I --
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No-no, you started speaking -- Mr. Stringer,
14 please continue.
15 MR. STRINGER:
16 Q. Item number 4, grants and other revenues, and that accounts for
17 about a quarter of the budget. Do you know what the grants and other
18 revenues consist of?
19 A. In normal circumstances the grants and other revenues would
20 consist of the official grants by other countries or other entities that
21 are not from the local, and they usually would present the nominal value
22 if they respect the cash flow principle. If they do not respect the cash
23 flow principle which was usually the case, the grants and revenues in the
24 amount of the old -- what we have seen would not be presented here.
25 Nobody, neither myself had made an analyses what is behind these
1 line items at 3 or 4, so one cannot actually said what level of the
2 grants coming to Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
3 Herceg-Bosna was really presented here.
4 Q. Okay. So you don't know?
5 A. I do know.
6 Q. You don't know what --
7 A. I do know that one quarter of the revenues --
8 Q. No-no --
9 A. -- is covered by the grants. That's the essence of this table.
10 We have a normal structure.
11 Q. Excuse me. What are the source of grants and other revenues? Do
12 you know? Where do those come from?
13 A. Well according to the legislation being in place and according to
14 the chart of accounts, the grants and other revenues have to come from
15 other countries that, the is rule of the games in the chart of accounts.
16 Q. Right. Now I'm asking about this specific number, 57.495.000.000
17 Croatian dinars, what's the source of those Croatian dinars, do you know?
18 A. Well, I also don't know what were the sources and what kind of
19 customs proceeds were coming in. This is the report which only shows
20 that in the year 1993 they were collecting more revenues than in the year
21 1992. In the year 1994 they collected even more.
22 Q. Excuse me. Thank you, I'm going to move on to the next item.
23 I'm going to ask you some questions about your meeting with Mr. Backovic.
24 Now, you can turn in the second binder to 10765 which is the statement
25 that Mr. Backovic --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.
2 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: Your Honours, the Prosecutor said 50
3 billion. Just to avoid any misunderstandings between the American and
4 European markings, it's 50 -- in English it's billion, in Europe it's --
5 the difference is three zeros.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
7 MR. STRINGER:
8 Q. You have the statement that was provided by Mr. --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Stringer, your mike is off.
10 MR. STRINGER:
11 Q. Do you have 10765, the statement by Mr. Backovic?
12 A. Yes, I have it.
13 Q. As I understand you met him for about an hour at the Holiday Inn
14 hotel in Sarajevo
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. And although you've indicated in your report correctly that
17 Mr. Backovic is a former vice-governor of the Central Bank of
18 Bosnia-Herzegovina, would you agree with me, Mr. Cvikl, that in fact he
19 was not a vice-governor of the central bank during the time-period
20 largely covered by your report 1992 and 1993?
21 A. Well, just two sentences first. On those grants whose
22 institutions are described in the economics report of the Bosnian
23 authorities, and I mention UNICEF, et cetera --
24 Q. No-no, no, excuse me --
25 A. I'm just saying to you because you were --
1 Q. No-no, no.
2 A. -- who they are. It said that in the reports there are the
3 names. Well, Mr. Backovic, I met Mr. Backovic for the first time in
4 1994, 1995 when he was vice-governor of at that time National Bank of
6 Q. Excuse me, excuse me. And we'll get to that, I assure you my
7 question was more limited; that is, he was not vice-governor of the
8 central bank at the time of 1992 and 1993. Is that true?
9 A. I met him -- when I met him for the first time, he was
11 Q. Right. But --
12 A. I don't know.
13 Q. You don't know what he was doing in 1992 or 1993?
14 A. I don't know what he was -- I know him as a vice-governor of
15 National Bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 Q. All right. Now, and is he one of the people who you didn't --
17 you didn't share with him the fact that you were preparing an expert
18 report that would cite him because you were concerned that if you did so
19 he might not agree to talk to you?
20 A. No, it is not true. The people who are not agreeing once I
21 present them over the phone, my attempt -- I did not even have
22 discussions with them. I had a discussion with him where I presented to
23 him that I am in Sarajevo
24 a report where I would try to understand what was happening on the
25 monetary area. And he had basically -- he knew of that.
1 Q. All right. And once you prepared your report or your draft of
2 your report, I take it even though you were citing him as vice-governor,
3 you never gave him an opportunity to review the statements that you were
4 attributing to him; correct?
5 A. I will have to repeat here what I have already said. I have not
6 made formal interviews, and I have been discussing with Mr. Backovic in
7 the same manner as with Mr. Enis Gotovusa [phoen], but I'm having with
8 him a discussion because I was asked to prepare a report on what was
9 happening. And on the basis of the IMF and the World Bank report where
10 he had been cooperating with us very extensively, I wanted with him to
11 reiterate some of the findings in the 1994, 1996 period when I was in
12 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
13 and talking to another person, I wanted to find out what was happening in
14 the central bank at that time.
15 Q. Okay. Now, I'm looking at page 3 of his statement at the top
16 where he says that:
17 "It's important to keep in mind during 1992 and most of 1993, I
18 was working as deputy general manager with a commercial bank, Kreditna
19 banka Sarajevo
20 that I was not the person in the best position to give information about
21 the economic and financial actions of the government authorities during
22 1992 and most of 1993."
23 And then he continues on to name some people that he suggested
24 you should go to talk to who would be in a better position. Do you
25 recall that, sir? Do you recall Mr. Backovic telling you that there were
1 others who were better positioned to answer your questions?
2 A. Yes, I recall that and I tried to meet Mr. Stijepo Andric who was
3 governor of the National Bank of Herzegovina
4 successful in meeting him. And I was trying to also make an effort to
5 establish contact with Mr. Krezo. He, as I can see he also was
6 suggesting that I meet Mr. Mikovic [phoen] before on many occasions, and
7 he is also suggesting that I should be meeting Mr. Krezo and Mr. --
8 because the book was revised by academic professor Dr. Ivo Perisin. I
9 know of Ivo Perisin. He was my colleague when I was at the National Bank
10 of Yugoslavia
11 However, since Mr. Perisin was a regular member of the Croatian
12 Academy of Science
13 monetary issue just with the Croats. I wanted to hear from a non-Croat
14 such an opinion. And certainly I did not want to hear it only from
15 people that, like Mr. Andric, who left as a governor afterwards. But
16 that's why I intended to meet Mr. Backovic. And I understand also on
17 page 2 that he said that it was in understood that the war which
18 undertaking is linked with the preparation of the Prlic Defence. So he
19 was aware of that, he is confirming what you were implying before that
20 hes not aware of.
