Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 3614

 1                           Tuesday, 20 January 2009

 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           [The witness entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you call the case,

 7     please.

 8             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning everyone in and around the

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

10     et al.  Thank you, Your Honours.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.  As you

12     know, our hearing will continue until a quarter to 2.00.  I would like to

13     say good morning to the witness, to the lawyers, the Prosecutor, and all

14     of the personnel of the courtroom.

15             I would like to give the floor now to Madam Nozica to continue

16     her questioning.

17             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good morning.  Good

18     morning to everyone in the courtroom.

19                           WITNESS:  DAVOR MARIJAN [Resumed]

20                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

21                           Examination by Ms. Nozica:  [Continued]

22        Q.   Good morning, Mr. Marijan.

23        A.   Good morning.

24        Q.   Before we continue the interrogation, let me go back to something

25     that remained unclear yesterday.  When you were answering

Page 3615

 1     Judge Antonetti's question about doctrine, you said that the HVO didn't

 2     have many trained former officers from the JNA; is that right?  Because

 3     the transcript reads that there were many.  Could you please explain in

 4     one sentence only to make things clear.

 5        A.   Your Honours, the HVO had very few trained officers from the

 6     Yugoslav People's Army.  It was a very small share of the overall number

 7     of officers.

 8        Q.   Thank you.  Mr. Marijan, yesterday in our examination we arrived

 9     at the interpretation of the provisions of Article 10 of the decree on

10     the armed forces of the 3rd of July of 1992 and October 1992

11     respectively.  I would now like to proceed to item 11 of your report to

12     explain the structure of the Department of Defence to see what sectors

13     there were, who was working there, et cetera, and then we'll return to

14     Article 10 to clarify which of these duties the Department of Defence

15     actually implemented, whether it had enough personnel to do what it --

16     what it had to do, et cetera.  That will assist us in interpreting the

17     provisions of Article 10.

18             In your --

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Excuse me.  Excuse me, Ms. Nozica.  I feel that

20     I have to take up a point which last night there was no time to take up,

21     and it was the last answer of the witness before Judge Antonetti then

22     intervened.

23             You had asked about Article 10, paragraph 3 mainly, and you had

24     before told the witness, very correctly, that as he is not a lawyer, he

25     is not really qualified to interpret the law.  Nevertheless, his next

Page 3616

 1     answer was that the formulation of a plan for the deployment of the armed

 2     forces was not the task of the Ministry of the Defence.  I think,

 3     Mr. Marijan, what you can say is that you have no trace of any such

 4     activity carried out by the Ministry of Defence, but you cannot say that

 5     it was not a duty when that is what the decree very clearly says.

 6             What is your reaction to this?

 7             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is a fact that

 8     Article 10 of the decree says as much, but the plan for the employment of

 9     the armed forces was not actually a task of the head of the Department of

10     Defence.  This -- this brings us back to a problem.  The task of the

11     Department of Defence will become more clear once we explain its

12     structure then you will understand why -- you will understand my

13     statement, because this way we limit ourselves to this statement that you

14     mentioned, and I'm afraid that we will arrive at no conclusion

15     whatsoever.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Marijan, I do not think that unable to

17     understand what you're saying even up to now, but I leave it at that for

18     the moment.  You simply are saying that the law was something different

19     than the law was.  The law says that one of the task of this and you say

20     it was not.

21             Thank you, Ms. Nozica.  Excuse me interrupting you.

22             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Trechsel, it is

23     exactly for the reason that I think that some things will become clear if

24     we dwell on Article 10 as regards the structure of the Department of

25     Defence.  That's why the -- these questions, what were the tasks of the

Page 3617

 1     Department of Defence and what it was able to do can -- can become

 2     clearer by examining the witness.  Then we will see what they were able

 3     to do and what they were charged to do.

 4        Q.   Mr. Marijan --

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I have full confidence in that you will be able

 6     to achieve that.

 7             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

 8        Q.   Mr. Marijan, in item 11 you state when Mr. Stojic was appointed.

 9     Could you please very briefly say -- state his profession and explain the

10     situation with Mr. Stojic, how that fits into the former system, whether

11     it's a deviation from that former system, and the overall situation about

12     the appointment of Mr. Stojic?

13        A.   Your Honours, Mr. Stojic became head of the Department of Defence

14     on the 3rd of July, 1992.  That's when he was appointed.  Mr. Stojic by

15     training is an economist, a civilian, that is, a person without military

16     training apart, probably, from his -- his conscript service in the

17     Yugoslav People's Army.  He had a civilian position, and that is a great

18     difference between the head of the Department of Defence and what was in

19     place in Yugoslavia.

20             In Yugoslavia, defence fell within the remit of the

21     Federal Secretariat of National Defence, what we would nowadays call

22     Ministry of Defence.  The federal secretary was a soldier, and he was

23     inside the military hierarchy within the command and control structure.

24     In peacetime, he was in control of the entire armed forces.  And speaking

25     about Mr. Kadijevic, we can say that later on it became evident that even

Page 3618

 1     in wartime he pulled all the strings.

 2             In the late 1980s in Yugoslavia when there were demands for

 3     democratisation, one of the demands was a civilian become

 4     Federal Secretary of Defence.

 5        Q.   Mr. Marijan, what had Mr. Stojic been doing before he was

 6     appointed head of the Department of Defence?

 7        A.   He was a logistics assistant of the commander of the HVO, and

 8     when he joined the Department of Defence he actually widened the scope of

 9     his tasks and responsibilities.

10        Q.   This is another important piece of information.  How long did he

11     stay in that position?

12        A.   Mr. Stojic, he was in that position until the 15th of November,

13     1993.

14        Q.   For the sake of the transcript, I will say that evidence about

15     the appointment of Mr. Stojic is -- are P 297, and the document

16     corroborating his -- his taking over the position is --

17             THE INTERPRETER:  The number escaped us.  Interpreter's apology.

18             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Mr. Marijan, I will have to speed up, because yesterday I took

20     too long.  When you say that the head of the Department of Defence was a

21     civilian, he also had a deputy.  Item 12 clearly shows when he was

22     appointed.  Can you tell us whether the deputy head was also a civilian,

23     and what were his responsibilities in the Department of Defence?

24        A.   Mr. Stojic's deputy was a civilian.  He was appointed on the

25     15th of January, 1993.  He had been in that position earlier, and he was

Page 3619

 1     in charge of the so-called civilian sector of the Department of Defence.

 2        Q.   All right.  Once we reach the provisions regulating the internal

 3     structure, we will see what the civilian sector comprised.

 4             To who did the head of the Department of Defence report?  Who was

 5     he answerable to, and what was the character of the reports he submitted?

 6        A.   The head of the Department of Defence reported to the HVO.

 7     That's where he sent his reports.  They were semi-annual and annual

 8     reports.

 9        Q.   Did he attend meetings, and did he speak about the problems of

10     the Department of Defence, and not only problems but also everything that

11     was within the remit of the HVO.  Did he make motions for acts and

12     legislation?

13        A.   Yes.  There was indeed discussion about defence-related issues at

14     HVO meetings.  In item 13 I mention the precise -- the information's more

15     precise.  In January 1992, on nine occasions there was discussion about

16     defence, and a total of 27 regular and 6 interim sessions were held in

17     the first half of the year, and issues under the jurisdiction of the

18     Department of Defence were presented in 26 items of the agenda.  Based on

19     these discussions, the HVO accepted reports and also gave instructions to

20     the Department of Defence.

21        Q.   Can you tell me whether at these HVO sessions there was

22     discussion about the security situation?  Did the head of the Department

23     of Defence give information about that, and who else did so?

24        A.   That was a frequently discussed issue, the security situation.

25     Mr. Stojic gave information about that on several occasions, and he

Page 3620

 1     was -- and, sorry, the chief of the Main Staff of the HVO was also

 2     summoned several times to give his view of the situation.

 3        Q.   Mr. Marijan, you spoke about semi-annual and annual reports that

 4     the Department of Defence submitted and that were discussed at

 5     HVO meetings.  Did they also include the report of the Main Staff?

 6        A.   No.  In the November report for 1992, it says that the report of

 7     the Main Staff for reasons of secrecy is submitted separately.  It was

 8     kept in the cabinet of the president of the HZ HB and the president of

 9     the HVO, but all members of the HVO had access to that report.  And that

10     was also subsequent practice.  In the first half of 1993, the part

11     relating to the Main Staff is missing.

12        Q.   Now, please, sir, say very briefly because we are to pass on to

13     these acts instantly what was the organisation and structure of the

14     Department of Defence and which provisions are relevant?

15        A.   The Department of Defence of the HVO consisted of sectors,

16     administrations, offices, and the Main Staff.  The underlying document

17     that regulated the structure of the Department of Defence was signed by

18     President Boban on the 15th of September, 1992.  The name of the document

19     is "Decision on the foundations of the organisation of the Department of

20     Defence."

21             Based on this, Mr. Stojic, as head, signed a document that lays

22     out the details of this decision of Mr. Boban.  This decision of

23     Mr. Stojic was dated 17 October 1992, and Mr. Boban subsequently approved

24     that decision.

25             Let me also mention that in May 1993, a new decision was drawn up

Page 3621

 1     about the internal organisation of the Department of Defence.  It differs

 2     from the first one only in that a welfare administration was added to the

 3     existing structural elements.  So this is a new -- within the sector for

 4     supply, procurement and production.  This is the difference to the

 5     decision dated October 1992.

 6        Q.   Let us now go to document 586.  This is -- it can be found in

 7     binder X.  The Exhibit number is P 00586.  You have it in front of you.

 8     So this is the decision that you said was passed by Mr. Boban, and let us

 9     go item by item to see how the Department of Defence was structured in

10     September 1992.

11             Item I reads -- I will ask you for a comment of item 1 or

12     whatever I think is relevant.  You can read for yourself.

13        A.   Your Honours, item I of this decision says that:

14             "This decision shall define the basic principles of organisation

15     of the Defence Department.  The principal sectors including the

16     Main Staff," which is part of the department.

17             Item II says that the head of the department shall direct the

18     work of the department.  And furthermore, attached to the head are a

19     military council and a chief inspectorate who shall perform their duties

20     in accordance with the decree and guide-lines issued by the president of

21     the HZ HB.

22        Q.   Stop for a moment, please.  Tell me, have you seen whether the

23     military council -- or tell me first which provisions regulate the

24     activities of the military council.

25        A.   That's -- the pertinent document is the act on the military

Page 3622

 1     forces of the HZ HB that govern the work of the military council and the

 2     chief inspectorate.

 3        Q.   In the period when Mr. Stojic was head of the Department of

 4     Defence, do you know of a document establishing these two bodies?

 5        A.   No.  The military council was established later, I believe, in

 6     December 1993, but then Mr. Stojic was no longer head of the department.

 7        Q.   It goes on to say the head in the administrative and technical

 8     sense is aided in his work by the cabinet of the head and the Office of

 9     General and Legal Affairs -- sorry, General Affairs and the Information

10     System as separate organisational units.

11             What is this cabinet?  What do you understand it to be, and what

12     was the Office of General Affairs and Information -- the Information

13     System?

14        A.   The cabinet of the head consisted of persons directly connected

15     to Mr. Stojic and his work.  That is secretaries, drivers, and the

16     security.  Those were staff absolutely necessary to make it possible for

17     the head to do his work as technical support, and the Office of

18     General Affairs can also be considered part of that.  To put it briefly,

19     it was something of the archive of the head of the department.

20        Q.   All right.  Let us move on to item III.  The head had a deputy.

21     The deputy head is directly responsible for the civilian sector.  And

22     item V -- or, rather, item III mentions its organisational units.  We

23     don't need to read them out.

24        A.   Let me please add that under item III(1), what is mentioned is an

25     administration with a very long and cumbersome name.  It will not be

Page 3623

 1     mentioned subsequently.  Later on it will be called administration for

 2     defence affairs and the administration.  Even in Croatian this is a

 3     cumbersome original name, and it must be so in the translation too.

 4        Q.   Talking about this administration, when did it -- when did it

 5     start functioning?  You mentioned that in your report, but I'm condensing

 6     things now.

 7        A.   I would have to look that up.

 8        Q.   All right.  Once we get there, I will remind you.  Let us move on

 9     to item IV, which reads:  For some sections the department head shall

10     have assistants, actually.

11             Could you please say which sectors these are?

12        A.   The sectors of the Department of Defence were four in number, the

13     security sector; morale and ethics sector; health services sector; and

14     the sector of supply, procurement, and production.

15        Q.   All right.  Very briefly, what was the responsibility of the

16     assistant head for security?

17        A.   The assistant head for security was responsible for the

18     administration of the security and information service, as well as for

19     the military police administration.

20        Q.   Under item VI we see the assistant head for morale had three

21     organisational units under him.  We don't need to read them out.  It goes

22     on to mention the assistant head for health services who also had three

23     organisational units under him, and then there's the assistant head for

24     supply, procurement, and production, and he had eight organisational

25     units under him.

Page 3624

 1             And now under item IX, please explain to us.  We saw in item I

 2     that the Main Staff is involved in the business of the Department of

 3     Defence.  Can you please explain item IX of this decision to us?

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, paragraph IX is, in my

 5     opinion, a key paragraph in the text, so please take your time to explain

 6     this to us.

 7             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's remark:  Could item IX please be

 8     shown on the screen.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will do my best, Your Honours.

10             Your Honours, items IX, X, and XI of the part marked B deals with

11     the position of the Main Staff within the Department of Defence.

12             The first sentence says that the Main Staff is undoubtedly part

13     of the Department of Defence.  Further on we see that the Main Staff is

14     headed by the Chief of Staff.  The Chief of Staff reported to the head of

15     the Department of Defence.  He was -- he reported to him about

16     administrative tasks, budget-related issues, material supplies,

17     consumption, and the general organisation of civilian life as well as the

18     wartime organisation of the armed forces.

