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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 in wartime he pulled all the strings.
2 In the late 1980s in Yugoslavia
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 that decision.
25 Let me also mention that in May 1993, a new decision was drawn up
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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
6 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I'm talking about the decree from
7 July the 3rd, 1992
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.
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
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
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
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
1 paragraph which may be of paramount importance. Read it out slowly,
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.
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
24 This is what it should be -- should read, and there is enough
25 evidence for that in practice.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
1 Staff of the Defence Department.
2 Q. Please be as precise as possible.
3 A. Item III
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 Q. Furthermore, here we see how the appointments are made for heads
1 of sectors of general affairs, and now we can move to the health service
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
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
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
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
1 Defence, dated 20th of May, 1993. This is the next decision in your
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
11 please. We're talking about a decision, but we don't have an exhibit
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
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
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
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
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.
1 Q. When was the assistant for security appointed?
2 A. The assistant for security was appointed by the HVO in October of
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
25 A. Well, I said already that at the time when I was in Livno, I had
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
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
25 intended for the defence of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna? On
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
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
12 the war, Croatia
13 the main source of revenue, was totally destroyed, and the only financial
14 source which allowed Croatia
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
23 Q. In item 96 you mention the board. You saw some minutes from its
25 A. Yes, mostly from 1992 and from early 1993.
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
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
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?
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
1 Q. Their task would also be to ensure the strengthening of the first
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 Can you comment briefly what this means and how mobilisation was
25 conducted according to this order or command.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
1 A. That was item 102.
2 Q. So except for that item 102, do you stand by your report in its
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
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
8 MR. BOS
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
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
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
25 numbers IC 00901, IC 00902, and IC 00903, respectively. Thank you,
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,
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.
--- 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.