21 I'm just reading what he has said to you or to your inquiry. So
22 he was aware that we are discussing the issues linked with my work on the
23 preparation of the -- of the --
24 Q. All right.
25 A. -- of the defence. And I had with me the IMF report and I had
1 with me the World Bank report, and we went through some of these already
2 in these two report identified major problems.
3 Q. Okay. And just continuing from the passage on page 2 that you've
4 just referred to, it is true, sir, isn't it that Mr. Cvikl, that you did
5 not inform Mr. Backovic that his opinions given to you would be cited in
6 your report and then submitted to judges at this Tribunal; isn't that
8 A. I would repeat again what I have said. I did not went to see
9 Mr. Backovic for get his - how shall I say? - confirmation of my belief.
10 I wanted to hear his opinion. And I presented his opinion in the same
11 manner as I presented the opinion of other people, and as I presented the
12 views expressed in the reports of the IMF and the World Bank to which
13 Mr. Backovic was main counterpart on the Bosnian side.
14 So he was -- what he was saying to me in 9th 2007 is the same
15 thing which he was saying to me in 1994, 1996 period, and that is that
16 the monetary authorities were not up and running.
17 Q. Okay. Now, I'm --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To avoid all the time on this,
19 the fact that you've cited names of people who subsequently will more or
20 less say the opposite, why did you not envisage the following procedure:
21 When your report was completed, you could ask your secretary to
22 have a standard correspondence to these certain individuals saying, Dear
23 sirs, I'm addressing here with a copy of a report that I will be
24 presenting to the ICTY pertaining to a request put forward by the Prlic
25 Defence. Your name appearing on page X, Y, or Z, I would be grateful if
1 you could let me know as soon as possible whether you have any
2 observations to make, it being stated of course that I have to convey to
3 my counsel this draft by a specific date. And therein you just quietly
4 wait for a response. Did that idea not occur to you?
5 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, I did the same work in the same
6 manner as we do it as -- as we have done it in the World Bank. We in the
7 beginning of the 1996 report, we make acknowledgments, but we are not and
8 we have never been requesting from the people whether the analysis that
9 the way we make it is -- is the one which, quote, will then confirm,
10 because this is not -- this is not analysis and this is not a report, I
11 would be make it -- simply doing what the Prosecutor was doing, which is
12 taking the witness statement.
13 I was not asked to do -- to investigate -- to investigate. I
14 wanted for my understanding to see whether the situation described in the
15 two reports, and additionally confirmed, additionally confirmed by many
16 documents which were -- which were presented to me are in the manner that
17 we have seen them in the 1994. And here on the evolution of monetary
18 policy institutions between 1992, 1995, that is being already written in
19 1996, and I cited extensively throughout this report - this is my first
20 footnote - I say, I am basing my analysis on the two most important
21 documents. When I go into the details, when I go into details, I present
22 additional information which were at that time not valid. And that is
23 mostly to do with what is happening on the level of --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but let me just take the
25 footnote, say at page 398 where you say in paragraph 41 that:
1 "In the education sector the individual and local communities
2 were the only ones capable of meeting the needs of the elementary
4 And you cite three individuals who would seem to attest to that,
5 Milenko Musa and Ile Krezo -- not three but two individuals. Let's
6 assume for a second that they disagree, they disagree. They believe that
7 there were other fundings. You see where the problem is? In support of
8 your claims you cite people, but if people disagree -- do you see that's
9 the risk, that's the danger. We are not in the World Bank where you can
10 say just anything. You are before a judicial institution where
11 everything that is written will be screened.
12 THE WITNESS: But on this very footnote which you are mentioning,
13 we were discussing with Mr. Milenko Musa and with Mr. Krezo what has been
14 written in the HVO report. In the HVO report has been written that the
15 local communities were starting to provide assistance. I was trying to
16 confirm from them whether what has been written in the HVO report is
17 correct in the same manner as I was with Mr. Backovic discussing, you
18 know, when actually monetary authorities of National Bank of
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina took control of that area.
20 And he had confirmed to me as I see have seen it still in 1995
21 that they did not have this control. 1992, 1993, 1994, even up to 1995
22 they did not have this control. That was the whole essence of my finding
23 because there was a lack of control by the monetary authorities somebody
24 else step into it. And that's who was somebody else were local
25 communities all over the place. And I wanted to -- I wanted to hear from
1 them whether that was correct and that's what Mr. Backovic was confirming
2 to me. I have seen this by myself. This is what we -- we, the IMF and
3 the World Bank wrote in 1996. There were different monetary arrangement
4 in place.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Stringer, please
7 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
8 Q. Getting back to the statement of Mr. Backovic, though, looking
9 back at page 3 now, the second-to-last paragraph begins with the word
10 "third," and I just want to move up a few lines. He is talking about
11 your meeting at the Holiday Inn which lasted about an hour and he says:
12 "During our conversation we spoke in general terms about
13 economic and financial issues that he discusses in his report ..."
14 that's your report, "... without discussing any details. Third, I wish
15 to state that I have seen Mr. Cvikl's report and all of the footnotes and
16 text that refer to me. With regard to all of those footnotes I state
17 that I do not accept the text that is attributed to me because such
18 detailed comments could not correspond with a short informal meeting such
19 as I had with Mr. Cvikl in December of 2007."
20 Now, isn't that true, sir? You had coffee, you had a chat at the
21 Holiday Inn in Sarajevo
22 weeks to cover with other witnesses, such as Mr. Tomic, and the fact is
23 the level of complexity of these issues is such that they can't be
24 discussed in detail -- at this level of detail --
25 A. They can be.
1 Q. -- on the basis of a short conversation over coffee?
2 A. Mr. Backovic was a vice-governor National Bank of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was the main counterpart to two reports, the IMF
4 report and the World Bank report, and we were discussing the substance of
5 these two reports. He was vice-governor, he is professor, if I ask him,
6 What was the money demand for Bosnian dinar, and he respond to me, The
7 money demand was very weak, was very low, that is for me as an economist
8 an explanation that nobody seriously, as has been presented on the place,
9 really took Bosnian dinar as a convertible and as a respectful currency.
10 This was, Mr. Stringer, actually the reasoning why in the Dayton
11 agreement we have had a new central bank to be established.