19             The next paragraph, to my mind, is key to this discussion which

20     has taken quite some time now.  Let me read it out, because the sentence

21     speaks for itself:

22             "The chief of Main Staff shall be directly responsible to the

23     president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna for all issues

24     relating to the Supreme Command, the organisation or structure of units,

25     strategic and operational plans and the use of the armed forces in time

Page 3625

 1     of war or peace.

 2             "So the chief of the Main Staff shall exercise superior authority

 3     over the command of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, within the

 4     scope of general and specific powers vested in him by the President of

 5     the HZ HB.

 6             "The brigade commanders shall be subordinate and responsible to

 7     the president of the HZ HB as a Commander-in-Chief of the armed

 8     forces --"

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I asked you to go

10     slowly because as you said it's crucial, and I agree with you, but please

11     be so kind as to read slowly.  The interpreters have just called out for

12     help.  You're going too fast.

13             You may continue.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it follows from

15     this --

16             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

17        Q.   I apologise I went quiet because a question was asked by

18     Judge Antonetti, but you did not read out the last part.  Could you

19     please read it out so that you can then give us a complete answer.

20        A.   "The brigade commanders shall be subordinate and responsible to

21     the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as the

22     Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and to the head of the Defence

23     Department and chief of the Main Staff within the scope of their

24     responsibilities, in accordance with the powers described above."

25             From what I've just read, it follows that the Main Staff is a

Page 3626

 1     part of the Department of Defence and that the head of the Department of

 2     Defence did not have full authority over the Main Staff.  The Main Staff

 3     is a part of the Department of Defence, but it had a dual position, so to

 4     say.  So the chief of the Main Staff responds to the head of the

 5     Department of Defence when it comes to different professional tasks and

 6     administrative tasks.  However, as regards the military tasks, he's

 7     responsible to the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,

 8     who was also the chief of the General Staff.

 9             So I believe that the text is clear enough to clarify this

10     certain misunderstanding or doubts that we had earlier.  So here we can

11     see how specific was the position of the Main Staff within the

12     Department of Defence, although I believe that at least in some of the

13     countries from which Honourable Judges come the solution may be similar

14     to this one.

15        Q.   Mr. Marijan, item X regulates the issue of deputies.  Item XI

16     regulates the issues of assistance.  And I would just like to show you

17     on -- on the next page, item XIV, which says that the internal

18     organisational structure of the departments and management of the

19     internal structure of the organisational units and other things will be

20     adopted by the head of the department in compliance with the -- I

21     apologise.  I tried to read this quickly.  Sometimes it seems to me that

22     we lose the sense because we speak too slowly, but, Mr. Marijan, can we

23     just look at the next document, 2D 567.  Could you please tell the

24     Honourable Judges what is this document?

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before you move on to the next

Page 3627

 1     document, I'd like to come back to paragraph IX, which as you pointed out

 2     is of paramount importance.

 3             You're not lawyer.  We all know that, and you said so, but you're

 4     an historian.  And generally speaking, when you're a specialist in

 5     history, you are competent in several fields, among which the military

 6     area.

 7             According to the text you just read out, the president of the

 8     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna is the one who has authority over the

 9     Main Staff, and it's that head of staff is directly responsible.  The

10     word "directly" is actually used.  Since this word is used, it means that

11     there is no intermediary between the head of staff and the president of

12     the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

13             According to you and according to all the documents you've

14     reviewed in the archive, the documents of the Department of Defence, do

15     all these documents illustrate and reflect what is actually stipulated

16     here?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.  I can explain this.  From my

18     point of view, this is theory or the legal basis, and in practice there

19     are also sufficient number of documents to confirm this.  But here I

20     would like to add that the decree on the armed forces, the consolidated

21     version of that decree dated 17 October 1992, in one of its articles

22     stipulated that there was a possibility for the president of the

23     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna to delegate some of its authorities

24     concerning the defence and military to the head of the department, but

25     I've never seen that this transfer of responsibility actually took place,

Page 3628

 1     because for such powers to be transferred the document should be

 2     published in the Official Gazette and there should be information about

 3     this sent to all the units.  However, this never did happen, so

 4     Mr. Stojic was not within the chain of command.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So your conclusion would be as

 6     follows:  Mr. Stojic did not belong to the head of -- to the chain of

 7     command, lines 21, 22, page 14 of the transcript.  This is what you say.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.  You did

 9     understand this well.  Mr. Stojic was not within the chain of command of

10     the armed forces.

11             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the question that follows

12     would be this one:  Mr. Stojic had another function according to you --

13     sorry, Mr. Prlic was in the chain of command or not.  Prlic, sorry.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic was also not within the

15     chain of command of the armed forces.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I would like to expand one step further.  Are

17     you saying -- or what was the situation of the HVO, the "Government of

18     Herceg-Bosna"?

19             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The HVO had within its remit the

20     issues related to the defence, so some material provisions, but the way

21     in which the armed forces were to be used was not within their remit.  So

22     there is this clear line.  The president of the Croatian Community of

23     Herceg-Bosna, then the chief of the General Staff, and then further on

24     commanders of zones of operations and commanders of brigades.

25             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  What does that mean as far as the question of

Page 3629

 1     political control of the military is concerned?  Normally modern

 2     democratic rule of law, doctrine, wants the military to be under control

 3     of the political authorities.  How did that, if at all, work in

 4     Herceg-Bosna?

 5             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Croatian Community

 6     Herceg-Bosna was founded on the basis of a totalitarian and a

 7     non-democratic society, so the strategic oversight over the armed forces

 8     was meant to be in the hands of the president of the Croatian Community

 9     of Herceg-Bosna.  However -- or, rather, I'd like to add here something

10     that we mentioned yesterday concerning municipalities.  I believe that at

11     the local level there was even too much political influence, and this was

12     damaging as to the effectiveness of the army.

13             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.  Excuse me, Ms. Nozica.

14             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, sorry, I still have

15     some questions on the chain of command.

16             Witness, as far as you know, did the head of the department of

17     the defence have the power to appoint people in top positions in the

18     army?  Of course you're not lawyer, but looking at the decree on the

19     armed forces of the community of -- of the Croatian Community of

20     Herceg-Bosna, Article 34 -- could you please look at Article 34 of this

21     decree on the armed forces and look at the power to appoint people as

22     commanders of the armed forces.  Brigade commander, battalion commander,

23     platoon commanders, and so on and so forth.  Could you tell us if the

24     head of the department had a say in these appointments?

25             MR. KARNAVAS:  Just a point for clarification for the record,

Page 3630

 1     which period are we speaking of or which document, Your Honour, because

 2     there are two.  There's the one back in -- which is P 0289, and then

 3     there's P 8 -- P 0588.  So which -- which of the two for clarification,

 4     because one is in July 1992, and the second one, the P 00588, is later.

 5     It's 17 October 1992.  So obviously we can see some changes.

 6             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I'm talking about the decree from

 7     July the 3rd, 1992, document P 00289.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is the first

 9     decree which was in force for a relatively short period of time, and in

10     this Article 34, indeed it is stipulated that there is this obligation of

11     the HVO to appoint commanders of brigades, battalions, platoons, and

12     other units.  The head of Department of Defence is not mentioned here.

13     He is mentioned, however, in the decree dated the 17th October 1992.  So

14     maybe it might be better to have a look at that document if you agree.

15             JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Yes, let's go.

16             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this article differs

17     from the article contained in the decree dated 3rd of July, 1992, in this

18     part in which it is stipulated that the head of the Department of Defence

19     and the commanders so authorised by him appoint other commanders,

20     officers, non-commissioned officers to different duties.  So this is the

21     difference.  Here HVO is not mentioned as the executive body but, rather,

22     the head of the Department of Defence.  So on the basis of this article

23     and on the basis of what happened in practice, I can say that the head of

24     the Department of Defence did not appoint high-ranking commanders, for

25     example, commanders of zones of operations and commanders of brigades.

Page 3631

 1     Later in the report I mentioned an example that the head of the

 2     Department of Defence was authorised to appoint all officers but one, and

 3     that one was the brigade commander.  This was the responsibility of the

 4     president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

 5             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you give us an example?

 6     Petar Kresimir Brigade commander, you were a soldier in that brigade.  As

 7     far as you know, was this commander directly appointed by Mr. Boban, and

 8     could you tell us the name of your -- the name of the commander of the

 9     Kresimir Brigade?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the first commander of

11     the Petar Kresimir, the 4th Brigade, and he was the commander during the

12     period more or less to which I refer in my report, was Stanko Vrgoc.  He

13     was a company commander, reserve company commander on the

14     Territorial Defence -- or, sorry, reserve company captain in the

15     Territorial Defence.  I would not say the truth if I was to say that I

16     saw any document appointing him to that position, but I have no doubt

17     that he was indeed appointed by Mr. Boban.

18             From that period and the period immediately thereafter, we have

19     sufficient proof to be able to make such a claim.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Mr. Marijan, the text of Article 34(2) of the

21     decree of October 1992 is very clear.  One does not have to be a lawyer

22     to read that commanders of brigades shall be appointed or replaced by the

23     head of the Defence Department.  You tell us that the reality was a

24     different one, so as an observer one starts to wonder what's the worth of

25     these so-called legal texts if they are not respected.  What -- is there

Page 3632

 1     any rule?  Can you explain this?  How come?  Are any rules respected?

 2     How can one know whether a rule is in fact a rule or just something

 3     written on paper?

 4             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if you allow me, I

 5     believe this might be helpful.  We talked about this on several occasions

 6     already, and we pointed out that there was a problem in translation.  So

 7     the text that you are actually reading is not fully corresponding to the

 8     text of the decree.  So if you allow me, I would like to go back to the

 9     text of the decree dated 3rd July, but please just bear in mind that in

10     October the responsibilities that were previously held by HVO were now

11     held by the head of the Department of Defence.  And if you look at that

12     text, at the text of the decree dated 3rd of July, it will be much

13     clearer.

14             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] If you allow me, Your Honours, I

15     would kindly ask you here concerning this text, and we also already

16     proposed another document because next week we will have another witness,

17     the witness who actually drafted this decree before it was adopted, and

18     we offered to the Judges Article 34 with correct interpunction, correct

19     punctuation, because there is a problem with punctuation in this

20     translation.  So if you were to read this translation, but even in

21     Croatian, it would result that the president of the Croatian Community of

22     Herceg-Bosna was not appointing anybody, but if you allow Mr. Marijan to

23     explain what the real meaning of this article was, he will explain the

24     meaning of Article 34 regardless of the punctuation.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you just read in your own

Page 3633

 1     language Article 34, because I had my colleague's question, and now I

 2     have a doubt.  So could you please read out in your own language

 3     Article 34 as it is currently on your screen.  Slowly, please.

 4             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Article 34 reads as follows:

 5             "The commanders in the armed forces shall be appointed and

 6     dismissed by the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.

 7     Commanders of brigades and officers at higher positions by the head of

 8     the Department of Defence or commanders so authorised by him.  Other

 9     officers and commanders, non-commissioned officers, military servants

10     to --"

11             JUDGE PRANDLER:  I'm sorry, Mr. Marijan, but I believe in the

12     English translation it doesn't -- didn't come through that -- in the

13     second point of Article 34.  You had not -- either you have not mentioned

14     or the translation did not, in a way, contain that commanders, and I

15     quote now:

16             "Commanders of brigades and high-ranking officers shall be

17     appointed or replaced by the head of the Defence Department."

18             It was not mentioned in the English translation before.  "Or by

19     commanders appointed by him."

20             So it is only a translation problem which I would have liked to

21     point out.  Thank you.

22             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please read out slowly

23     the second bullet point, because we have an edge there because there is a

24     translation directly into English but also directly into French, which

25     enables us to understand better.  So please read out that second

Page 3634

 1     paragraph which may be of paramount importance.  Read it out slowly,

 2     please.

 3             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my feeling is that the

 4     interpreters are reading the texts from the decree rather than the texts

 5     as spoken by our witness.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm asking the interpreters not

 7     to look at the English text, please.  The witness is actually reading.

 8     This is the reason why I asked the witness to read slowly, so that we

 9     have the direct interpretation of --

10             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, maybe this could be

11     helpful:  I believe that the key issue is that the interpreters and --

12     are putting the punctuation or ending the sentences on their own without

13     the witness putting a full stop or finishing a sentence.  So I would

14     kindly ask the witness to put the punctuation marks where he believes

15     they should stand, so colon, semicolon, or comma or the full stop so that

16     we know which sentence ends where.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I do not understand why the witness should put

18     in the punctuation where he thinks it should be.  Either it is here or it

19     is not.  If it is not here, then he should not simulate it.  But to let

20     the witness put in commas and dots in a text, I think that would not be

21     quite correct.

22             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm merely saying

23     that the witness is reading -- or should -- should read the punctuation

24     rather than leaving it to the interpreters and the court reporter to put

25     punctuation as they think fit.

Page 3635

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, please read out the

 2     text as we see it.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it might be best since

 4     this is about appointing and relieving of duty.  When I mention, say,

 5     president of the HZ HB appoints and relieves of duty and continue reading

 6     this -- I believe then it would be clear enough.

 7             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you start reading

 8     Article 34 over again slowly, please.  What I'm asking you is not

 9     complicated.  I just want you to read the text, please.  If I spoke your

10     language, I could read it out myself, but I'm sure everyone would

11     snicker.  That's why I prefer that you read the text.  Otherwise, I can

12     ask Madam Nozica to read.  A six-year-old child could read and do what

13     I'm asking.  Just read the text as it is.

14             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Commanders in the armed forces

15     shall be appointed and relieved of their duties as follows:

16             "The president of the HZ HB," here there should be a comma,

17     "appoints and relieves of their duty brigade commanders and

18     higher-ranking officers.

19             "The head of the Department of Defence and the commanders

20     authorised by him shall appoint and relieve of their duty other officers

21     and commanders, non-commissioned officers, military servants to

22     officers -- officers' positions and positions of non-commissioned

23     officers."

