1 Thursday, 22 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.02 a.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, could you please
7 call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
9 everyone in and around the courtroom.
10 This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic
11 et al.
12 Thank you, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
14 This is Thursday, January the 29th [as interpreted], 2009. I
15 would like to welcome the witness, to greet the accused, the counsels,
16 and all the members of the OTP, as well as all those assisting us in the
18 Yesterday, I told you that in the afternoon, the Chamber would
19 file its decision on the Prosecution's motion to obtain an adequate
20 summary of Slobodan Bozic's statement. This is statement -- the decision
21 could not be recorded. I'm going to read it out to you, at least the
22 operative part.
23 In the light of this in compliance with Articles 64 and 65 ter
24 (G) of the Rules, grants the motion, partially grants the supplementary
25 motion, orders the Stojic Defence to complement the 65 ter summary of
1 Witness Slobodan Bozic, as explained here above, at the latest by January
2 23rd, 2009; stays its decision on the part of the motion pertaining to
3 the 65 ter summary of Stijepo Buljon [phoen], of the witness Stijepo
4 Buljon and rejects for the remainder the supplementary motion. So, in a
5 word, in a nutshell, the Stojic Defence is asked to complement the
6 summary in the way described in the recitals, but you will see this
7 because this decision will be filed very shortly. So, anyhow, the
8 witness is going to come next week.
9 Let us move on, and I now give the floor to Ms. Alaburic, who has
10 only a few minutes left. I do not know exactly how many, but you have
11 very few minutes left. The Registrar is going to tell me how many
12 minutes you have left.
13 The floor is yours, Ms. Alaburic.
14 MR. KHAN: Mr. President, with your indulgence, just one moment.
15 It's not clear from the transcript, and I didn't catch it in the
16 translation, the date by which the Defence for Mr. Stojic is ordered to
17 supplement, in accordance with your oral decision, the statement.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] 23rd of January, at the latest.
19 Yes, sorry, I failed to notice that it hadn't been written in the
21 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good morning to you,
22 and good morning to you, Mr. Marijan and everybody else in the courtroom.
23 According to our records and as far as we have been told by the
24 Registry, I have 26 more minutes to go.
25 WITNESS: DAVOR MARIJAN [Resumed]
1 [The witness answered through interpreter]
2 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic: [Continued]
3 Q. So, Mr. Marijan, we're going to start with some clarifications
4 about what you said in examination-in-chief. The first --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, let's check this,
6 because there was -- the legal officer was a bit puzzled, but let's move
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. [Previous translation continued] ... that I'd like to question
10 you about is the transcript of the conversation between President Tudjman
11 and the representatives of Herceg-Bosna, held on the 10th of November,
12 1993, and it is document P 6581.
13 The Defence of Bruno Stojic, Mr. Marijan, asked you about a
14 portion of that transcript which is to be found on pages, in the Croatian
15 version, 0132-3063 -- I apologise, I gave the wrong page. Let me repeat
16 the correct page. 0132-3073, and in the English version, it is
17 page 1D 570071 -- 570071.
18 Mr. Marijan, you needn't bother to look for the document. You
19 can find it on the screen, and I'm going to talk to you about just one --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, according to the
21 Registrar, you have another six minutes and not twenty-six, unless you
22 have received some time from Mr. Coric's Defence.
23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we said yesterday and
24 the day before that General Praljak will cede some of his time to me.
25 General Praljak used 12 minutes, so the 18 minutes that belonged to the
1 Praljak Defence has now been placed at the disposal of the Petkovic
2 Defence, which makes 26 minutes altogether.
3 Q. So if we can go back to the document, the document is otherwise
4 to be found in the Stojic Defence binder. The Stojic Defence asked you a
5 question about a statement made by President Tudjman, and I'm going to
6 quote your words recorded on transcript page 74 on Tuesday, line 9, to
7 the effect that the minister of the defence will not be in command of the
8 army -- will not command the army. You can look at that on the screen,
9 and you'll see what was said. And your comment was that President
10 Tudjman was aware of the authorities of the minister of defence in
11 Herceg-Bosna and that the statement made was correct.
12 Have I understood you correctly?
13 A. Well, good morning, Your Honours. Yes, you did understand me
14 correctly, Madam.
15 Q. Now I'd like you to read out the beginning of that statement made
16 by President Tudjman, word by word.