12 Q. All right. Well, since you brought up the issue of currency,
13 let's then move to page 4 of Mr. Backovic's statement. I'm going to
14 refer you to paragraph 6 there of the statement, which refers to footnote
15 80 of your report and the text that's linked to that. And there, under
16 that text, you indicate in your report that:
17 First republican authorities delayed issuance of the new currency
18 despite the fact that the Yugoslav dinar had cease today exist as legal
19 tender once Bosnia-Herzegovina was established as a sovereign state. And
20 then you go on about the Yugoslav dinar being used in BiH.
21 Now, this is what Mr. Backovic says, he says:
22 "He says it's true the situation was complicated, however, the
23 republican authorities did not intentionally delay. Delay was the result
24 of a complicated situation which made more difficult the technical
25 realisation of decisions; for example, there was significant time
1 difference between the referendum vote for BiH independence and the
2 official international recognition of Bosnia-Herzegovina."
3 He goes on to talk about technical issues on the printing of
4 money and the stamp that was used on Yugoslav dinar bills.
5 Now, isn't it true that even in Slovenia there was a three-month
6 delay in the issuance of any form of Slovenian currency three months
7 after Slovenia
8 A. Now, first of all the 3 month delay in Slovenian was linked with
9 the Brioni agreement where we have, instead of issuing the currency on
10 the 25th of June, have agreed that we will do it 3 months later at the
11 time when the Yugoslav Army left the country.
12 On the statement of Mr. Backovic, I think we have a common
13 position. I have said republican authorities delayed the issuance. I
14 did not say that they intentionally have done that. I explained in my
15 testimony and in the report. If this was because of the military
16 activities, because of inability of the central government, I was even
17 reading that once dinar were printed, UNPROFOR did not want it to -- to
18 bring it to Sarajevo
19 have not done that.
20 Q. All right.
21 A. But this was the situation. It was a military situation, and you
22 should not be comparing it with Slovenia
23 purpose we upon the signing of the Brioni agreement agreed we would do
24 this with a three month delay which was on 8th of October and then it was
25 done overnight.
1 Q. All right. Now, on this intentional delay this raises another
2 issue, a more general one that I have been meaning to ask you. Because
3 if one reads your report, you very steadily refer throughout your report
4 to the fact that the central government didn't do things, failed to do
5 things, or was unable to do things. And one could read that as
6 criticism, that the central government through incompetence or through
7 lack of intention or through some malfeasance failed to do things that it
8 could have done. Now, is that your position?
9 A. No. My position is that the central government could do two
10 things on the money issues. They could -- they could issue new currency,
11 but what is even more important they could -- they could limit themselves
12 on the financing of the budget. Because if they would do the other, that
13 means that they would have a more economically stable situation. And I'm
14 not saying whether it was right or wrong. I'm describing that because
15 they have decided to print cash needed, 98 percent of the war budget was
16 financed by printing, they created a hyperinflation environment in which,
17 in which people did not trust BH dinar and that's why para-currency was
18 put in place. This is my analysis. I'm not blaming anyone for what was
19 happening. I'm only say that the BH dinar, because there was oversupply
20 of the BH dinar, not being covered created hyperinflation environment in
21 which usually para-currency took place. In the case of Slovenia we
22 issued new currency but we limit ourselves to not print it above the
23 supply needed and thus we had reduced inflation.
24 Q. And at the time this three-month period in which -- between
25 Slovenian independence and the actual introduction of the new currency,
2 wasn't occupied -- two-thirds of its territory is not occupied by Serb
3 forces; correct?
4 A. You again implying that I'm criticizing the central government
5 authorities. I'm not criticizing them. I'm only saying that the
6 situation was such that they decided to print funds, even as Mr. Backovic
7 says, they started marking Yugoslav dinars in a special way, with a
8 stamp, and this basically represented the legal method of payment in
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina. They were doing such some measures which all created
10 lack of trust in the central government authorities.
11 Q. All right. If you would turn to page 7 of Mr. Backovic's
12 statement. Paragraph 11. This relates to an issue that you have
13 mentioned also just in the last few minutes, that is the functioning of
14 the banking system. In your report it's indicated here, you say that the
15 ongoing military actions - this is page 44 of your report - ongoing
16 military actions also caused the banking system to stop functioning. And
17 that's supported in your footnote 142 by your interviews with Mr. Tomic
18 and Mr. Backovic.
19 But isn't it true, sir, as Mr. Backovic indicates here that it's
20 exaggerated to say that the banking system stopped functioning. It's
21 true the same system functioned under very difficult conditions. He
22 indicates to his knowledge no commercial banks on the territory under
23 control of the legal authorities of Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina fully
24 stopped working during the aggression. However, you cannot expect banks
25 to operate in full capacity during the war, the national bank never
1 stopped working.
2 So isn't that true, sir, isn't it an exaggeration to suggest that
3 the banking system was 100 percent not functioning?
4 A. Well, for the banks the most important is the trust. And once
5 with the war people could not go to the bank and withdraw that deposits,
6 the trust into the banking system is gone. And that's why, yes, there
7 were premises more or less empty. We have still see these premises empty
8 in 1995, 1996 when he came there. Industrial production dropped 91
9 percent. Payments which were being -- which were -- the domestic
10 payments which were happening within the country could not be undertaken
11 because the Social Accounting Office was down. So for all practical
12 purposes, the banking system, the financial system in the way it operated
13 before the start of the war was not functioning.
14 Q. All right. Now, if I could direct your attention to page 13 of
15 this statement, page 13. This relates to some text that's found on pages
16 58 and 59 of your report, looking at paragraph 21 now of his statement.
17 A. Paragraph or --
18 Q. 21. Page 13, paragraph 21, footnote 213.
19 A. 213, because I don't see paragraph. I only see pages.
20 Q. Okay. You see footnote 213 there?
21 A. I see the footnote 213.
22 Q. What appears under that is the text in your report that is based
23 here, this is based exclusively on your interview with Mr. Backovic. And
24 in your report you say:
25 "These accounts and funds were crucial to ensure financial
1 operations of local communities, both to collect funds from abroad and to
2 purchase goods needed for survival of the population..." et cetera.
3 "Once the formerly occupied territories were set free, economic
4 activity returned and it was necessary to reactivate the financial
6 And then you conclude:
7 "An additional complication was the fact that in some
8 territories, such as Herzegovina
10 Now, are you sure that Mr. Backovic said this to you, because he
11 first of all indicates this is not even clear what you are referring to,
12 and then he says:
13 "This cannot in any way stem from my discussion with Mr. Cvikl."