24             This is what it should be -- should read, and there is enough

25     evidence for that in practice.

Page 3636

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The organisation of this

 2     article, which could be a French article, for that matter, distinguishes

 3     clearly between the president of the HVO, the -- or, rather, the

 4     president who appoints the commanders and high-ranking officers and the

 5     head of the department, in this case Mr. Stojic when he was appointed to

 6     this position.  Who appoints the other officers and non-commissioned

 7     officers, et cetera?  The result is that it is Mr. Boban who appoints the

 8     commanders of the brigades and the high-ranking officers and that the

 9     head of the department appoints the other officers.  That is what this

10     Article 34 states, and that's why in your own language there is a

11     reference to appointment and revocation and then a list of the various

12     positions and the individuals who come under the responsibility.

13             So me for me this article is quite clear.  Maybe it's not clear

14     for everyone in the courtroom, but it's up to each and every one of us to

15     reflect upon it.

16             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  A number of pages ago, and at least a dozen

17     speakers intervening in between, I asked a question; and all that has

18     happened in between does not give me the impression that the question was

19     besides the point.  It still appears to me that the decree clearly says

20     that it is the head of the Defence Department who nominates chiefs of

21     brigades and other superior officers.  To some extent he can delegate

22     this.  I'm a bit astonished that you changed the interpunction of the law

23     as if you could make it suit own thesis.  I remain with the impression

24     that this law was not respected in practice, and I wonder what your

25     explanation is for this.

Page 3637

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters remark:  The witness was reading a

 2     different text from that on the screen.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the problem is exactly

 4     with the punctuation.  This Official Gazette not in the least is full of

 5     such problems.  You can find them in various places.  And just like the

 6     Defence counsel said, the question here is who is appointed by the HZ HB

 7     at all if we rely on the punctuation as it is.

 8             MR. BOS:  Your Honours, I'd just like to mention that there was a

 9     comment by the interpreter which is quite crucial who says that the

10     witness was reading a different text from what was on the screen.  So I

11     wonder now which text he actually read out, which exhibit he has been

12     reading out.

13             THE REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, I just want to mention on the record

14     that counsel is correct.  Witness was reading from Article 34 of P --

15     P 289 instead of 588.  Sorry, it's the other way around actually.

16     Article 34 of P 588 instead of P 289.  Thank you, Your Honours.

17             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  But that was in fact the one he was supposed to

18     read.

19             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] If you allow, we had this kind of

20     situation also when we were examining Mr. Tomljanovich, and it was

21     because of wrong punctuation and badly typed text.  So I ask you now for

22     permission to continue, because the witness was saying what it really

23     should be like.  He was not reading Article 34, and he actually added a

24     final comment, "This is how it should be," because the punctuation in

25     Article 34 of the decree under Exhibit P 00588 is wrong.  I ask you to

Page 3638

 1     accept what the witness says as correct, because he thinks that that is

 2     what it should read.  This is what it should be like.

 3             If we were to read Article 34 of the decree dated October the way

 4     it is printed with the period there, that would strictly speaking mean

 5     that the president of the HZ HB doesn't appoint anybody at all.  That's

 6     the problem with the punctuation.  Next week the witness who worked in

 7     drafting this text will be here.  I don't like to do this, but anyway,

 8     there was a typing error in the drafting of this text.

 9             It is very logical, and for logical reasons the witness does not

10     refuse to read the text as it is, but he -- he really says that this is

11     what the text should be like, and for the Defence there is no doubt

12     whatsoever that that is indeed the case.  We can make another comparison

13     and read the text literally, and if you allow, I will do that, the text

14     from the decree dated the 3rd of July, Exhibit P 289 where the

15     punctuation is correct.  Only in that decree, instead of the head of the

16     department what is stated there is the HVO.

17             So we can do that or alternatively accept the witness's statement

18     which is a logical interpretation of the decree as it was written when it

19     comes to language, from the point of view of language.

20             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Ms. Nozica, I propose that we simply go on now.

21     I do not think -- we would -- we would have to go pretty far.  The

22     witness says without some -- any further foundation that the text should

23     be something different than what we see, and you promised that the next

24     witness will explain that.  So I think we lose time if I insist, and I

25     would suggest that we leave it at that and go ahead.

Page 3639

 1             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed.  We shall leave it

 2     at this point, but for the minutes, for the summary record, Article 34 is

 3     included in a document that we all have, which is the text which was

 4     published in the official journals, the Official Gazette.  Article 34 is

 5     on page 0026-7318.  And when I examine Article 34, and there's no doubt

 6     about its content because this is the text that was published, I can see

 7     clearly that it's not identical to the one that was on the screen a few

 8     moments ago, because on the screen there were three indents, an

 9     additional one, whereas in the official text there are only two

10     subparagraphs, two indents.  So perhaps the Registrar could display

11     page 0026-7318 in B/C/S.  Everyone could see that clearly, and we would

12     indeed be able to save time.

13             So here it is.  We can see the article.  There's no doubt here

14     that it's different.  And you see there are not three indents but only

15     two.

16             So, Witness -- Witness, could you please read out this official

17     version of Article 34, because was this -- was this the text that you

18     read a moment ago?  In that case, could you confirm that the text you

19     read out a few moments ago was indeed this text and not the other text

20     that we had on the e-court screen?  Fine.

21             Madam Nozica, we have the official Article 34, and that is the

22     one that the witness read out a few moments ago.  Is that correct?

23             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, only I'm not sure

24     what you expect now.  Should I read the text, or what do you expect?

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue.  Do as you

Page 3640

 1     like.  You're using your time.

 2             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I believe that a large part of this

 3     discussion should not count against my time, because I wouldn't have

 4     allowed to -- to spend so much time on this, because things are very

 5     clear here and will become more clear once we hear subsequent witnesses.

 6             Let us now see what this expert witness will tell us, and the

 7     Chamber will decide whose evidence to trust.

 8        Q.   Mr. Marijan, you said to us that in Article 34, irrespective of

 9     the punctuation errors, the intention was to stipulate that the

10     commanders of the armed forces shall be organised and relieved of duty by

11     the president of the HZ HB, whereas brigade commanders and high-ranking

12     officers shall be appointed or replaced by the head of the Department of

13     Defence.

14             Now, I will show you some other documents, but tell us now

15     whether you agree with my statement as put now.

16             Mr. Marijan, you keep looking at the transcript all the time,

17     wait for everything to appear on the screen, and then you make pauses and

18     that's why the Honourable Judge Antonetti got the impression that you

19     were trying to make up your mind whether to -- whether or not to say

20     something.  Do not bother with the transcript.  Just make sure to allow

21     some time to elapse after my question and before you answer.  If anything

22     is wrong with the transcript, we will intervene.  You just limit yourself

23     to answering questions with a delay of about 30 seconds, say.

24        A.   Your Honours, my conclusion is that the president of HZ HB under

25     this article appointed and relieved of duty brigade commanders and

Page 3641

 1     officers in high-ranking positions and which can be easily shown, and

 2     practice was like that indeed.

 3        Q.   So the documents shown fully corroborate your interpretation of

 4     Article 34.  Isn't it -- isn't that the case?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   Your interpretation of Article 34 is that the head of the

 7     Department of Defence or persons authorised by him were able to appoint

 8     other officers and commanders, non-commissioned officers and military

 9     servants to officers' duties and duties of non-commissioned officers in

10     the armed forces.  So did the head of the Department of Defence indeed

11     appoint and relieve these persons that I mentioned?

12        A.   Your Honours, the documents that I saw are fully in line with

13     this.

14        Q.   Let us get back to the structure of the Department of Defence,

15     which brought us to this topic.  So let me go back.  The decision about

16     the structure of the Department of Defence passed by President Boban in

17     September, on the 15th of September, 1992, and by this decision he

18     ordered the head of the Department of Defence to implement this internal

19     structure.  This decision is 2D 567.  Could you give us a short comment

20     of item I of this decision, because it contains some important points for

21     subsequent personnel policy.  We see who the head appoints and what the

22     internal structure of the department is like.

23        A.   Your Honours, the decision of Mr. Stojic, dated October 17th,

24     1992, regulates the internal structure of the department, that is the

25     internal organisation of sectors, administrations, officers, and the Main

Page 3642

 1     Staff of the Defence Department.

 2        Q.   Please be as precise as possible.

 3        A.   Item III reads:

 4             "A special structure is in place for the Main Staff, and that

 5     structure is part of this Decision."

 6             I must add that I have not seen this part.

 7        Q.   So item I says that the assistant heads are responsible for the

 8     functioning of the individual sectors in line with the guide-lines set by

 9     the head of the Department of Defence and the adopted work plan.

10        A.   Yes.  That is the case.

11        Q.   Now there's a segment.  Please explain to us what this is about.

12     The administration for defence-related issues and mobilisation.  Then

13     budget, the staff of civil protection, the administration for legal

14     affairs, personnel affairs.  Persons in charge of this are the heads of

15     these respective units and report to the head of the department.

16             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreters would apologise, but we did not

17     get the answer or the last part of the question.  Could it be repeated.

18             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

19        Q.   Please tell us briefly about the Main Staff, what this is and how

20     certain persons are selected to work in the Main Staff.  Perhaps this

21     will clarify somewhat the provisions of Article 34 of the decree on the

22     armed forces which is -- still seems unclear to some.  So please explain

23     to us the Main Staff.

24        A.   As we have just said, there was a special structure if place for

25     the Main Staff which is an integral part of this decision.  It should

Page 3643

 1     have been enclosed, but as I've said, I haven't seen it.  The part

 2     relating to the Main Staff here deals with the appointment of persons to

 3     the Main Staff, who is in charge of that, and from that we can understand

 4     the structure of the Main Staff of the HVO as it was then.

 5             So there is a statement that the chief of Main Staff has a deputy

 6     who is appointed by the president of the HZ HB upon the proposal of the

 7     Chief of Main Staff or with the approval of the head of the Defence

 8     Department.

 9             In the following paragraphs the units of the Main Staff are

10     mentioned, the operational section, operational centre, the

11     Military Intelligence Service, the assistant heads of -- for reserve,

12     assistant or Home Guard assistant chief for organisation, personnel and

13     legal affairs, assistant chief for special purpose units, they're all

14     appointed by the president of the HZ HB upon the proposal of the chief of

15     the Main Staff and with the approval of the head of the Department of

16     Defence.

17        Q.   Mr. Marijan, all these persons and positions that you mentioned,

18     are these higher-ranking officers as -- in accordance with the language

19     of Article 34 of the decree on the armed forces?

20        A.   These are heads of the departments of the Main Staff and

21     assistant heads.  So I'm speaking about the Main Staff as an umbrella

22     organisation of the armed forces.  So this cannot be interpreted in any

23     other way than -- than as referring to high-ranking officers.  This can

24     also be verified.  I believe that the formation of the Main Staff is

25     contained in the documents also, and they are -- all these officers are

Page 3644

 1     majors, lieutenant-colonels and colonels.

 2        Q.   About all the other appointments, other heads and assistant heads

 3     in the Main Staff are appointed by who?

 4        A.   The other heads and assistant heads in the Main Staff are

 5     appointed by the head of the Department of Defence upon the proposal of

 6     the Chief of Staff.  Let me say this is a possibility.  At the moment

 7     when this decision was adopted, the Main Staff didn't have any more

 8     departments or sections than these.  And in the final part of this

 9     paragraph, it says that other operatives and employees of the Main Staff

10     are assigned by the Chief of the -- of Staff.

11        Q.   Could we now briefly describe the situation in the security

12     sector?

13        A.   Appointments in the security sector in principle are made upon

14     the proposal of the assistant head of the Department of Defence for

15     security.  This goes for higher-ranking officers.  And lower-ranking

16     officers are appointed by the assistant head but with the approval of the

17     head of the Department of Defence.

18        Q.   Let us be precise.  It says assistant heads of sector for

19     analysis and -- analysis-related business and assistant heads for

20     operational -- for operations, et cetera, are appointed by the head of

21     the department and lower-ranking officers by the assistant himself but

22     with the approval of the head.

23        A.   Yes, but about lower-ranking officers we must stress that the

24     head must approve their appointment.

25             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica, you have an hour

Page 3645

 1     and 30 minutes remaining.  We are going to try to keep to the timing.  Of

 2     course the Judges can also always make comments, but I will try to

 3     discipline myself and let you continue, because indeed sometimes we may

 4     have many questions on a particular text, but we cannot necessarily ask

 5     all of the questions that come to mind for reasons of time.

 6             We shall now have a 20-minute break.

 7                           --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.

 8                           --- On resuming at 10.53 a.m.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, the floor is yours.

10             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

11        Q.   Mr. Marijan, we have a rather difficult task ahead of us.  The

12     time is short, and we have to go through most of your report, so we'll

13     try to do this together.

14             In this document, and we are talking about the document 2D 00567,

15     this is the Decision on the Internal Structure of the Department of

16     Defence, dated 17th October, 1992, that was cosigned by Mr. Mate Boban on

17     10th of November, 1992.  We've come to the security sector.  You

18     explained who appointed officials to this security sector.

19             In order to make this clear, when it comes to the assistant heads

20     for security in the staff of the zones of operation, it says here that

21     they're appointed by the deputy following a recommendation of the head;

22     is that correct?

23        A.   Yes.  The same goes for assistants for security at the brigade

24     levels.

25        Q.   Furthermore, here we see how the appointments are made for heads

Page 3646

 1     of sectors of general affairs, and now we can move to the health service

 2     sector.

 3             When it comes to the health service sector, can you simply give

 4     us the principle?

 5        A.   Well, the heads of services within the health sector were

 6     appointed by the head of the Department of Defence following a proposal

 7     made by the assistant head for health services.  Other officials or

 8     lower-ranking officials within the sector were appointed by the assistant

 9     head for health services with the approval of the head of Department of

10     Defence.

11        Q.   Thank you.  When it comes to the sector for morale, can you give

12     us a brief explanation?