17 A. "Army, he will not command the army directly ..."
18 Q. Very well. Now, tell me, if we were to compare what you say and
19 what you said during the examination-in-chief, it follows that in-chief,
20 you left out the word "directly" and that you didn't comment the
21 statement made by President Tudjman to the effect that he will not
22 command the army directly, and from which it would be logical to conclude
23 that he can command indirectly.
24 Now, tell me, the fact that you left out the word "directly," may
25 we have your comments on that? How do you comment that?
1 A. Well, Your Honours, I'm not quite sure -- are you quite sure that
2 I quoted this? Because I was asked to comment, and that's what I did, I
4 Q. But you didn't comment on the word "directly." In your comment,
5 you left out the word "directly," so I'm asking you now, why did you
6 leave the word "directly" out?
7 A. What you read out, you said that I said "minister," so it wasn't
8 an actual quotation. You said that I said that the minister would not,
9 but -- so it's not a quotation, it's my comment.
10 Q. All right. Now I'm asking you why, in your comment, you left out
11 the word "directly."
12 A. Well, I don't know why I left it out. All I can say is, well,
13 command of the army becomes -- is direct, so I don't see why -- what you
14 mean when you say "indirect," "indirectly."
15 Q. I'm just interested in your understanding of certain statements,
16 and whether you leave out a concept or word or not, we're going to be
17 able to weigh out -- or, rather, Their Honours will be able to weigh the
18 worth of your statements. So I'd like to clear this up.
19 This word "directly," you, as an expert witness of the Stojic
20 Defence, do you consider this word "directly" to be relevant or not?
21 A. I think that it is just irrelevant here in this context,
22 completely irrelevant.
23 Q. All right, fine. I'd like to ask you to explain, because I
24 consider it's relevant for the full understanding of your testimony if
25 you were to do so, and it has to do with the following: Your report ends
1 by looking at a meeting of the political leadership of the HZ-HB of the
2 29th of April, 1993 at which Bruno Stojic asked that a political decision
3 be made about sending military units to Central Bosnia; is that right?
4 A. That is right, yes.
5 Q. And then you ended with the topic of political decision-making
6 about sending military units to Central Bosnia; do I remember that
8 A. I think I said what he called for, what he was asking.
9 Q. All right. Now, tell me, do you happen to remember whether at
10 that particular meeting of the 29th of April, 1993, somebody was present
11 from the Main Staff of the HVO, perhaps?
12 A. I don't remember.
13 Q. In your report, you claim that Bruno Stojic performed
14 administrative work, administrative business, within the sphere of
15 defence; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Can you explain how come Bruno Stojic, at that meeting of the
18 29th of April, 1993, asked that a political decision be taken about
19 sending military units to Central Bosnia if his remit was administrative
20 business within the frameworks of defence?
21 A. Well, if you looked -- well, you insisted upon item 9 yesterday.
22 You insisted upon that a great deal, so -- of the decision on the basis
23 of or the organisational structure of the Defence Department, then you
24 would have seen there that it says that Mr. Stojic, along with his
25 administrative work, that administrative work includes parts related to
1 the armed forces, things related to the armed forces.
2 Q. Does that mean that those administrative affairs include affairs
3 like sending the army to a certain part of Herceg-Bosna in order to
4 engage in combat?
5 A. No, it doesn't, it doesn't include that. That does not come
6 within his remit.
7 Q. Can you explain how, then, Bruno Stojic, at this meeting, raised
8 that question and asked that a political decision be made in that regard?
9 A. Well, the question of a political decision regarding the army
10 ultimately raises the question of organisation and reinforcement to that
11 army, which means that Mr. Stojic could, when it came to material,
12 security, and a series of other affairs, he could weigh up the situation
13 and then could raise a question of that nature.
14 Q. Tell us, please, with respect to carrying out these
15 administrative affairs, would it be necessary to seek for a political
16 decision or does doing that work, does it imply all this when the army
17 moves to Central Bosnia?
18 A. Well, if the army moves, advances, then that would imply what you
19 just said.
20 Q. All right. But that doesn't call for a political decision, if
21 all this is implied, so do you consider that this request at this
22 political meeting by Bruno Stojic merits additional comment to what you
23 said or not?
24 A. No, I don't think so.
25 Q. All right, fine. Now, can we go back to where we left off
1 yesterday, and we left off looking at the diagrams of the military
2 police. And on the subject of the military police, a brief question.