14 So is it true that you did not discuss with him or that he these
15 statements cannot be attributed to him?
16 A. We were discussing with Mr. Backovic that -- what was the issue
17 of the legal entities. And as you know very well, and we discussed it,
18 and he knows very well, in the area of Herzegovina, there were no legal
19 entities up to the establishment of Mostar ska banka. We were discussing
20 in 1995, 1996 his view which was also then expressed by his actual being
21 member of the board of governments of the National Bank of
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, actually abolishing, annulling the decision by the
23 government of National Bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992 establishing
24 Hrvatska banka.
25 Q. All right.
1 A. Let me finish. So --
2 Q. Actually I think I'm more interested in what I said and when he
3 said it. Do I understand you to be saying that although you may not have
4 discussed this in December 2007 at the Holiday Inn, you discussed this
5 with Mr. Backovic back in 1995, is that the basis of this?
6 A. No-no. We were discussing the situation in the banking system
7 in -- during the war. As you know, he was in a different bank, right,
8 Komercijalna banka or whatever it was and we were discussing this very
9 issue. And here I'm explaining that this section, this footnote is the
10 section 3.34, so it is the what were the situation at the start of the
11 war. And the situation at the start of the war is that there were no
12 legal entity. And this legal entity --
13 Q. We --
14 A. -- only.
15 Q. I'm sorry, Mr. Cvikl, to cut you off. We understand what your
16 position is. I'm trying to get you to respond to my question which is:
17 What did Mr. Backovic say to you? He says he didn't talk to you about
18 this. I'm trying to ask you whether that's true or not.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may be allowed, I think this is
20 one instance where the gentleman is trying to directly answer the
21 question. There are no quotation marks attributed to in the footnote,
22 and so they are talking about a particular issue. I think that's what
23 Mr. Cvikl is trying to now recount, what was the gist of the conversation
24 regarding legal entities. Maybe the gentleman in Sarajevo didn't quite
25 understand or doesn't quite remember, but I think Mr. Cvikl should be
1 given an opportunity in this instance to directly answer the question
2 being posed.
3 MR. STRINGER: I'd be grateful if he'd directly answer the
4 question being posed.
5 THE WITNESS: I will because -- may I, the Judges?
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, go ahead.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, the paragraph 58 which he discuss has two
8 important sentences in the last section. The first sentence talks, an
9 additional complication was the fact that in some territories such as
11 beginning of the war. There were only local branches of either
12 Sarajevo-based banks, I believe also the banks which he was one of the
13 deputy heads, and there was also a branch of a bank from Slovenia,
14 Ljubljanska banka. So we were talking about while he disputes to the
15 decision of the governor of the National Bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
16 Mr. Andric of creation Mostarska banka DV because he himself has been
17 against it in year 1994. And you can see that by the decision where the
18 National Bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina annulled the decision, but he was
19 aware of the fact which I'm here stating, that in the beginning not a
20 single bank was a legal entity and thus it was logical to establish a
21 legal entity which I explain later in the text. I'm saying, I'm
22 saying --
23 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President -- I am sorry, Mr. Cvikl. Mr.
24 President, I don't believe my question is being answered. I think it's
25 being evaded. I am asking the witness whether the statement that
1 Mr. Backovic disavows having spoken about with Mr. Cvikl, whether in fact
2 they discussed --
3 Q. Did you discuss this at the Holiday Inn in December 2007 or not?
4 A. His response on footnote 213 is that he says it's not too clear
5 to me what this refers to, this cannot in any way stem from my discussion
6 with Mr. Cvikl. I'm here explaining what does this refer to. Of course
7 if you would ask Mr. Backovic whether he is agreeing to the decision of
8 establishing Hrvatska banka Mostar DV, and he would be under oath, he
9 would explain this to you very detailed. But of course he avoids
10 responding to this because you should understand, Mr. Prosecutor, that
11 there were disputes between representative of National Bank of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina what was actually happening. If I would want to get
13 all the --
14 MR. STRINGER: Excuse me. I'm going to move on, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How much time left, Mr.
16 Registrar? Please move on, Mr. Prosecutor.
17 MR. STRINGER: I think I have about 30 minutes, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 20 minutes.
19 JUDGE PRANDLER: Excuse me, Mr. Stringer, I also would like to
20 ask Mr. Cvikl really to try to answer and to talk about those points
21 which are asked from you by Mr. Stringer. We have 20 minutes more and
22 you would like to leave tonight, so then let us do that and in a way save
23 us the time and save for you the time. Thank you.
24 MR. STRINGER:
25 Q. Mr. Cvikl, if you turn to page 16 of the Backovic statement.
1 There is -- I'm looking at the text that is linked to your footnote 529.
2 This is text that's based upon an interview of Mr. Backovic and Neven
3 Tomic. And in this text you are saying -- you are talking about the
4 effect of hyperinflation in various areas 1992, 1993. You talk about the
5 Muslim majority area, you talk about the Republika Srpska area, index of
6 retail prices. You go on to say:
7 "Presentation of inflationary movements in the whole of BH has
8 been complicated by the use of multiple or parallel currencies." You
9 continue to go on, you say that:
10 "... in the case of the Republic Bosnia-Herzegovina the
11 Deutschemark was used throughout the country. In this context,
12 hyperinflation Deutschemark terms was never an issue although even prices
13 for goods expressed in Deutschemarks rose many-fold during 1992, 1993
14 because of shortages caused by supply bottlenecks."
15 Now, you attribute this text to your interviews with Mr. Backovic
16 and Mr. Tomic, but in fact the source of this information comes from one
17 of the books that you brought to the Tribunal; isn't that correct?
18 A. Paragraph 19 where I then at the end also have the last sentence
19 have many footnotes, and most of those footnotes relate to the IMF and
20 the recent economic developments report of the World Bank.
21 Q. Right. I'm talking about --
22 A. In the last sentence --
23 Q. -- 529.
24 A. Yes, in the last sentence I'm saying that there were -- that,
25 yes, despite the fact that you have parallel Deutschemark as a currency,
1 there were also inflation increased for goods expressed in Deutschemark.
2 And that's why I say even prices for most goods expressed in Deutschemark
3 rose many points. And we were discussing with Mr. Backovic and Mr. Tomic
4 how kilo of sugar was not 1 Deutschemark, but it was 4 or 6 or 8
5 Deutschemark because that was due to the short supply of goods.
6 Q. Okay. Now, you've got to listen to my question in the limited
7 time. You told Judge Prandler that you would do that so I'm going to
8 hold you to your promise.