13        A.   Yes.  Well, the situation was more or less similar, and the

14     situation was more or less similar in the sector for procurement and

15     production.  So the appointments were made by the head of department

16     following the proposal made by the assistant head for that particular

17     sector, and lower-ranking officials were appointed by the assistant head

18     for a particular sector with the approval of the head of department.

19        Q.   When it comes to item VI, we are still talking about the sector

20     for morale.  The assistant commander for morale for the zone of

21     operations and furthermore as it stands here in the document, could you

22     explain that?

23        A.   So within the units of the armed forces of the HZ HB there were

24     assistant commanders for morale, and they were appointed by the head of

25     the Department for Defence following the proposal made by the assistant

Page 3647

 1     head of department for morale.

 2        Q.   Thank you.  You explained what it was like in the logistics,

 3     procurement, and production sector.

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   Could you please tell us what the administrations and offices for

 6     defence were.

 7        A.   The heads of administrations for defence at the time when this

 8     decision was made, there were four such administrations, and they were

 9     appointed by the HVO.  So this -- these were the only positions to which

10     people were appointed by the HVO as stipulated by this decision following

11     a proposal made by the head of the Department of Defence.

12             The heads of offices for defence, which were a lower

13     organisational unit, they were appointed by the head of the Department of

14     Defence following a proposal made by the relevant -- by the head of the

15     relevant administration.

16        Q.   With this we've rounded up the issues regulated by this decision.

17     This decision also regulates what is done by each of these sectors, what

18     are their tasks, and you've analysed this in your report.  Did you also

19     use this decision as a source for your report?

20        A.   Yes.  The remit of different organisational units of the

21     Department of Defence is stipulated in the decision made by Mr. Boban on

22     the 15th of November, and it also results from the decree on the armed

23     forces.

24        Q.   In order to have a complete picture, can we also mention another

25     decision, Decision on the Internal Organisation of the Department of

Page 3648

 1     Defence, dated 20th of May, 1993.  This is the next decision in your

 2     binder.

 3             Can you just point out the differences between these two

 4     decisions in order not to spend too much time on this issue?

 5        A.   In line 34, 8, it says 15th November, and this should be

 6     corrected.  The decision dated the 20th of May, 1993, differs from the

 7     previous one in the following:  It is much more logical in its wording.

 8     Most provisions -- or most of the provisions are the same, but now we

 9     have --

10             MR. BOS:  Can I just ask which exhibit number we're referring to,

11     please.  We're talking about a decision, but we don't have an exhibit

12     number.

13             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you're talking about

14     decisions, please could you give us the exhibit number and make sure it

15     is in the transcript, because sometimes it doesn't appear in the

16     transcript.

17             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes.  I said it, and I think the

18     witness understood it.  This is P 02477.  That is the exhibit number.

19     I'm sorry, I did not want to interrupt the witness.

20        Q.   You may continue now.

21        A.   In this decision dated the 20th of May, the novelty is the

22     welfare administration which comes under the authority of the civilian

23     sector.  And another novelty is the central logistics base in the sector

24     for logistics procurement and production.  These are the only two

25     novelties.

Page 3649

 1        Q.   Mr. Marijan, in your report, starting in item 18, you explain

 2     what were the tasks of the civilian sector.  I will have to be very

 3     quick, so I would just like to point out the items that my questions will

 4     refer to.

 5             In item 20, you are talking about the chief of administration for

 6     compulsory military service and administration.  I asked you when this

 7     administration became operational, and you said that here.  Could you

 8     please repeat that?

 9        A.   The administration for compulsory military service and

10     administration started to function in July 1993.

11        Q.   Thank you.  In your report, in item 21, you say that a personnel

12     administration was established on the 8th of May, 1992, two months before

13     the establishment of the Department of Defence.  This is document

14     2D 1458.  You will also see it on your screen.  Because the time is very

15     short, can you please just confirm that this was the source for this

16     conclusion you made here?

17        A.   Yes.  This was the source for my conclusion.  I remember this

18     document, although I cannot see it on the screen.

19        Q.   You will be able to see it very soon.

20        A.   This was one of the first administrations that were established

21     by the HVO, as far as I could see.

22        Q.   We shall now say a few words about administrations and offices

23     for defence.  Can you tell us very quickly what were offices -- what were

24     administrations for defence, and what were their main tasks?  Just the

25     main tasks, please, because they will be most relevant for our

Page 3650

 1     discussion.

 2        A.   Defence administrations carried out professional tasks within the

 3     Department of Defence.  So here you have a list of tasks, but the most

 4     relevant were the maintenance of manning levels, mobilisation of the

 5     armed forces.  So this was the main task to take care about personnel

 6     issues and material procurement within the territory under their

 7     competence.  There were four such administrations that covered the

 8     territory of a zone of operations, and the lower level in their

 9     organisational structure was the defence office.

10        Q.   We shall now move on to the security sector.  This is item 30 of

11     your report.  Can you just tell us what the security sector was composed

12     of?  What were its components?

13        A.   The security sector was composed of the Security and Information

14     Service and the military police.

15        Q.   Can you tell me who appointed Mr. Coric, just to make it very

16     brief?  And this is document 2D 1333.  I'm now moving quickly and

17     skipping some of the documents, but this is two documents later, and we

18     will be able to see that on the e-court.

19             So could you please tell me who appointed the assistant head for

20     security.

21        A.   This is one of the first appointments ever made by -- in the HVO

22     that I saw, made on 13th of April, 1992.  Mr. Boban, who was the head of

23     the HVO at the time, appointed Mr. Coric to the position of assistant

24     commander for Security and Information Service, and he was also in charge

25     of all the units of the military police.

Page 3651

 1        Q.   When was the assistant for security appointed?

 2        A.   The assistant for security was appointed by the HVO in October of

 3     1992.

 4        Q.   In item 32 you explained the structure of the security sector.

 5     Since we already saw who was making the appointments, when it comes to

 6     the security sector could you precisely state that the assistant

 7     commanders in the zones of operations -- or, actually, we'll leave it for

 8     now.  Can you just tell me very quickly what was the main structure of

 9     the security sector?

10        A.   The security sector consisted of the administration for security

11     and information and the military police administration.  I already stated

12     that.

13        Q.   All right.  You said in your report, in item 32, that there were

14     attempts to subordinate the military police to the commander in charge of

15     the Security and Information Service.  Then in item 34 and 35 of your

16     report, you explained how come that these particular organisational

17     structure within -- within the department was established and how

18     different it was from the previous system, but could you please briefly

19     explain what were the tasks of the Security and Information Service and

20     of the military police.  So could you tell us which particular provision

21     of the decree on the armed forces stipulates these tasks?  And I'm

22     referring here to item 36 of your -- or 37 of your report.

23        A.   Well, the Article 137 of the decree on the armed forces from

24     October 1992 regulates this.  It states that professional work related to

25     security of the armed forces and the Defence Department shall be

Page 3652

 1     organised and performed by the Security and Information Service.

 2        Q.   I would just like to mention that this is the document P 588, so

 3     that we can all follow the wording of the decree.  So this is Article 137

 4     of the document P 588.

 5             Please continue.

 6        A.   In the same article it is stated that the armed forces shall

 7     include military police who will be in charge of security in military

 8     traffic, of military order and discipline, and elimination of criminal

 9     elements in the armed forces.  So my conclusion would be that the

10     military police was treated as an integral part of the armed forces,

11     whereas the Security and Information Service was active both within the

12     armed forces and within the Department of Defence.

13        Q.   Now we shall move to the part of your report entitled,

14     "The Security and Information Service."  I would just like to ask

15     something in relation to item 39 of your report.  Could you tell me very

16     briefly what the SIS consisted of.

17        A.   The Security and Information System consisted of its

18     administration, SIS centres, and SIS officers at the commands of armed

19     forces units.

20        Q.   In the chain of command, who were these SIS officers at the

21     commands of units subordinated to?

22        A.   The SIS officers at the level of units were subordinated to the

23     commander of the respective unit, and at the professional level they

24     responded to their superior within the Security and Information Service.

25        Q.   In your report you stated that within the units the higher

Page 3653

 1     position they could have was at the command level, at the level of the

 2     command of the zones of operation.  In the documents that you worked on,

 3     could you see that there was an assistant for the Security and

 4     Information Service also at the level of the Main Staff?

 5        A.   In -- in the documents I could see that there was such an

 6     assistant in the -- in the year 1993.

 7             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I object to this

 8     because there is no document proving this fact.

 9             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Well, if we look at the

10     document 2D 944, although I believe this is a question for

11     cross-examination, that's why I didn't want to spend too much time on

12     this, but if we could take a look at this document.

13             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] This is a document that stands

14     outside the time-frame that is testified about by this witness.  The

15     witness stated that he is witnessing about the events until about 15th of

16     November, and this is the document dated 19th of November.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

18     continues]... time-frame.  It is a matter of principle, so let's see what

19     the witness has to say.

20             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] That is correct, Your Honour.

21     However, I believe that this document refers to the previous period, to

22     the situation during the previous period, so I believe we should allow

23     the witness to testify about this, and later on we shall also have other

24     witnesses testifying about this, including Mr. Ivan Bandic, who is

25     mentioned here.  So possibly we can see what this witness based his

Page 3654

 1     conclusion on.

 2             MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Yet another objection.  The

 3     question refers to the assistant head -- or Chief of the Main Staff, and

 4     in this document Chief of the Main Staff -- or assistant Chief of the

 5     Main Staff isn't mentioned.  So I believe we should be very precise.

 6             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

 7        Q.   Mr. Marijan, you heard all these objections.  So you are talking

 8     here about assistant for SIS, Security and Information Service.  Bearing

 9     in mind all the previous objections, could you please tell us what this

10     statement of yours is based upon?

11        A.   Your Honours, this statement is based upon these documents.  This

12     document was created four days after Mr. Stojic ceased to be head of the

13     Department of Defence, but towards the end of this document we can see

14     that most of the people mentioned at the time were holding their

15     positions for quite some time so it provides a picture of the previous

16     period.  Also if somebody is the top official of the Security and

17     Information Service at the Main Staff level, then I cannot come to a

18     different conclusion than that he was an assistant for the SIS, but I

19     really cannot give you a clear formation of the Main Staff because I've

20     never seen the formation of the Main Staff at the time, whether this was

21     called a department or something else I can't really say.

22        Q.   You said that he was an assistant for the SIS.  From what you

23     just said I can conclude that you have no doubts that such a position

24     existed even earlier in the second half of 1993.  You just have doubts as

25     to the title of this position, whether this was an assistant or something

Page 3655

 1     else.

 2        A.   Yes.  Your Honours, my only doubt is the status so -- the

 3     position, but the fact is that that person was at the level of the

 4     Main Staff and some administrative clerks are also mentioned here.

 5     Generally speaking, I am aware of the structure of different departments

 6     or sections, as they were called, but to be truthful, the Main Staff at

 7     that time included also two duties which were not officially in the

 8     formation.  Neither the chief or the deputy chief were ever mentioned in

 9     any formation.  However, somebody appointed them and other people did

10     accept them as such, with such titles.

11        Q.   Thank you very much.  We can now move on to the part of your

12     report talking about the military police, item 43 and onwards.  I can see

13     here that you've provided us with the entire structure of the military

14     police.  You've mentioned all the different parts of the military police,

15     including the active part, brigade level, military police, and I do not

16     want to spend too much time here.  I would just like your confirmation

17     that this part of your report is also based on the documents that you

18     referred to.

19        A.   Your Honours, my entire report is based on the documents.  I

20     don't believe that I used any secondary source.

21        Q.   When it comes to the sector for morale that is referred to in

22     item 53 of your report, could you tell us how was this sector organised

23     and who the assistants for morale at the level of the units were

24     subordinated to.

25        A.   The sector for morale was in charge of boosting morale and

Page 3656

 1     promotion of information and preparation for defence.  It consisted of

 2     three administrations, and there were also assistants of commanders for

 3     morale at the level of different units.  So this was very similar to the

 4     security service.  The head of the sector for morale was appointed by the

 5     HVO.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  What was the influence of these assistants for morale

 7     or assistants for information and propaganda service?

 8        A.   I'm not sure that on the basis of the documents you could really

 9     assess their impact.  On the basis of my personal experience I believe

10     that the impact was not very great.  The information service was rather

11     poor, and there was an administration for military psychology, for

12     example, which at war times is not particularly a pertinent topic, and in

13     the entire territory of HVO there were only two psychologists.  I know

14     them personally.  There wasn't much use of them.  So generally speaking,

15     I believe that their influence was rather poor.  And not much changed in

16     the period when I was there in 1994 and 1995 in the department which was

17     later called Department for Political Management.  The only requirement

18     was that people working there had -- had a university diploma and that

19     was all.

20        Q.   Because you were there, could you tell us when it comes to the

21     activities of this sector could you say that they promoted the hate

22     speech or any other inappropriate language in their programmes, in

23     their -- in their addresses to the people or anything that they were

24     doing?

25        A.   Well, I said already that at the time when I was in Livno, I had

Page 3657

 1     a feeling that this service did not exist at all.  The only thing that I

 2     knew about this was that my school colleague actually worked for that

 3     service.  That's how I knew that it did exist.

 4             I cannot say that there were no individuals who possibly used the

 5     hate speech, but this was certainly not the predominant tone.

 6        Q.   Thank you.  We will move on to the health service sector which

 7     you explain entirely.  In reference to the item 67 of your report, can

 8     you tell us that health services existed within the armed force and in

 9     which way were they organised?

10        A.   A unit at the level of brigade, for example, had a head of

11     medical staff, and he was part of the logistics at the brigade level.

12        Q.   I will move on to the sector for supply, procurement, and

13     production that you deal with starting in item 73 of your report.  I

14     would like to ask a few questions in reference to item 77 of your report

15     where you quote the annual report of the Defence Department.  This is

16     document P 8118.