3 Now, military affairs came under the remit of the head of the Defence
4 Department; isn't that right?
5 A. Yes, that's precisely it.
6 Q. All right, fine. Now, tell me, please, if a unit of the military
7 police were to be resubordinated to the commander of some HVO unit in
8 order to engage in combat, then during the time for which it was
9 resubordinated, that military police unit would be responsible to the
10 commander of the HVO; isn't that right?
11 A. Yes, the unit would be responsible to the commander to whom it
12 was resubordinated.
13 Q. And that lasts for as long as the resubordination time lasts;
15 A. Yes, that's the how it should be.
16 Q. All right. Fine. Now, Mr. Marijan, tell me this: What we saw
17 about the areas of responsibilities, this line, this chain of
18 responsibility, can we see it in all the reports on the work of the
19 Defence Department and in the programmes or proposals for programmes of
20 work of the Defence Department; would that be true?
21 A. Could you be a bit clearer? I'm not sure I understand you.
22 Q. I'll refer you back to your report, where you say that the report
23 on the work of the Main Staff included combat operations and that that is
24 why it was set apart from the Defence Department report and was
25 accessible to the office of the HZ-HB. Is that what you noted in your
2 A. Quite certainly, I did not.
3 Q. I'm sure you did.
4 A. No, I didn't, and I'm sure I didn't, Madam. Would you like to
5 read that portion out?
6 Q. I will read it out, but I'll do that in due course. But now I'd
7 like to go on with this: The report on the work of the Defence
8 Department included reports on the work of each of the mentioned sectors;
9 isn't that right?
10 A. Yes, that is right, so that is what I said. It's not a matter of
11 the fact that the Main Staff reported on combat, but that the fact that
12 the Main Staff is a component part of the Defence Department, and
13 Mr. Stojic didn't have full authority over that. So that's where the
14 problem lies. And you said it a little differently.
15 Q. It's not a problem. It's all very simple.
16 A. Well, it seems that you think it's very simple.
17 Q. Would you explain what you mean, that it's simple for me, that
18 things are going quite simply for me?
19 A. Well, you confused me yesterday at one point.
20 Q. Just one moment, Mr. Marijan. Before we move on, with Their
21 Honours' permission, because I don't have much time, would you tell us
22 here and now whether during the yesterday's day you discussed yesterday's
23 testimony in this courtroom with anyone, with anybody whatsoever,
24 including telephone conversations?
25 A. I just talked to my wife about my child.
1 Q. And your wife, did she discuss this with anyone, the contents of
2 your testimony in this courtroom with anybody else?
3 A. My conversation with my wife was as follows: I said I had a
4 difficult day, and that was it. And, of course, I was interested in how
5 my family was doing. And I can tell you very frankly and sincerely that
6 I didn't discuss it with anyone, but I assume I had the right to think
7 about these things.
8 Q. Yes, you do have the right to think about things, but we're not
9 going to take my time up with you presenting what you were thinking
10 about. You can do that on some other occasion.
11 And now I'd like to ask you to continue my cross-examination, and
12 I'd like you to clear up the following: In your report, you noted --
13 well, I owe you an explanation, in actual fact. The portion of your
14 report in which you mention a definition of the Defence Department in the
15 broadest sense, which would include the HVO units and the operative
16 zones, and you weren't able to remember that that was contained in your
17 report, so I'd like to ask you now and remind you now that it is --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, Ms. Alaburic, I'd
19 like to dwell on the military police issue. I'd like to ask specific
21 Witness, when you were a member of this brigade, the name of
22 which has already been mentioned, did you ever, in combat activities,
23 happen to be present in the field with members of the military police?
24 Did that happen to you or not?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was in the field, Your Honour,
1 only with the members of the military police of our brigade, which was
2 part of our brigade by establishment. There were no outside units.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. So you were with members
4 of the brigade. In those military operations, did the members of the
5 military police of the brigade also fight the enemy? Did they fire-fight
6 back, did they actually participate in the military activity?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I am not aware of any
8 involvement of the military police in any specific case. It was a small
9 unit in Livno that went out into the field, and that smaller unit -- that
10 smaller detail was providing security to the commander or, rather, to the
11 command post to the brigade.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. I have no further
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Marijan, you did not write that the report on the work of the
16 Main Staff included a report on combat activity and that it was available
17 to the members of the Cabinet of the President of HZ-HB. It was in
18 paragraph 13 of your report, and since you are not aware of the contents
19 of your report, I have to ask you if you really authored this report.