9 Turn to one of your exhibits 1D 02959. 2959. This is the
10 book -- page 26 of the book. It's in sanction. It's on the screen. But
11 I need to go to page 26. Here we go. Can you see it on the screen?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. If we could blow it up. Because it seems to me, sir, that
14 what you've done here is to put in your report virtually the same text or
15 actually just copied the text from the book. You put it into your report
16 and then you indicated that Mr. Backovic and Mr. Tomic were the sources
17 of this information, when, in fact, the information is itself found in
18 the book on Bosnia-Herzegovina.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you see where -- I'm going to read from part of 2959.
21 "The net effect was the hyperinflation in 1992, 1993."
22 And then there's a reference to footnote 36. It says:
23 "In the Bosniak majority area the index of retail prices rose
24 over 730-fold in 1992, and 440-fold in 1993."
25 That's the footnote.
1 A. That is the -- I am sourcing here the IMF report.
2 Q. Right. But the problem is in your report you don't source the
3 IMF, you report Enver Backovic and Neven Tomic?
4 A. Excuse me. Sorry, if you look to my report page 123, the
5 paragraph 90 starts:
6 "The net effect was the hyperinflation of 1992, 1993."
7 Then it says:
8 "In the Bosniak majority area, the index of retail prices
9 rose ...", blah, blah, blah, and then it says footnote 526. At
10 footnote --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, I apologise. The first -- the second sentence
13 in the Muslim majority the index of retail prices rose over 730 times in
14 1992 and 440 times in 1993, and then there's a footnote 526, and footnote
15 526 is the IMF report.
16 I'm citing Mr. Backovic and Mr. Neven Tomic just on the issue of
17 the so-called raising of goods, and throughout that report I continue:
18 "In the Republika Srpska areas the index of" --
19 Q. Excuse me, you don't need to read the text to us. We see it.
20 A. I'm not reading. I'm only would like to explain to the Judges
21 that I am not -- I am quoting Mr. Backovic and Mr. Tomic only on the last
22 sentence of that paragraph. Throughout the paragraph we were explained
23 the hyperinflation. I'm correctly quoting the IMF report.
24 And I would appreciate if you would apologise to me because you
25 have said that I'm quoting Mr. Backovic and Mr. Tomic incorrectly. I'm
1 not quoting them. I'm quoting the IMF and the recent economic
2 developments report of the World Bank, and I've done that correctly. You
3 implied that I haven't done that incorrectly but you misinterpret and you
4 missed the one footnote.
5 Q. Well, we can agree to disagree on that, sir. I'm pointing out
6 that in fact -- well, we don't need to argue about it, I think both of
7 our positions are out there.
8 A. In black and white in my report I quote the IMF report, not them.
9 Q. Go to the next exhibit, P 00925. P 00925, in binder number 1.
10 A. P 00?
11 Q. 925. While you are looking for that, I'm going to take you back
12 to this footnote from the World Bank report on inflation.
13 A. Could you repeat, 00?
14 Q. 925.
15 A. In binder 1?
16 Q. Yes.
17 MR. STRINGER: Can we put it up on the ELMO?
18 THE WITNESS: I don't have here. P 00925. I don't see it in
19 binder 1.
20 MR. STRINGER:
21 Q. Sorry, it's in one of the separate folders. Whatever is on the
22 ELMO is not correct. 925.
23 A. Okay. It is not in binder 1, it is the folder mentioned 70.
24 Q. Right. This is a document that's in evidence in the case. It's
25 a compilation of the value of the Croatian dinar against the German mark
1 at various periods throughout 1992 and 1993. Do you see that?
2 A. P 00925?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. Is a decision to appoint and authorize Jadranko Prlic to
5 represent the government of Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
6 Q. Okay. Well, then move on, set that aside. I've got the wrong
7 exhibit number, maybe we can sort that out. I'll go ahead to the next
9 Oh, okay. 9255. Let's try that. P 09255.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: And this is where?
12 MR. STRINGER:
13 Q. Binder 2.
14 A. That's the reason I ask last night to read the documents, but, it
15 was not approved. Yes, I found it.
16 Q. Does this, in fact, reflect tremendous hyperinflation in respect
17 to the Croatian dinar throughout 1992 and 1993?
18 A. Just a second. This is -- what is the basis of this?
19 Q. It's a compilation from various published reports from the
20 Vijesnik, I believe.
21 A. So we have -- yeah, we have said that in the 1992 there was high
22 inflation in Republic of Croatia
23 place sometime in 1994, 1993. And we have seen, as cited in this report,
24 that the high inflation from the -- that high inflation was also present
25 in the war territories, that what, I believe, is important is that high
1 inflation in Herceg-Bosna was to a certain extent lower than the
2 inflation in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina territory. That is what
3 is the essence of the discussion where we have seen --
4 Q. Okay. Thank you.
5 I want to turn you now -- well, first of all, I want to direct
6 your attention or remind you of some testimony you gave on Tuesday of
7 this week. You were asked about schools, schools being opened,
8 universities being opened, and you made a comparison between the
9 situation in Sarajevo
10 transcript. Actually, 35296 I'll start. You are staying:
11 "... the value added, the importance of the Defence council was
12 actually in September 1992 when schools were re-opened because of
13 activity of Croatian Defence Council of [HZ HB], not just the elementary
14 schools, but also from the report I could read that the university
15 re-opened its classes, first in Neum, later, again, in Mostar."
16 And then continuing, I'm going to skip down on page 35297, you
18 "I understood from discussion with my, you know, counterpart
19 that actually I don't know how much of, you know, really, elementary
20 schools and how -- whether the university operated in Sarajevo. I don't
21 think it did. But university of Mostar
22 these classes in Neum, and later, you know, they stayed home."
23 First of all, do you know -- do you know yourself for sure the
24 extent or when the elementary schools opened, held classes in Sarajevo
25 A. Well, I have --
1 Q. Is this something the Judges should rely on your testimony for to
2 the extent you are implying that they weren't open in relation to the
3 Herceg-Bosna schools?
4 A. May I respond?
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Your Honour, I'm going to object. He
6 never stated that they were not operating in Sarajevo. He said he didn't
7 know to what extent. So let's put the testimony in context. The added
8 value is that if schools are open, folks will stay in the area and won't
9 go outside to other countries. That was the gist of the discussion. But
10 he never indicated or said that he knew for a fact and he didn't state
11 for a fact that the schools in Sarajevo
12 didn't know.