17             My question will be based on your report.  These are parts of the

18     mentioned report in English.  These are pages 7 to 10 which talk about

19     the structure of expenses and the structure of revenues.

20             Here you stated that it follows from this annual report that the

21     revenue that came from the Republic of Croatia amounted to approximately

22     10 per cent of the total amount.

23             On the basis your personal experience, could you tell us in which

24     way did the funds come to the banks of the Croatian State which were also

25     intended for the defence of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?  On

Page 3658

 1     the basis of your personal experience, and could you try to be as concise

 2     as possible.

 3        A.   Your Honours, I come from the area of Livno, and Livno is an area

 4     in which majority of the population live outside of the territory of the

 5     municipality than within the municipality.  Many of these people worked,

 6     and they still do, in Germany.  This was a trend present ever since

 7     1960s.

 8             Livno was not an exclusive example.  This was a general

 9     occurrence, not only in Bosnia-Herzegovina but also in Croatia.

10             I'm very familiar with the security and political and military

11     situation in the Republic of Croatia between 1991 and 1995.  So during

12     the war, Croatia was broken into different parts.  The tourism, which was

13     the main source of revenue, was totally destroyed, and the only financial

14     source which allowed Croatia to sustain itself through the war was the

15     money that came from abroad.  Not only from people who were working

16     abroad, but also from -- from the Croatian diaspora.  So second or third

17     generation Croats who live abroad.

18             Obviously this money was intended for the defence of Croatia and

19     the Croats.  So I believe that these 10 per cent came, although I believe

20     that the percentage of people sending money who originated from Bosnia

21     and Herzegovina was actually much higher than 10 per cent.

22        Q.   If I understood well, you are saying that Croats who lived in

23     Bosnia and Herzegovina and who were sending the money sent much more than

24     the amount quoted here as the amount that was given by Croatia for the

25     purpose of the defence.

Page 3659

 1        A.   I have no doubt about this.

 2        Q.   Mr. Marijan, do you know if these people, the emigrants who

 3     worked abroad, that they sent money purposely for the HVO or the

 4     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?

 5        A.   I can't speak about everybody, but I do know that in a part of

 6     the municipality there was this financial obligation.  You could talk

 7     about war taxation.  So able-bodied people who could be able to fight but

 8     were not there but were working in Germany at the time, they were obliged

 9     to send a certain amount of money to the account of the HVO Livno, and

10     this was the money that was used for the defence of the municipality.

11        Q.   Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to ask about any details

12     concerning the accounts, numbers of accounts, and so on, so we will move

13     on to the Main Staff of the HVO.  This is the item 83 of your report, but

14     thanks to the previous questions by Honourable Judges we've clarified

15     most of it already.

16             In item 86 of your report, could you please tell us what was your

17     conclusion in this item.

18        A.   In item 86 I comment on the relationship between the head of the

19     Department of Defence and the Chief of the Main Staff according to the

20     provisions of the decree that we saw.  There's no doubt that the Chief of

21     Main Staff reported to the head of the Department of Defence with regard

22     to the supply of materiel, that is, the supply of weapons, ammunition,

23     fuel, et cetera.

24        Q.   You mentioned in this item that the Chief of Staff was

25     responsible to the head of the Department of Defence for all

Page 3660

 1     administrative work as well as issues concerning the budgetary and the

 2     materiel supply and consumption.

 3        A.   Correct.

 4        Q.   And you refer to the decision on the basic principles of the

 5     organisation of the Department of Defence; is that right?

 6        A.   Yes.

 7        Q.   Let us now look at document P 4131.  That's the first document in

 8     binder two.  We skipped all the documents in between and will not return

 9     to them.

10             Do you have these documents in front of you?  These are the

11     documents that you dealt with, so you can consult them directly.  Have

12     you found them?

13        A.   Yes.

14        Q.   Can you comment?  Is this the line of command that you spoke

15     about?

16        A.   That is the line of command at the beginning of the first half --

17     yes, you could say that this is the line of command.

18        Q.   You were saying from the second half.  What did you mean?

19        A.   It is the line of command from the second half of 1993.

20        Q.   Does that mean that the document is from the second half or that

21     the line of command only started functioning this way in the second half

22     of 1993?

23        A.   Since mention is made only of the Main Staff, the line of command

24     must have been in existence even before.  Maybe the reason for drafting

25     this document is to give a written document for these new appointments

Page 3661

 1     and this line of command.

 2        Q.   In item 86 you said that the commanders of the brigades of the

 3     HVO and other officers often directly contacted the Department of Defence

 4     disregarding subordination, thus skipping the commands of the zones of

 5     operation and the Main Staff.

 6             Mr. Marijan, we have seen the decree on the interior structure of

 7     the Department of Defence and the duties of the brigade commanders and in

 8     which cases they could contact the Department of Defence.  Why did you --

 9     why do you make mention of these things?

10        A.   Your Honours, it is no doubt that in the decision dated

11     15 September 1993 signed by Mate Boban, that the head of the

12     Department of Defence can contact commanders -- military commanders down

13     to the level of the brigade, but it has to do with decency, to respect

14     the line of command.  If you communicate directly with the brigade

15     commander or no matter in what direction, the brigade commander contacts

16     maybe the Department of Defence, you're the superior.  The omitted

17     superior should know about that.  That's why mentioned this.

18        Q.   Okay.  Thank you.  Let us continue with something upon which we

19     shall dwell for a longer time although you have dealt with that in your

20     report and that is the head of the Department of Defence in the system of

21     the HZ HB.

22             With regard to item 88, we have spoken a lot about municipalities

23     and the way they behaved, but your statement that even the president of

24     the HVO took action and is said that municipalities behave as if they

25     were states.

Page 3662

 1             Let us look at two documents that encompass the whole period and

 2     which shows that this situation prevailed almost until the end of 1993.

 3     Let us first look at document P 578.  It is, I believe, the second after

 4     this one that we saw now.  It's the minutes from the 7th meeting of the

 5     HVO held on the 14th of October, 1992.  And I will give you the page

 6     number.  It is page 11 in English.  You referred to that.  Am I right,

 7     Mr. Marijan?  And the Croatian text, it is the reference -- page

 8     reference is 0403-9937.

 9        A.   You are completely right.  In the third paragraph it says that

10     the president of the HVO speaks about the situation caused by the war,

11     and we can agree with it as correct that the municipalities had taken

12     over the roles of the state, especially when it comes to finance,

13     financial issues.

14             Furthermore, we can see that the municipalities, most of them

15     anyway, think only about their own interests.

16        Q.   Let us look at document P 1324.  It's the second document after

17     this one.  This is also from a government meeting held on the 27th of

18     January, 1993.  On the second page in the Croatian version it says that

19     the head of the Department of Defence of the HVO demands that the

20     financial system be put into function as soon as possible in order to

21     carry out all responsibilities.

22             So the head of the Department of Defence demands that the

23     financial system be put into function as soon as possible, because that

24     is one of his responsibilities.  Isn't that the case?

25        A.   Yes.

Page 3663

 1        Q.   Let us look at the following documents:  P 5799, the minutes from

 2     the government session held on the 9th of October, 1993.  The first one

 3     was held on the 14th of October.  Let us see what things look like a year

 4     later.

 5             In the Croatian version it's on page 2.  The relevant items are

 6     1 and 2.  In the English version it is also page 2.

 7             Here, too, mention is made of municipalities that are being

 8     charged with to apply the legislation consistently in the area of the

 9     financial system.  It says also that -- that a single financial system

10     must be established for the payroll of the soldiers.

11             Mr. Marijan, isn't it obvious from this, and from these minutes,

12     too, that the municipalities did not do what they had to do, that is,

13     they did not channel financial funds as was -- as was prescribed by

14     the -- by Article 34 of the decree that you -- that we mentioned?

15        A.   From the minutes of the meeting held in 1993, we can see that a

16     year later the situation had not changed.  There was no success in the

17     centralisation and making the municipalities act in a fashion that would

18     benefit the whole community and not only themselves.

19        Q.   Another document, P 6689.  It is a communique of the prime

20     minister.  We're talking about the HR HB.  This is a communique to all

21     municipalities.  You are familiar with this.  Does it follow from this,

22     too, that the -- that he demands that the financial -- the area of

23     finance should be regulated?

24        A.   Yes.  We can see that President Prlic says that there is illegal

25     behaviour and he is appealing to the ethics of all those involved.  He

Page 3664

 1     appeals to them to act ethically.

 2        Q.   Obviously everything else failed so that the prime minister had

 3     to appeal to the ethics of all those involved.

 4             Let us skip some following things because in the next 20 minutes

 5     I have to go through something very important.

 6             Item 95 of your report, because I think this is less than

 7     precise, or at any rate unclear, so I will ask you to clarify.

 8             In item 95 we're now dealing with the position of the head of the

 9     Department of Defence in the system.  You're talking about the programme

10     of work of the Department of Defence, and you are referring to

11     document P 646.  It's the third one after the one we've just seen, and we

12     can open it right away.  You will see it on your screen instantly.

13             I understood in your conclusion that the Main Staff of the HVO

14     was responsible for its work to the president of the HZ HB as the Supreme

15     Commander of the armed forces and the security sector apart from the

16     president of the HZ HB also to the president of the HVO.

17             My question now is whether the Main Staff reported only to the

18     president or must we take into consideration what you said earlier, that

19     in some -- for some matters it reported to the president and in other

20     matters not.  What is your statement based on?

21        A.   Your Honours, the -- there's no doubt about the fact that the

22     Main Staff reported not only to president of the HZ HB.  When I say

23     security sector here, I mean the SIS.

24             It was not logical to me why in this work programme there is no

25     work programme of the SIS, and why it was compiled separately and why it

Page 3665

 1     should have been submitted to the president of the HV HB [as interpreted]

 2     and president of the HVO.  The work programme for all other parts of the

 3     HVO Department of Defence is readily accessible.  On the other hand, this

 4     is a classified document.  In archives all these are kept for 30 years.

 5     So this seems strange to me, all this, and there was something that was

 6     unclear and I wasn't able to clarify.

 7             If you remember in these decisions about the internal structure

 8     signed by Mr. Boban that it was along the lines of what a Judge said

 9     yesterday, namely about the issue whether these departments were

10     provisional.

11             I, based on all this, have the impression that all this was made

12     to last very briefly, as if the war would end on the following day.  It

13     isn't clear who appoints the Chief of Main Staff, although there is one

14     already.  It isn't clear who appoints the head of the SIS, although there

15     is one already.  And it isn't clear who appoints the head of the military

16     police, although there is a commander of the military police.  And that

17     is why I -- I phrased this the way it is in my report.

18             All assistants of the head of the Department of Defence reported

19     to the head of the department.  That is beyond doubt.  And that later on,

20     starting from 1993, there is nothing of this kind any more.

21             These are my doubts that led me to write what you can see in the

22     report.

23        Q.   In item 96 you mention the board.  You saw some minutes from its

24     meetings.

25        A.   Yes, mostly from 1992 and from early 1993.

Page 3666

 1        Q.   We'll now go on with the manning of the armed forces.  Let us

 2     return to the decree on the armed forces, and you'd explained --

 3             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a short

 4     question.  The document that we've just examined dated October 24, 1992,

 5     which is a proposal for the plan for the end of 1992, that is a

 6     three-month period.  There's something that I find rather astonishing in

 7     the beginning of the text where it explains the purpose of the document.

 8     It states that this programme is implemented for the -- to provide for

 9     security of the line of defence.  So this is a defensive operation.  It's

10     not actually a military operation.

11             And then at the end, in the last paragraph of this part of the

12     text, there seems to be a concern to eliminate the staff from the

13     municipalities, that is eliminating the Municipal Staffs, the text says,

14     under the control of the Department of Defence, Mr. Boban, while

15     eliminating the Municipal Staff.

16             What do you think about the concerns express by Mr. Stojic in

17     October of 1992?  Don't forget, the date here is October 24th, 1992, and

18     unless I'm mistaken, the events in Prozor took place around the same

19     date.

20             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.  I failed

21     to do something, and now that you are referring to October in your

22     question, let us take a look at the document preceding this one, namely

23     P 04890.

24             Let us see what the tasks were of the Department of Defence and

25     all its subordinate units to draft such programmes.  This one speaking

Page 3667

 1     about the minutes of the meeting of the HVO of the HZ HB held on the

 2     8th of September, 1992.

 3             In item 1, it is stated that the president of the HVO proposed

 4     the following agenda, namely basic elements for the elaboration of the

 5     programme of work of the HVO departments and subdepartments.  Then what

 6     follows was the programme of work which is really dated 24/10/1992.  So

 7     let us see how it came about, and this may help us to draw conclusions

 8     about what this is about.

 9             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is clear from

10     these minutes that the programme of work coincided with the combat

11     activities at Prozor and Central Bosnia, Travnik, Vitez, but it was

12     initiated basically a month and a half earlier, which must be by chance.

13     And the abolishment of Municipal Staffs is a trend that had begun

14     earlier, although there was resistance to that.  This is something that

15     we may call the second stage of the structure of the military component

16     of the HVO when the brigade structure is introduced and then, of course,

17     Municipal Staffs are abolished as unnecessary because most brigades

18     actually were Municipal Staffs that were only renamed.  I believe that

19     this proposal for drafting a programme of work is clear enough.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On the first point relating to

21     my question, it says in the first line that we have to securitize the

22     first lines of defence.  Does that mean that the Department of Defence

23     had a role to play in the defence, I was going to say passive or active

24     defence.  Why do we have this reference here to the security of the lines

25     of defence?

Page 3668

 1             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe the answer

 2     is very simple.  Winter was coming, and in that area winter is very

 3     harsh.  I know that there were several circular letters from that time

 4     containing instructions, instructions for preparing for winter.  I know

 5     what things were like at Livno.  I -- and I must say that very few HVO

 6     units really did engage in digging trenches as was the practice described

 7     in the manuals of the JNA.