13 MR. STRINGER: Well, if that -- and we can try to confirm that
14 that indeed is his testimony, I can move on. It appeared to us that a
15 different suggestion was being made.
16 Q. Mr. Cvikl, Sarajevo
17 A. I have said that I didn't know the extent, and the reason -- if
18 you allow me, the reason why I have said this is because when we were
19 meeting officials from Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
20 some of the officials at their home, I could see in their home kids being
21 taught at home because in a particular area of Sarajevo because of the
22 snipers, they could not go to the part where the schools were there. But
23 I have said last Tuesday that I didn't know how and when they actually
24 opened, but I know for a fact on the basis of the information provided
25 and the budget expenditures that schools were much more operational in
1 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and they would not be operational
2 if that would be only responsibility of the local communities. That is
3 all what am I saying. The valued added of the region-wide territory, or
4 the region-wide authorities to re-open schools was presented to me with
5 facts on the documents and I appreciate those facts.
6 Q. Thank you. Could I ask you to turn, please, to Exhibit P 00714,
7 which is in binder number 1. 00714.
8 A. 00?
9 Q. 714.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. This is a decree on the establishment and work of the University
12 of Mostar during war or imminent threat of war dated the 6th of November,
13 1992. It appears over the signature of Dr. Jadranko Prlic.
14 Have you ever seen this before?
15 A. I don't recall. I might have seen it. I saw a couple of these
16 decisions establishing the hospitals, university, schools, but I don't
17 recall all the details. But I have assumed that such a document was
18 there because otherwise it would not be -- without this document it would
19 not be possible to undertake government expenditures to an institution
20 which does not exist, so --
21 Q. Thank you, I just asked you if you had seen it before. That's
22 all. That's all.
23 Article 2, please. The decree provides that "the name of the
24 university shall be as follows," so they are naming it Republic of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, University of
1 Mostar. Item 4 in Article 2 provides that the language used at the
2 university shall be Croatian?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. It continues:
5 "The university shall take over all moveable and immovable
6 property in addition to the rights and obligations of the former Dzemal
7 Bijedic university" --
8 A. Bijedic.
9 Q. Bijedic. "... Bijedic university and its members." Right? And
10 then going to the very end, Article 34, says that, "on the day this
11 decree enters into force, the activity of all organs of the Dzemal
12 Bijedic university in Mostar and its members shall cease."
13 Now, Mr. Cvikl, in order to fill the void, if you will, caused by
14 the war and the collapse of the social institutions, what is the economic
15 benefit of mandating that a particular language must be used at a public
16 academic institution? Is there any such economic benefit from this sort
17 of requirement?
18 A. I don't know whether you are aware, but before the war we were
19 taught Serbo-Croatian, and so here the -- it would be, you know, the
20 language used at the university could be either Serbian or Croatian, and
21 since Serbian were aggressors and at that time there was the Croatian
22 language or the -- it's for me logical that the language is Croatian. It
23 could be Serbian, but, I guess, Serbian were at that time, of course, the
24 language of an aggressor.
25 Q. Is there an economic benefit from requiring that a specific
1 language be used?
2 A. Well, it is appropriate that the university in a country which is
3 named Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
4 this point had only two official languages and that were named as the
5 Serbo-Croatian language, Serbian or Croatian, it is logical that this
6 entity Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina defined which is the language
8 Q. And --
9 A. May I finish?
10 Q. No, I think you've answered my question. I've got another
12 A. Economic benefit is there because it could -- here it could say
13 it should be English, but then it of course would be quite costly.
14 Q. Excuse me. I'll ask you the next question, if I may.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer, I think you have
16 three minutes left.
17 MR. STRINGER: I'm doing my best under these circumstance, Mr.
18 President, to reach the end of my outline.
19 Q. If the intentions and the efforts the HVO were to simply fill a
20 void, is it necessary to rename the institution?
21 A. Well --
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, I'm -- I think it's beyond the scope of
23 the gentleman's purpose for being here which was -- presented an economic
24 report. Obviously he may be able to answer the question, but he is here
25 as an economist having looked at economic measures that were taken. I
1 understand what Mr. Stringer is trying to do, but I do think this is well
2 beyond the scope.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, but education is
4 mentioned on several occasions in the report, you know, so he must have
5 looked into the issue of education.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: For me the question is focused on economy. The
7 question is, does it give an economic benefit.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stringer.
9 MR. STRINGER:
10 Q. Shall I say it again?
11 A. Yes, go ahead, please.
12 Q. They renamed the university. If they are simply filling in the
13 void and trying to keep things going in the absence of a central
14 government, it's not necessary to change the name of the university;
15 isn't that true?
16 A. No, for the following reason: I have said before that it is, for
17 me, quite logical that they have said which are the language. They have
18 two options, being Croatian being Serbian --
19 Q. I'm asking you now the next question which is the name of the
21 A. I will respond to this. I will respond to this.
22 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The speakers are kindly
23 asked not to overlap.
24 THE WITNESS: I intend to respond to this.
25 MR. STRINGER:
1 Q. Answer my question, please, about the change of the name,
2 whether, in your view, it's necessary to fill the void?
3 A. This became a new legal entity. In order to be a new legal
4 entity, you have to establish it as a legal entity because otherwise it
5 cannot be financed from the budget. If you want to give money to a
6 budget user, you have to define as a legal entity. If it would not be
7 re-established, then the funds shall be provided by the central
8 government. In that very case, the teachers, the pupils, the students,
9 they would go home.
10 Q. Okay. Thank you.
11 MR. STRINGER: Mr. President, I've just got a couple more
12 questions. I'm going to ask for the Trial Chamber's indulgence, I think
13 in respect of this particular witness it's not too much to ask for an
14 extra five minutes, and that's all I'm asking for.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Try to wrap it up in two or
16 three minutes, because if you now want to ask questions, I couldn't see
17 any relevance in it, but I don't know what you are planning to do. So
18 please do endeavour to be brief.
19 MR. STRINGER: I will do my best, Mr. President.
20 Q. This is a different subject on customs and border crossings.
21 First of all -- we are finished with that.
22 In your earlier testimony you indicated that you had not seen
23 establishment of the customs crossing points by the Republic of
24 Bosnia-Herzegovina, I believe, not all the way up to 1995. This is page
25 35275 of your testimony. You were asked:
1 "Did you come across any legislation signed by the president of
2 the presidency Alija Izetbegovic at the time when Bosnia-Herzegovina was
3 declared independent whereby they established border crossings in a
4 customs administration?" You said:
5 "No, I have not."
6 Is it possible, sir, that you have missed that, or have you
7 comprehensively reviewed all the legislation of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
8 A. No, I have said in my testimony that even in 1995 when we came
9 into Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina there were no customs clerks with the
10 head Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina customs office. That only was
11 established after IFOR entered and after long deliberation of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina customs clerks were first put in place, and then later
13 on, I believe, the joint customs office of the Republic of
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina. So --
15 Q. I'm asking you a different -- excuse me.
16 A. So the customs officer --
17 Q. Excuse me. I'm asking you a different question. From your
18 testimony you were asked, "did you come across any legislation signed by
19 the president of the presidency Alija Izetbegovic?" You said, "no, I
20 have not."
21 So that is my question. Isn't it true, sir, that there was, in
22 fact, customs and border crossing legislation signed by President
23 Izetbegovic at the beginning of independence and thereafter in 1992?
24 A. I have said, and I repeat, the country was internationally
25 recognized, it adopted a lot of laws, but it was not an effective state.
1 Q. No, I'm asking you -- sorry to interrupt. You must answer my
3 A. I'm answering it.
4 Q. You are saying -- I'm asking you, did you see legislation?
5 A. I have not reviewed all the legislation. I have reviewed the
6 legislation which I was asked to do. And I was not doing analysis of
7 what was happening at all activities of the Republic of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina. I was looking into the analysis of the area.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, the answer is no, full stop, please.
10 You are really abusing of time and this is wasting time. And that's not
11 what you are supposed to do.
12 THE WITNESS: My answer is that I have --
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No, it's no. Full stop. Mr. Stringer.
14 No, will you please shut up now and only answer questions.
16 Mr. Stringer.
17 MR. STRINGER:
18 Q. If -- well, I'll try to facilitate this. If you can turn to the
19 last two exhibits.
20 A. I can shut up.
21 Q. The last two exhibits. P 10768. 10768. Which is in a separate
22 small attachment, and also 10770. 10768. I see you -- okay. 10768.
23 "Decree law on customs law." Do you see that?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Dated the 11th of April 1992, very lengthy document. So is it
1 true, sir, that you were not aware of this at the time you told the Trial
2 Chamber on Tuesday that you had not seen any or you indicated that you
3 were not aware of any legislation signed by president Izetbegovic on
5 A. I have not seen and I have not made analysis of all the
6 legislation that was issued at that time, but I'm confirming in 1995,
7 when we were there, there were nobody from the Republic of
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina as a customs clerks on the customs points as we were
9 entering into the country.
10 Q. All right.
11 A. So that it was -- it was a country, it issued laws, it did not
12 put laws into place.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. STRINGER: No further questions, Mr. President.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, do you have any
17 MR. KARNAVAS: No, Mr. President.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, thank you very much,
19 Mr. Witness, thank you for testifying here. Mr. Usher, please escort the
20 witness out of the courtroom.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we have a choice: Either
23 we have a short break because I have an oral decision that will take 3 or
24 4 minutes, and I know that the Petkovic Defence needs 5 minutes. So what
25 shall we do?
1 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, not even 5 minutes. We really will be
2 about one minute, I think, if that helps. Yes, really.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one minute. Well, then --
4 MR. STEWART: We need to go into private session for it, Your
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Absolutely.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: I also have at least a couple of minutes, Your
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, how many more
10 minutes are there on the tape? [In English] 10 minutes? 10 minutes.
11 [Interpretation] Well, we have about 10 minutes. I think it's best to
12 use the 10 minutes we have and then to just adjourn rather than break now
13 and start again.
14 Let us moving straight away into private session, please,
15 Mr. Registrar.
16 MR. STEWART: Yes. Your Honour, it's terribly simple, although
17 an ex parte motion.
18 THE REGISTRAR: I'm sorry, counsel, I need to indicate on record
19 that we are now in private session
20 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are back in open session.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is important because it
24 has to do with next week, and we should issue this oral decision
25 following the motion by the Stojic Defence filed on the 14th of January,
1 2009 for addition of three documents to the 65 ter list. The Trial
2 Chamber was seized of a motion, a partly confidential motion filed by the
3 Stojic Defence in which it is requested that three documents be added to
4 the 65 ter list.
5 The documents are annexed or attached to enclosures A, B, and C,
6 of the motion. By this decision, the Trial Chamber is going to rule only
7 on the merits in the motion for request to add annex A to the 65 ter list
8 of the Stojic Defence. The A annex includes an expert before by Davor
9 Marijan entitled "On the World Connection of Croatia and Bosnia
11 that if the Trial Chamber were to grant the motion, it will submit the
12 expert report during the testimony of the expert witness scheduled next
13 week starting on the 19th of January, 2009. In support of its motion,
14 the Stojic Defence says that this is a probative report directly
15 connected to the case by the Stojic Defence. It was admitted in the
16 Naletilic and Martinovic case in which Davor Marijan was an expert
17 witness in September 2002. It further argues that the need for this
18 report appeared only recently.
19 The Trial Chamber following deliberations rules that the part of
20 the motion regarding annex A should be dismissed on the following
21 grounds: Firstly, that this time-period of four days between disclosure
22 of annex A, a very bulky document at that, and the testimony of the
23 witness is too short a period, far too short a period, and does not allow
24 the other parties in the trial to have enough time to prepare for their
25 respective cross-examination on that document and the topic contained
1 therein. The Trial Chamber further notes that this time-period is so
2 short that it does not even allow the other parties to the proceedings to
3 file a response to the motion in the time-period scheduled for it or in a
4 reasonable period of time.
5 Secondly, the Trial Chamber is of the view that the ground set
6 forth by the Stojic Defence for annex A not to be found in the 65 ter
7 list is groundless. Indeed, it is not enough to tell the Trial Chamber
8 that the need to add evidence to the 65 ter list appeared lately. The
9 requesting party also has to demonstrate the objective grounds on account
10 of which it could not materially have included the document in their 65
11 ter list when it was filed. For instance, the fact that the Defence did
12 not have the document when it filed the list, in spite of due diligence,
13 and the Stojic Defence presented no objective reasons. On the contrary,
14 the circumstance that as the report of annex A was filed in the
15 Naletilic case back in September 2002, over five years ago in other
16 words, shows that the Stojic Defence could have known of the document and
17 could have apprised itself of the document well before it filed its 65
18 ter list.