 8             Around about this date there was a circular letter which I

 9     remember well.  It was issued by the then Lieutenant-Colonel Siljeg, and

10     it contained a description of the preparations for winter.

11             This is all about defence, of course, and it requires

12     preparation.  In winter-time organisation -- the organisation differs

13     greatly from that in summertime.

14             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

15        Q.   After this question of Judge Antonetti, allow me to read the

16     entire paragraph.

17             "The principal activity of the Department of Defence toward the

18     end of 1992 was directed toward a strengthening of the front line and

19     supplying military units with necessary equipment and resources for

20     winter conditions."

21             When we talk about securing the first line, and it is beyond

22     doubt that the Main Staff is part of the Department of Defence, and its

23     work programme is enclosed here; is that right?

24        A.   Yes, it is enclosed here, although I must admit I haven't seen

25     it.

Page 3669

 1        Q.   Their task would also be to ensure the strengthening of the first

 2     line.

 3        A.   Yes, but these are the tasks of the entire sector, not only the

 4     sector of supply, provisions and production.

 5        Q.   Yes.  That's what I wanted to say.

 6             Manning of the armed forces, Mr. Marijan.  We have spoken about

 7     this a lot.  Let me refer to item 99.  I'm referring to the powers

 8     exerted by Mr. Stojic as outlined in Article 34.  Can -- could you

 9     briefly comment.

10        A.   In the first part of the hearing we quoted provision 34 of the

11     decree on the armed forces, and based on at that decree it was possible

12     for the head of the Department of Defence to authorise brigade commanders

13     or some commanders to appoint officers and non-commissioned officers to

14     lower-ranking duties from the level of platoon commander downward.  So

15     not company commander and upward.  So that Mr. Stojic, on the 4th of

16     December, 1992, wrote a circular letter authorising the commanders of all

17     units of the HVO to appoint such personnel.

18             I should have mentioned something before.  Apart from

19     President Boban, who in the summer of 1992, I believe it was in June, in

20     a separate piece of legislation authorised Mr. Blaskic to appoint the

21     brigade commanders.  He was the only person with such authority in the

22     system.  I cannot go into the reasons for Mr. Boban's decision, but

23     Mr. Blaskic, who then was lieutenant-colonel, made use of that -- or

24     exerted his authority and did appoint brigade commanders.

25        Q.   Yes.  You mentioned that for the -- in item 108 and referred to

Page 3670

 1     document P 280, namely that authorisation, P 777, P 775, and P 774.  And

 2     now let's return to the manning part and item 101 of your report.

 3             Do describe to us the procedure of appointing officers or

 4     commanders.

 5        A.   The procedure for appointment and dismissal proceeded in a very

 6     simple way.  First of all, the proposal came from the unit to the head of

 7     the Department of Defence or a superior command, and the superior

 8     commander or the head or the Chief of Main Staff gave his approval for

 9     particular appointments, and the third phase was an order signed by

10     President Boban whereby the persons were appointed to the positions as

11     proposed by their units.  So it consisted of three phases.

12        Q.   I would just like to remind you that we are talking about the

13     procedure whereby the provision of Article 34 of the decree on the armed

14     forces was implemented in practice.  I will control this myself, whether

15     I'm talking about the right article.  This was the article that we read

16     on several occasions.  So we are now talking about the tasks that were

17     carried out by Mr. Stojic, and soon we will talk about the tasks that

18     were carried out by the president of the HZ HB.

19             You provided us with the example of the Rama Brigade.  So could

20     we please look at the document 2D 1450, because as far as I know, you

21     want to amend something in your report.  So here I believe you explained

22     the first step or the first phase of the appointment procedure.  So 1450.

23     It is a bit further on, but you will also see it on the e-court.  I

24     skipped some documents, which I understand may be a problem.

25        A.   Yes.  This is a proposal dated 10th of June, 1993.  I made a

Page 3671

 1     mistake in my report.  This was not a proposal that was sent to the

 2     Main Staff but it was, rather, sent to the president of the Department of

 3     Defence of the HZ -- Herceg-Bosna as can be seen from the document

 4     itself.

 5             On the last page of this document you can see the approval signed

 6     by the Chief of the Main Staff.

 7        Q.   Can you tell us precisely what it says?  You said the Chief of

 8     the Main Staff.  Can you please tell us what is it that you're actually

 9     reading?  There is a stamp.  It says, "Approved by," and somebody's

10     signature.  Is this what you're reading now?

11        A.   This is in writing.  I think what it says is "Approved by," and I

12     think this is the signature by Mr. Petkovic.  This is a stamp bearing

13     number 2, so it is interesting that Mr. Petkovic always had the stamp

14     with number 2, whereas the stamp with number 1 was held by the assistant

15     Chief of Main Staff for logistics.  This is something that I always found

16     very interesting.

17        Q.   What was the procedure thereafter?

18        A.   After this proposal and the approval which we can see down here,

19     what followed was an order on the appointment that was made by the head

20     of the Department of Defence.

21        Q.   Mr. Marijan, I just need to quote the number of the document so

22     that everybody can see it.  This is the document P 2945.  This is the

23     next document in your binder.

24        A.   Yes, it is.  So here we can see the appointment.  I would just

25     like to mention number 1.  Number 1 is the deputy head of the Main Staff.

Page 3672

 1     So deputy commander, actually at the same time head of the Main Staff.

 2     So the only person that was not appointed by him was the commander of the

 3     brigade.

 4        Q.   Mr. Marijan, can we look at the following documents very quickly:

 5     Document 2D 1870.  Can you tell us what is this?

 6        A.   This is this formation of the brigade.  So all the personnel

 7     appointed were appointed on the basis of such formation schemes.

 8        Q.   The next document, Mr. Marijan, because our time is very short,

 9     P 2 -- P 4234.  We will now go through a range of documents concerning

10     appointments signed by --

11        A.   They are signed by Mr. Boban.  This is a document signed by

12     Mr. Boban.  It refers to the Rama Brigade.  We saw the proposal sent from

13     this brigade earlier for the appointments, and the only officer that was

14     missing was the brigade commander, and here we see the appointment that

15     is made by the only person authorised to appoint brigade commanders and

16     this is President Boban.

17        Q.   Mr. Marijan, there is something very pertinent that I want to

18     present to the Court here, so can we focus on that?  So here we can see

19     that Mr. Boban appointed the brigade commander; is that correct?

20        A.   Yes.

21        Q.   And from the previous documents, documents 2D 1450, we can see

22     that that was the proposal by the brigade for the appointment -- for the

23     appointments approved by the Main Staff.  And then we also saw the

24     document 2945, appointments which were made by Mr. Stojic, because he was

25     authorised to do that.  Is that correct?

Page 3673

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Can we now quickly go through a range of documents, again

 3     documents concerning appointments but this time signed by Mr. Stojic.

 4     Could you please look at the document P 833, P 833.

 5        A.   This is the appointment in the HVO Brigade in Gornji Vakuf

 6     concerning ten persons from the brigade commander and then towards lower

 7     positions.

 8        Q.   Mr. Marijan, I will just show these documents.  Could you please

 9     wait with your comment until we've seen all these documents.  The next

10     document is P 849.

11        A.   This is the -- concerning the command of a zone of operations.

12     So this is at the level higher than the brigade.  There are several

13     brigades within an operation's zone, and these are appointments for the

14     head of -- for the Chief of Staff -- for the Assistant Chief of Staff and

15     so on.

16        Q.   The next document is P 1081 and P 1077.  So could you please take

17     a look at both these documents, P 1077 and P 1081.  And a final document

18     from this series is P 1072.  Could you tell us something about these

19     three documents.

20        A.   The document P 1077 concerns the appointment of the deputy

21     brigade commander.  This is an appointment that was made by Mr. Stojic.

22     This falls under his remit.

23             The document P 1081, signed by Mr. Stojic, concerns the

24     appointment of the secretary to the Chief of the Main Staff, although

25     this appointment could also have been signed by the Chief of the

Page 3674

 1     Main Staff, but anyway.

 2             And the next document, P 1072 concerns the same thing.

 3        Q.   Can we say, Mr. Marijan, then that these were the powers held by

 4     Mr. Stojic?  Is that correct?

 5        A.   Yes.

 6        Q.   We've just made a selection of documents.  Did you yourself see

 7     other documents of this kind?

 8        A.   Well, I've seen many documents of this kind in the state archives

 9     but I have to say they are not of any particular interest for me because

10     they simply show the procedure that existed.  And the same situation was

11     with dismissals.  There was a proposal for dismissal, the approval of the

12     dismissal and an order on the dismissal.  So the same thing.

13        Q.   You explained this under item 105 of your report.  Yesterday the

14     Honourable Judge Antonetti asked you about the Muslims within the units,

15     and here you said that the head Stojic regularly also signed the

16     appointments of Muslims.

17             Can we take a look at the document 2D 1446.  This is the next

18     document in your binder.  We could take a look at this document and for

19     the sake of the Honourable Judges, on page 7 -- or, please, tell us first

20     of all what is this all about?

21        A.   Your Honours, this is the appointment of officers to the

22     Capljina Brigade.  It starts with the deputy commander, because as we

23     know, the commander of the brigade could not be appointed by Mr. Stojic.

24        Q.   When we are talking about soldiers of Muslim ethnicity can you

25     maybe point to some of the names?

Page 3675

 1        A.   There are 33 Muslims here.

 2        Q.   So out of 184 names here you found 33 Muslims.  Are these Muslims

 3     or Muslim names?

 4        A.   There are 33 Muslim names.  I believe that Their Honours already

 5     know that on the basis of somebody's name, name of the father, you can

 6     guess somebody's nationality and be rather sure about that guess.

 7        Q.   So, for example, under item 7, then 29 in this list, 38, 40, 46,

 8     54, 60, 66, 71, 75, and so on and so forth.  I do not have enough time to

 9     go through all of them, but anybody who wishes to do so may check this

10     document.

11             So we're still talking about the national structure of the HVO

12     units.  I would like to show you the document 2D 150.  This is an

13     overview of the national or ethnic structure which indicates that certain

14     appointments were made by Mr. Stojic because he was so authorised.  This

15     is the situation on 8th of June, 1993.  You talked about this yesterday,

16     and here we have a precise percentage of Muslims or Bosniaks in the

17     units.

18             This is the document that you referred to yesterday.  Am I right?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   Mr. Marijan, in relation to item 104 of your report in which you

21     are talking about the powers of the president of the HZ HB under

22     Article 43, item 1, could you tell us who was appointed by the president?

23     So what is your reading of the Article 43(1), and then we will go very

24     quickly through some of the documents, and I will kindly ask you not to

25     comment each of them separately but I will ask you some questions at the

Page 3676

 1     end.

 2        A.   Your Honours, we've lost quite a lot of time discussing

 3     Article 34.  My reading of the Article 34 is that the president of the

 4     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as the Commander-in-Chief was

 5     appointing brigade commanders and senior-ranking commanders, the

 6     commanders of the zones of operation, are not mentioned here, but they

 7     did belong to the higher-ranking officers, but at the time this document

 8     was adopted these zones of operations were only just established.

 9        Q.   The first document to look at is the document P 661.

10        A.   This is -- this is the document appointing commanders of the

11     zones of operations.  So the three persons who were at these positions

12     throughout the period in question, in Tomislavgrad, Mostar, and Vitez,

13     because the headquarters were in these places.  Messrs. Lasic, Siljeg,

14     and Blaskic.

15        Q.   You said you believe this document was a very significant one.

16     Why?

17        A.   This was the highest rank in the armed forces of the HVO after

18     the Chief of Main Staff of the entire armed forces.

19        Q.   I will now read out the codes of the documents.  Could you please

20     just take a look at them.  Document P 3054.  This is an order appointing

21     the commander of the Citluk Brigade.  The next document is P 3363, an

22     order issued by Mr. Boban appointing the commander of the brigade

23     Rafael Vitez Boban.

24             The next document P 4550 issued -- an order again issued by

25     Mr. Boban appointing the brigade commander of the Rama Brigade.  Then the

Page 3677

 1     document P 5576 and the document P 5566.  I would kindly ask you -- or

 2     could you please confirm that the previous appointments made by Mr. Boban

 3     are made pursuant to the authority given to him by Article 34(1).

 4        A.   Yes.

 5        Q.   The documents 5576 and 5566, what are they about?

 6        A.   The first document is a proposal for -- for appointment, again

 7     HVO proposing Mr. Sopta to be -- to be positioned at a certain position.

 8     I can't see the signature.  I can't read the signature.

 9             And the next document is the appointment.  So the order on

10     appointment signed by Mr. Boban.  So the same day the proposal was made,

11     the appointment was made.

12        Q.   The next document is 2D 146, again the appointment signed by

13     Mr. Boban concerning the Siroki Brijeg Brigade and the appointment of

14     Mr. Anto Sasor.  Mr. Marijan, could you give us a conclusion?

15        A.   Well, I believe that these documents confirm what I previously

16     said, and I believe that we've clarified the misunderstanding that we had

17     previously that was based on some mistakes in the punctuation and

18     spelling.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a question to

20     ask based on document 2D 00150, 9th of June, 1993.  It is a Defence

21     Department document from the human resource office.

22             I think at that this document is interesting on account of its

23     date, because in June a lot had already taken place.  It is on the ethnic

24     composition of the HVO.  You belonged to the Petar Kresimir 4th Battalion

25     with 3.756 soldiers, and a quarter of these soldiers were Muslims.  Do

Page 3678

 1     you confirm that 1 out of 4 soldiers in your battalion were Muslims,

 2     according to that table that you can see?

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, obviously I can talk

 4     about my own sector.  I arrived there on 4th of April, 1992, when the

 5     fighting started in nearby Kupres.  The first attack on Livno took place

 6     on the 13th of April, and it was stopped.

 7             I know that in the entire sector there were several companies.

 8     They were not called battalions at the time.  They were called battalions

 9     later on.  And as far as I know, there may have been one or two Muslims

10     at the time.  They joined the units later on in much greater numbers, in

11     about a month, in May, and because the SDA, the political party, insisted

12     on it, they were given a separate sector.  So most of them participated

13     in that battalion.  These were people coming from more or less the same

14     settlements, the same villages, and they chose to go and fight along with

15     their Croatian neighbours.

16             In my own platoon there were three Muslims out of some 30

17     soldiers altogether.  So I can confirm that there were three Muslims out

18     of us in 1992.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation][Previous translation

20     continues] ... that the -- is made up chiefly of Muslims.  The

21     151st Brigade is chiefly made up of Muslims.

22             According to the statement in June 1993, 16.19 per cent of the

23     military were Muslims.  Do you confirm this?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Several brigades are not mentioned

25     here, so the overall percentage may have been somewhat smaller, but

Page 3679

 1     otherwise, you can see what the percentage was yourselves.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The -- well, I'm reading from

 3     the document.  The battalion number 36.  Out of 280 soldiers, 116 are

 4     Muslims.  That's 41.42 per cent of the whole staff.  That's the

 5     convicted -- the battalion of the convicted.

 6             Ms. Nozica, you have another 13 minutes.  We'll have a break.

 7     You can resume after the break, and during the break you'll be able to

 8     target those remaining questions you want to ask, then we'll move on from

 9     there.  Are you in agreement?

10             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise.  I know this is not too

11     decent to speak after you, after you've already announced the break, but

12     I am forced to ask you to allow me a bit more time because of some

13     questions that were raised, and they distracted me from my line of

14     questioning.  I had to speak about some other topics.  But if you could

15     kindly allow me another 15 minutes in addition to the 13 you've

16     mentioned, I will complete this questioning.

17             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll confer with my colleagues

18     during the break.  It may be a problem, because if you had another 15

19     minutes, it means that the Prosecution should be granted another

20     15 minutes and this will never end, but we'll make a decision within the

21     Chamber.  A 20-minute break now.

22                           --- Recess taken at 12.28 p.m.

23                           --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have discussed your

25     question, and we have decided to grant 15 extra minutes, but please use

Page 3680

 1     your time as effectively as possible, because sometimes we have the

 2     impression that we're presented with a number of documents, whereas one

 3     or two would have been necessary.  It's not necessary to present a whole

 4     series of documents.  So please use your time as effectively as possible.

 5             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, and thank

 6     you for your warning.  I only showed a number of documents pertaining to

 7     the sensitive issue of who appointed commanders and who appointed

 8     lower-ranking officers because I felt that this can contribute to

 9     clarifying the Article 34 of the decree on the armed forces.

10             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're giving you 15 minutes.

11     This is not a bonus.  It's going to be taken out of your overall time

12     span.  So please do understand what I -- what I meant.

13             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.  I had

14     hoped that you were being generous and making an exception for this once,

15     but, all right, now I know how it's going to be.

16        Q.   Mr. Marijan, let us now briefly touch upon the topic of the

17     mobilisation of the armed forces.  That's item 1 -- 114 and the

18     following.

19             I would like now to return to the -- to Article 10 of the degree

20     of the armed forces, and that's why I would like to show here the remit

21     of the Department of Defence.  Please take a look at document 2D 1004.

22     It's somewhat removed.  So 2D 1004.  This is about Mr. Mate Boban's order

23     for mobilisation, dated 10 July 1992.  You can see it on your screen.

24     Can you comment briefly what this means and how mobilisation was

25     conducted according to this order or command.

Page 3681

 1        A.   Your Honours, mobilisation is an activity in which manpower with

 2     equipment and weapons is summoned to go to war.  This is the order of the

 3     Supreme Commander.  So mobilisation can be partial and general.  This

 4     reads general mobilisation, but from the text it follows that it is

 5     actual -- actually partial mobilisation because it is applied only to

 6     some municipalities and not all of Herceg-Bosna and thus by definition

 7     cannot be general.

 8        Q.   Mr. Marijan, in item 114 of your report you explain what the

 9     individual bodies, by which I mean the president -- the Presidency of the

10     HVO, the Department of Defence and the sectors within the Defence

11     Department do in the framework of mobilisation.

12             Let us now look at document 2D 1485.  That's the following

13     document behind -- or after this one.  It's an order signed by

14     Bruno Stojic, dated 18 June 1993.  It refers to the decision of the

15     cabinet of the HZ HB, dated 18 June, and it says for the additional

16     mobilisation of the municipalities, Mostar, Siroki Brijeg, Citluk,

17     et cetera.  What does this mean?  Was this mobilisation ordered by

18     Mr. Boban in force all the time and was it abided by?  And what

19     repercussions has it -- does it have for a later time when we speak about

20     mobilisation?

21        A.   Your Honours, let me first say that I have never seen the

22     definition of "mobilisation" in the HVO.  Mobilisation is a short

23     activity which goes on for three or four days at the most.  So this is

24     rather unclear to me.

25             Former Yugoslavia, which had explanations, had in its terminology

Page 3682

 1     a term which can be translated as "additional mobilisation."  This is --

 2     that's what I understand this to be.  And this, if I have understood

 3     well, you expect me to explain the circumstances and the reasons why this

 4     mobilisation was ordered.

 5        Q.   Your answer partly encompasses what I asked you, but since on the

 6     18th of June the HZ HB adopted this decision which is referred to by the

 7     head of the Department of Defence, and it enumerates the municipalities

 8     that are subject to the mobilisation order issued by the president of the

 9     HZ HB, Mr. Boban, in February, does it follow that it was not actually

10     implemented in full and that this is the reason why these subsequent

11     documents were adopted?

12        A.   Yes, we can conclude that the previous mobilisation was not

13     implemented fully, but this was the time when new brigades were being

14     established in the HVO, and again we can notice the precedence of the

15     municipalities over the community.

16        Q.   Could you please explain what you mean by that?

17        A.   All these municipalities listed here, they were on the -- on

18     their territories had several brigades.  Those were large brigades, and

19     at that time some reasons may have come into being - I haven't seen an

20     explanation - for the restructuring of these brigades.  So these large

21     brigades are broken up into small miniature brigades, as it were.

22             HVO at that time has a poor standing militarily.  A partial

23     approach prevails, and the strength of the -- or, rather, the number of

24     officers is blown out of proportion.  Some of these municipalities,

25     Grude, Citluk, Posusje, especially these three, do not have enough

Page 3683

 1     conscripts even to establish a decent brigade.

 2             I believe that this order should be understood against this

 3     background.  So the existing forces had to be additionally manned.

 4        Q.   Let us now go to document P 3038.

 5             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  I have a little question regarding document

 6     2D 01004.  In the introduction to this document signed by Mr. Boban, it

 7     is said that it is rendered pursuant to Article 25th of the Directive of

 8     Armed Forces.  What are the directive -- directives on armed forces?  Is

 9     that just another translation for decree, and if so, which decree?

10             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is clearly a

11     mistranslation.  This is not a directive.  A directive is something else.

12     This is a military -- a directive is a military order.

13             I know who wrote this, because this is a wrong reference.  Also,

14     Article 25 doesn't deal with mobilisation issues.

15             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  So in fact it is a misleading, senseless

16     reference.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You could draw that conclusion

18     based on the translation.

19             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Thank you.

20             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

21        Q.   I must return to this, Mr. Marijan.  I'm reading the Croatian

22     text.  "Pursuant to Article 25 of the decree on the armed forces of the

23     HZ HB."  Isn't that what it reads in the original?

24        A.   Yes.

25        Q.   And now answering to Judge Trechsel's question you said that

Page 3684

 1     Article 25 does not deal with mobilisation.  That is an obvious mistake.

 2     When we worked on this, you and I noticed that.  Whoever wrote this order

 3     should have referred to which decree.

 4             Do tell us, since this is the 10th of April, 1992, which was the

 5     first decree on the armed forces of the HZ HB?

 6        A.   The decree on the arm forces was practically adopted seven days

 7     earlier.

 8             JUDGE PRANDLER:  [Previous translation continues] ... at a loss.

 9     I have so many times asked you and some other colleagues as well, please

10     kindly stop between questions and answers.  Isn't it very clear?  Thank

11     you.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours.

13             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, but I

14     also follow the transcript.  I know that this can be a great problem, but

15     I see that this time the transcript is all right.

16        Q.   You said that this decree was passed in July, and this is

17     therefore a clear mistake, isn't it?

18        A.   Yes.

19        Q.   The document reference is P 289.  That is the decree which was

20     passed a few days before this order was issued.  So whoever wrote this

21     order made an obvious mistake in their reference to the article number.

22             We can continue then.  Please take us -- please let us take a

23     look at document P 3038.

24             You saw this document.  It is from October -- the 10th of July,

25     1992, signed by Mr. Stojic.

Page 3685

 1             So this reads:

 2             "In accordance with my powers and the new situation, the head of

 3     the Department of Defence, Bruno Stojic, issues the following order."

 4             We don't have much time.  You commented this in your report,

 5     because the indictment states that Mr. Stojic issued orders for

 6     mobilisation.

 7             Can you please briefly comment this order of his.

 8        A.   In accordance with the decree on the armed forces, the head of

 9     the Department of Defence in the -- in the case of mobilisation had to

10     implement the mobilisation.  This must be seen in connection with the

11     order issued on January 18th, which we saw a little while ago, and I see

12     this as an effort to implement that order due to the critical date.

13        Q.   The next order is P 3024, Mr. Stojic's order dated June 30th,

14     directed to HVO Posusje.  How do you interpret this?

15        A.   I believe that this order, too, clarifies the previous one.  In

16     the introductory part we see the reason stated, and this is -- this was

17     sent to the HVO Posusje because they were very slow to perform

18     mobilisation which had been ordered some 15 days earlier.

19        Q.   All right.  Let us draw to an end.  I promised that we would

20     return to Article 10 of the decree on the armed forces where we stopped

21     yesterday, and that is document P 5088.  I will have to ask you about

22     some details in your conclusion.  Please find Article 10.  So the

23     document number is correct in the transcript.  Article 10 of the decree

24     from October.

25             Here is a list of tasks of the Department of Defence.  It says

Page 3686

 1     that it engages in administrative and technical business in the area of

 2     defence and protection.

 3             Before these 24 items are listed, is the type of tasks mentioned?

 4        A.   In my opinion, yes.

 5        Q.   I will now go on to ask you about some items.  Have you ever

 6     seen, because I don't want to interpret this, have you ever seen evidence

 7     of the Department of Defence making a plan of the employment of the armed

 8     forces?

 9        A.   No.

10        Q.   Item 4.  Have you seen evidence of the department engaging in

11     business connected with the command and control of the armed forces?

12        A.   No.

13        Q.   Mr. Marijan, you said how, in your opinion, this decree was made

14     by compiling two pieces of legislation that were in existence in the

15     Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.  Please now take a look at item

16     16.  Does this corroborate what you were talking about, namely that

17     sometimes uncritical copying was in place?

18        A.   I see item 16.  This piece of legislation is a compilation of

19     federal legislation not legislation of the republic.

20             Item 16 is along the lines of the Marxist understanding of the

21     armed people, but there is also item 5 where you mention the territorial

22     sea.  This was taken over from the existing legislation.  BiH does have a

23     short stretch of coast but you can hardly call that territorial sea.

24        Q.   Please be precise.  You mentioned legislation.

25        A.   I mean the Law on the General National Defence from 1972.

Page 3687

 1        Q.   You made a number of conclusions, but I'll focus on one only, and

 2     that is item 131.  You mention that Mr. Stojic was a civilian and his

 3     position in the HVO was purely administrative as it was supposed to do.

 4     You referred to a transcript here, and you say that others also saw it

 5     the same way as you.  Let us please take a look at this document,

 6     P 06581.  It's the transcript from -- of the conversation between the

 7     president of the republic, Mr. Franjo Tudjman, dated 10 November 1993.

 8     This is an exhibit.  In the Croatian version the page reference is

 9     0132-3073, or if it is easier, the transcript reads 72, page 72.  And in

10     the English translation the page reference is the same.  At the bottom of

11     the page you can see 1D 570071.  Have you found it, Mr. Marijan?

12             Why did -- do you refer to this -- to these words of

13     President Tudjman?

14        A.   I can't find the binder.

15        Q.   Look at the screen.  It is binder three, but you can look at the

16     screen.  You don't have to look for the binder.  What I'm referring to is

17     on the screen.

18             I hope that the Judges have found it.

19             So the page reference at the translation is the same, 0132-3073.

20     If the translation cannot be found, I can put it on the ELMO so as not to

21     waste any time.

22             JUDGE TRECHSEL:  Could you give the page number in the

23     translation, please.

24             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, Your Honour, this

25     page was translated subsequently, so it doesn't have a page number, but

Page 3688

 1     the ERN number is the same as that of the original, but you will be able

 2     to see it on your screens.

 3        Q.   Mr. Marijan, please stick to the Croatian version.  Should it be

 4     necessary later on for reasons of time, I will precisely state where the

 5     translations can be found.

 6             Why do you refer to this, Mr. Marijan?

 7        A.   This is a transcript of a conversation between the president of

 8     the Croatian Community - or let us check when this was - the Croatian

 9     Community of Herceg-Bosna, that took place in November 1993, about the

10     organisation of the military, and the position of the minister of defence

11     is also discussed.  President Tudjman is one of the persons involved, and

12     he states his opinion about the duties of the minister of defence.  He

13     should have political authority.  He should not command the army.  That

14     is not within his remit.  But that person should have political

15     authority, of course with regard to the Croatian Community of

16     Herceg-Bosna.

17             This was a good indicator to me of the real position and a

18     comment of the position of Mr. Stojic until that time and what is

19     expected from his successor, the person who will be appointed later.  I

20     believe it was Perica Jukic.