19 Thirdly, the Trial Chamber notes that the Stojic Defence presents
20 this report as being an expert report and that the Stojic Defence knows,
21 of course, that expert reports have to be filed well ahead of time to the
22 other parties to the proceedings meeting the requirements of Rule 92 bis.
23 As such -- 94 bis. If it presented this report four days before the
24 witness begins to testify, that is twisting the provisions of Rule 94
25 bis. The Trial Chamber deems that disclosing at this stage such a late
1 disclosure of the document in spite or against all the rules of the
2 guide-lines by the Trial Chamber and against the rules of the Rules of
3 Procedure and Evidence is really indeed abusing the rules.
4 This is the very reason why the Trial Chamber is of the view that
5 it was not necessary to wait for responses by the other parties to
6 dismiss this part.
7 Regarding annexes B and C, the Stojic Defence specifies that if
8 the Trial Chamber were to grant its request for the two annexes, they
9 will be presented when Slobodan Bocic [phoen] testifies, his testimony
10 being schedule as of the 26th of January 2009. Therefore, the Trial
11 Chamber orders the parties to file their respective replies on that parts
12 of the Stojic motion, the annexes B and C, by Monday 19th of January,
14 You may proceed Mr. Karnavas.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours. That was
16 our very last witness. I believe we have 13 minutes left on the clock,
17 so -- despite our best efforts, we cut it very close.
18 My request deals with the following witness who is about to
19 appear Marijan Davor. As I understand he has a report, we've seen it,
20 but at this point in time in keeping with a previous ruling from another
21 case, in the Gotovina case, we are requesting that Mr. Davor Marijan
22 provide to us and disclose any drafts to that particular report that he
23 may have prepared.
24 On 17 November, 2008, in the Gotovina case, the Defence requested
25 from a Prosecution expert that they -- that the Prosecution disclose the
1 draft expert reports. The Prosecution responded, they objected at the
2 time. It was discussed and on 3rd December, 2008, as I understand it,
3 Judge Orie, while he did not vehemently issue an order that there should
4 be such a disclosure, he did indicate -- he allowed it up to the expert
5 himself who obviously agreed in that instance. So I don't want to
6 overstate what the Trial Chamber did in that instance.
7 But in this case, we do believe that the drafts would be
8 important in assisting us for our cross-examination. I make this request
9 particularly since, as you may recall, Your Honours, I did request for 90
10 minutes to cross-examine the gentleman. My request was denied. This was
11 made back in December. With less time, more preparation is needed, and
12 so it looks like I will have 30 or 20 minutes, so with that in mind, I'm
13 making this request that he be ordered to produce all drafts that were
14 presented to the Defence prior to finalising the report that we received.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, is that a problem?
16 Could you possibly disclose to Mr. Karnavas and the other parties the
17 report in the Gotovina case?
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Not the Gotovina, we want drafts of Mr. Davor
19 Marijan's reports, all his drafts, that's what we want.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, all these drafts and the
21 preparatory takes. Because you mentioned Gotovina, so I didn't
22 understand, I thought he was a witness in that case.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: No, in the Gotovina case, the issue came up. And
24 it's another Trial Chamber who addressed this issue. And as I've
25 indicated, Judge Orie did not make a firm ruling and left it up to the
1 expert himself, I don't want to speculate what Judge Orie would have done
2 had he been pressed. But in keeping with that, I'm making this
3 particular request because we do view this gentleman as a hostile
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I really cannot
6 respond to this request from my learned colleague. I don't know whether
7 Mr. Marijan has any thesis and notes at all and without him I'm unable to
8 answer that. We did have a meeting. Now, whether he has these drafts or
9 notes or whatever, I really can't say and can't speak for him.
10 But I do feel a professional duty, Your Honour, and it is this:
11 Just to respond briefly and give the reasons with respect to your ruling
12 a moment ago. The Stojic Defence felt that we should not use the
13 findings but that we should present them to the Court precisely because
14 the question might be raised as to whether he provided findings in other
15 trials and whether these are contradictory findings, and that is why we
16 wanted - and regardless of the fact that you refused our request - but
17 with your permission if you allow us we would like to attach the findings
18 in our binder that go with the report of expert witness Marijan.
19 So we weren't going to use it in the first place, we just wanted
20 to attach it. We didn't wish to examine on it. But for all -- the
21 benefit of all parties, we just wanted to show what the findings dealt
22 with and to show that they weren't contrary to the findings that we are
23 going to present before this Trial Chamber.
24 So I felt it my duty to tell you that. We didn't do it out of
25 disrespect for the Trial Chamber but quite the opposite, to make the
1 Court's job easier. Thank you.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Efforts to make our lives
3 easier, thank you very much for that. Well, could you call your expert,
4 Mr. Davor Marijan and ask him whether he has the document requested by
5 Mr. Karnavas? If he says yes, I can give them to you, he can fax them to
6 you, and you can then disclose them to the Prosecution and Mr. Karnavas.
7 I don't know. I don't know where documents are, maybe there aren't any,
8 but you could put the question to him.
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I can't do that
10 because I don't understand what it's about. So I can't do that. Perhaps
11 if I read the transcript again, I will understand it better.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you inform Ms. Nozica
13 what you are expecting because you can always discuss in the corridor.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: No, I want to be on the record on this one and I
15 want to be very clear and to the extent that I wasn't clear, I apologise.
16 As I understand it, the gentleman has been working at this report
17 over the course of a year or two years. If he has prepared drafts which
18 he has shared with the Defence or with Mr. Stojic and then eventually he
19 comes up with a final draft, as it was requested in the Gotovina case, I
20 am requesting that all prior drafts be provided to us to see if there was
21 some sort of evolutionary change at some point.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the drafts, so if he's --
23 produces a first draft report and a second draft. Well, my colleague
24 would like the Prosecution to come in in the cross-examination, but of
25 course I'd ruled on the matter because I said that if it exists it might
1 also be disclosed to the Prosecution, and Mr. Stringer will indicate
2 whether that if it exists that he'd like to have it too.
3 Mr. Stringer.
4 We've run out of tape.
5 MR. STRINGER: Well, we don't take a position on this request of
6 the Prlic Defence, Mr. President. If the Trial Chamber ultimately
7 decides that something has to be disclosed, we'd like a copy also. Thank
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you and so we
10 meet again next Monday.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.08 p.m.
12 to be reconvened on Monday, the 19th day of
13 January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.