21        Q.   Speaking about political authority, Mr. Tudjman goes on to

22     explain in paragraph 2 what he means by political authority.  Please read

23     it out.

24        A.   I quote:

25             "Therefore, that is more of a problem of political authority for

Page 3689

 1     the implementation of both mobilisation and organisation of supply for

 2     the army, cooperation of the government and the command."

 3        Q.   Thank you.  Finally, in your report you go on to say that

 4     Mr. Stojic did not take political decisions, and you referred to a

 5     document where he, on the 29th of April, requests the Presidency to do

 6     so, and you also mention that he took part in the activity of the HVO

 7     when the Presidency was called upon to take political decisions or

 8     establish a body that would assist in making political decisions.

 9             To the question of Judge Antonetti you replied that the head of

10     the Department of Defence and the president of the HZ HB were not in

11     the -- in the chain of command.  Were you also -- is the -- does it mean

12     that the Presidency and the HVO HZ HB took political decisions that were

13     important for the military component and decisions that are important for

14     the strategy of the armed forces?

15        A.   The documents I saw corroborate what you said.  I haven't seen

16     any document stating otherwise.  Firstly, I --

17             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the witness please be asked to repeat

18     this part of his answer?

19             THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

20             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Shall we ask the witness, please, to

21     repeat this.

22        Q.   If you could please repeat what you said starting with the chain

23     of command.

24        A.   Your Honours, I have not seen any documents on the basis of which

25     we could conclude that the HVO and the Department of Defence were within

Page 3690

 1     the chain of command of the armed forces.  There are documents, mostly

 2     minutes, from different sessions, regular and irregular sessions, or

 3     extraordinary sessions, in which the HVO requested from the president or

 4     Presidency of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna to establish

 5     different advisory bodies that would help make such decisions.  Here I'm

 6     talking primarily about the war cabinet and the military council.  These

 7     two bodies could be established only by the president of the

 8     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, Mr. Boban, and he did not establish

 9     them.

10             I can also add here yet another indicator of the fact that no

11     such political decision was made which would regulate the use of armed

12     forces, and this is the session of the Presidency of the

13     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna.  So the top leadership of the

14     Croatian Democratic Union, the political party, and the HVO which was

15     held in Citluk on April the 29th of 1993.  At this session Mr. Stojic

16     asked for a political decision, for a political decision for the units to

17     go to Central Bosnia, and I quoted this.

18        Q.   Mr. Marijan, I would just like to refer to this document.  This

19     is the document P 2142, and my final document.  One technical -- sorry,

20     one final question, one technical question, and then one substantial

21     question.

22             You said that you read the report by an expert witness who

23     testified before this Court, Mr. Pringle, entitled "Aspects of military

24     command and control."  This is document P 549.  I will quote from item 70

25     of this document.  These are the conclusions by Mr. Pringle in which he

Page 3691

 1     says:

 2             "Bearing this in mind," and this implies that the problem in

 3     establishing HVO was that this war was going on already.

 4             So he says:

 5             "Bearing this in mind, most of the documents shown to me by the

 6     Prosecution indicates in my mind that there was a system of authority

 7     with the military which responded to the civilian authority so that

 8     orders and directives were sent through the chain of command from the

 9     Presidency through the Department of Defence all the way down to the

10     operational commands."

11             Given that our time is up, could you briefly comment on this

12     conclusion made by Mr. Pringle.

13        A.   Mr. Pringle has not proven this statement of his.  In the

14     attachment to his report, I could not see any documents that would verify

15     this.  The documents on which he based his report, as far as I can

16     remember, and I believe I remember this well, were different circular

17     letters, instructions and similar documents.  So that is the type of

18     document used for the operational work of different units.  However,

19     military orders and a communication between the president of the

20     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and head of the Department of Defence,

21     in that I have never seen any document of this type.

22        Q.   Thank you.  My final question, Mr. Marijan:  Do you -- do you

23     stand by your report in its entirety apart from the change that you

24     already made under item 95?  I'm trying to speed this up, and that's why

25     I made this mistake in the number.

Page 3692

 1        A.   That was item 102.

 2        Q.   So except for that item 102, do you stand by your report in its

 3     entirety?

 4        A.   Yes, I do.

 5        Q.   Thank you very much, Mr. Marijan.

 6             MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with this I will

 7     conclude my direct examination.  Thank you.

 8             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As a follow-on to Ms. Nozica's

 9     question, document P 066581, I'd like to ask a question.  This document

10     is a report of conversations between Mr. Tudjman and representatives of

11     Herceg-Bosna, took place at 9.30 in the presidential palace.

12     Attendees -- among the attendees were Mr. Boban and Mr. Prlic.  Have you

13     reviewed your document when drafting your report?  Have you reviewed this

14     document?

15             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter correction:  This document when

16     drafting your report.

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I read this document in its

18     entirety, but quite some time ago, so I'm not really sure what your point

19     is at this moment, Your Honour.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have read it, so if you've

21     read it, you know all about it.  This document starts off with a question

22     of Mr. Tudjman to Mr. Boban, asking him to tell him what happened with

23     Stoltenberg and the Serbs.  There are a few things that are irrelevant or

24     at least not directly relevant.  Then at some stage the topic is brought

25     up.  It's page 8 in the English version.  All of a sudden

Page 3693

 1     President Tudjman switches to another topic, and asks the question,

 2     "Who's Ivica Rajic?"  So he asks the question -- so he asks a question,

 3     so that means that he must have some information.  And Mr. Mate Boban

 4     provides answers, says that he's a soldier, et cetera, et cetera.

 5             Then President Tudjman, who I suppose had been informed by his

 6     own chain of command through his intelligence services, talks about

 7     Stupni Do, and Mate Boban goes on to provide information.

 8             At page 11, President Tudjman prepares the report for the

 9     international press and the press agencies on this Stupni Do and Rajic

10     case, and it seems perfectly au fait with quite a lot of aspects.  And

11     Mr. Granic will take the floor, et cetera.  But although Mr. Prlic is

12     attending, he never takes the floor on this.  This is something I can

13     see.

14             Now, you have reviewed this document.  You've gone through the

15     archive.  You've drafted a report, and you've looked into the chain of

16     command and the position of the Defence Minister, Mr. Stojic, who was not

17     attending, but the president of the HVO, Mr. Prlic, was attending.

18             Now, how about the fact that Mr. Prlic is remaining silent?

19     Could that lead us to believe that in the chain of command we've been

20     talking about the whole day had no information on this whatsoever.

21             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as you mentioned

22     Mr. Rajic, I immediately realised what the point was.  In my mind, first

23     of all, this was the president of the Croatian -- the president of the

24     Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was present, and he was the

25     Commander-in-Chief.  So it is only logical that President Tudjman

Page 3694

 1     discussed this with him because Rajic was a part of the military.  I

 2     believe that Mr. Prlic did not step in because this was not within his

 3     remit.  This was the part that Mr. Boban was in charge of.

 4             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So according to you, the fact

 5     that Mr. Prlic said nothing demonstrates that the Supreme Commander of

 6     the armed forces is Mr. Mate Boban and this is his field of competence.

 7     This is what you're stating.  This is not a trap.  This question is not a

 8     trap.  I'm just seeking information, so don't think and say the Judge is

 9     trying to set a trap.  I'm not trying to set traps.  I'm just seeking

10     information, and when I have witnesses, I like to ask them questions.

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I never thought you

12     were setting me a trap.  I listened carefully to what you were saying.

13             What you said in your previous question, I believe, truly

14     reflects in the fact -- reflects the fact that Mr. Prlic did not

15     intervene in this because this was not his chain of command.  He did not

16     belong to this.  Stupni Do also had very negative political significance,

17     and this was also under the remit of Mr. Boban.  He was not only the

18     military chief but also the highest political person, and Mr. Prlic at

19     the time was a representative of the civilian authorities.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  In order to be

21     exhaustive, I'd like to refer to page 21 of this very text in the English

22     version.  The question of the Mostar bridge and the destruction of the

23     Mostar bridge will be touched upon.  Mate Boban will be providing

24     information, and Mr. Prlic takes the floor.  He's going to use a

25     technical term, a clarification.  He says that the line is at 300 metres,

Page 3695

 1     et cetera.  One may think that Mr. Prlic has some information on military

 2     aspects.  I'm not saying that it is the fact that the bridge was

 3     destroyed at the time because everyone knows that and he's supposed to

 4     know that as well.  But he seems to be informed on military issues.  This

 5     is page 21 in the English version.  And Mr. Prlic is providing a

 6     technical clarification, making a technical point.

 7             So how do you analyse this?  It is just after the -- after

 8     Mr. Jukic took the floor.  There is a -- Mr. Tudjman says, "Between us

 9     the -- has the destruction some sense?"  Boban answers, Jukic also takes

10     the floor, and Mr. Prlic also says something.  This is here.  And then

11     they move on to something else.

12             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From what I've seen, his -- this

13     very brief sentence by Mr. Prlic, I can only conclude, if this was true,

14     that the line was 300 metres away from the bridge.  So this would bring

15     us to the conclusion that the bridge was controlled by the BiH army.  If

16     the line was that close, then this may be one example which would lead us

17     to the conclusion that Mr. Prlic knew where the front-lines were, but I

18     don't know where the seat of the HVO was at that time.  Was it in Mostar?

19     But the only conclusion I can make is that in this particular territory

20     Mr. Prlic was aware of the positions of the front-lines.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  Thank you.  I think

22     that we will not start the cross-examination by the other counsels.

23     Summarising, the other counsels have three hours, and Ms. Alaburic has an

24     hour and 30 minutes.  Obviously we shall not finish this week.  It seems

25     evident, because three hours of cross-examination plus objections,

Page 3696

 1     et cetera, that will take at least the whole of Wednesday.  The

 2     Prosecutor will cross-examine on Thursday.  Well, you never know.

 3     Perhaps by chance the Prosecutor will not use up all the four hours, and

 4     if that's the case we may finish on Thursday, but everything will depend

 5     on the Prosecution.  Perhaps Mr. Bos at this stage could tell us.

 6             What is your current state of mind?  Four hours, less, you don't

 7     know?

 8             MR. BOS:  Your Honours, I will need the four hours that you have

 9     given me.

10             MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this may be a good

11     time for practical reasons to say that tomorrow for formal reasons I will

12     ask you to allow Mr. Praljak to ask some questions to this witness.

13     These will be very few, very brief questions.  Most of the time will be

14     given to the Defence of Mr. Petkovic.  The several questions are in line

15     with the very important decisions -- decision from April of last year.

16     They refer to the situation in which he himself was involved, which is

17     clear from this witness statement.  These will be some very brief issues

18     because we would like to give Madam Alaburic as much time as possible.

19             I wanted to make this motion now in order to save us time for

20     procedural issues tomorrow.

21             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as I'm concerned, there

22     is no problem, but I'd like to ask my colleagues.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As long as Mr. -- because

25     Mr. Praljak's involved he will be asking the questions, especially

Page 3697

 1     because among the documents I saw that some were signed by Mr. Praljak,

 2     so this is further reason for him to do the questioning.  No problem with

 3     that.

 4             Incidentally, I wanted to say the following.  Witness, make the

 5     necessary arrangements so that you stay until Monday, because we will

 6     have to keep you until Monday.

 7             Mr. Stringer.

 8             MR. STRINGER:  Mr. President and Your Honours, I've been informed

 9     that I need to inform the Trial Chamber that this morning throughout the

10     proceedings the Prosecution has been submitting to the Registrar the --

11     our IC documents responding to the various exhibits that have been

12     tendered by the Defence teams in respect of the previous witness,

13     Mr. Cvikl.  I think technically it was a little bit late because it

14     didn't happen before the trial started this morning, but because the

15     Defence documents came in later in the day yesterday and we were in

16     court, in the evening it was difficult for us to go through those and to

17     prepare our response and have it ready for filing by 9.00.  So all of

18     those have been filed, but I needed to indicate that to the

19     Trial Chamber.

20             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.  An IC number needs

21     to be given.  Mr. Registrar.

22             THE REGISTRAR:  Thank you, Your Honour.  The Prosecution has

23     submitted his objections to documents tendered through Witness

24     Milan Cvikl by 1D, 2D and 3D.  These objections shall be given Exhibit

25     numbers IC 00901, IC 00902, and IC 00903, respectively.  Thank you,

Page 3698

 1     Your Honours.

 2             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.  Yes, witness.

 3             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a question or,

 4     actually, I have something to ask given that I will stay here for a

 5     period longer than expected.  Yesterday I was given an information that

 6     here at the secretariat of the ICTY, a person works who I studied with

 7     whom I haven't seen for some 15 or 16 years.  Would I be breaking any

 8     rules if I was to have a coffee with this person?

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I suppose it is a young lady,

10     or is it a boy?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is a lady.

12             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll ask my colleagues.

13                           [Trial Chamber confers]

14             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Where does she work, in which

15     department?  Because if she works for the Prosecution, there is a

16     problem.  Where does she work?

17             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I know, she works for the

18     secretariat, neither for the Defence nor for the Prosecution.

19             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] She works for the Registry.

20     There's no problem.  You can have a cup of coffee with her.  She will be

21     very glad to see you.

22             I wanted to tell Mr. Registrar that he should ask the technicians

23     to fix the screen because I have some squares on my screen.  It is

24     because of Judge Prandler who dropped a file on the computer, and it no

25     longer works because of that, and since there's a hearing this afternoon,

Page 3699

 1     it needs to be fixed.

 2             Mr. Khan.

 3             MR. KHAN:  Mr. President, just one matter.  I just thought it may

 4     be prudent to inform the witness that Your Honours do have the discretion

 5     to order redactions.  Of course his wife is back home.

 6             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Is this necessary, sir, or not?

 7     It's up to you.

 8             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My intentions are very honourable.

 9             JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right.  So I wish you all a

10     good day, and we'll be seeing each other tomorrow at 9.00.

11                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,

12                           to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 21st day

13                           of January, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.