20 A. Of course I did.
21 Q. I don't want any further comments, Mr. Marijan. I'd like to deal
22 with item 87 now in your report.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, remain calm. One
24 needs to be cool in life, especially here. So please answer the
25 questions and everything will be fine.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have
2 certain problems at home, and it's taking its toll.
3 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Mr. Marijan, I think I was very delicate in my approach, and if I
5 could have learned a bit more from Mr. Karnavas, I think it would have
6 helped me.
7 A. I don't think Mr. Karnavas was very delicate.
8 Q. Let's talk about the point in your report when you talk about the
9 signing of documents. It's P745, paragraph 87, where you present the
10 conclusion based on the enactment and the signing of documents, that all
11 chiefs of units, brigades, and other professional units were not within
12 the jurisdiction of the head of the Defence Department.
13 A. This document demonstrates relationships within the Defence
15 Q. Mr. Marijan, I'm sorry, I am asking questions here. I'm just
16 asking you, is it true that you noted this in paragraph 87?
17 A. Yes, yes, that's true. It's a general indicator of
19 Q. Tell me, have you ever in your life seen a decision of the
20 civilian HVO pursuant to which this decision on signing the documents of
21 the Defence Department was taken?
22 A. No, I have not.
23 Q. Look now at document 4D 1279. It's in the third section, third
24 batch of my documents. It's marked "Other Documents."
25 While you are searching, I'll say that it was a decision taken by
1 the HVO at its session of the 14th of October, 1992. It's called "The
2 Decision on the Signing of Documents of the HVO of HZ-HB." In this
3 decision, which was signed by Jadranko Prlic, as you can see, but the
4 decision was taken by the collective body of the HVO, and that's
5 something that Mr. Karnavas asked you about, in Article 2 of this
6 decision it says that the Defence Department got the number 02?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Look at Article 4, where it says that officials of the Defence
9 Department -- can we -- by their respective decisions, the heads of
10 departments shall determine the members to be assigned to the departments
11 on the internal divisions?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. What are these heads of departments?
14 A. It's the security sector that gets a number, parts of the
15 civilian sector which are not divided into administrations, the
16 healthcare sector, and the sector for replenishment and supply, and the
17 main sector.
18 Q. Tell me about brigades and operation zones and units. These are
19 not sub-units of the Defence Department?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Would it be logical, then, for the these operation zones,
22 brigades and professional and other units, do not get a signature number,
23 according to this decision?
24 A. Yes, that's logical concerning these units.
25 Q. Let's go back to your conclusion from paragraph 87. Based on
1 this decision made by Bruno Stojic, according to which the signature
2 numbers are given only to sub-departments, not brigades and zones,
3 et cetera, you conclude that only the head of the department was under
4 the jurisdiction of the head of the Defence Department. Would you now
5 change this conclusion?
6 A. Yes, but only the final part, because the upper part is still
8 Q. You mean everyone below the chief?
9 A. Yes. In fact, I made a conclusion that doesn't hold water.
10 Q. My colleague tells me that my question was not correctly
11 recorded, so I'll repeat it.
12 Would you now, after seeing this decision of the HVO, this
13 fundamental decision, would you change now your paragraph 87 conclusion,
14 where it says that everything below the chief was not in the jurisdiction
15 of the head of the Defence Department because operation zones, brigades
16 and other units did not get their signature numbers as sub-units of the
17 Defence Department?
18 A. This article was written to show the level up to which the head
19 of department communicates in the Main Staff. Generally speaking, these
20 units were not within his jurisdiction.
21 Q. They were not in his jurisdiction or they were not parts of the
22 organisation of the Defence Department?
23 A. Along their own line, which we haven't clarified yet, Stojic has
24 the right to communicate with them, and you have shown me a lot of
25 documents to that effect. But he did not --
1 Q. But, look, even administrative affairs between Bruno Stojic and
2 some brigade, let's say, include communication that would call for the
3 signing of documents?
4 A. That's true, but that's something that the Main Staff decides.
5 Q. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. I think things are
6 very clear. Since I do not have much time and I want to go through a
7 number of other topics with you, let us move on.
8 In your report, in several places you claim that the Defence
9 Department was established on the 3rd of July, 1992, by virtue of a
10 Decree on the Armed Forces.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have three minutes
13 Witness, you spoke quickly, and in the translation that received,
14 that I saw and heard, you said that the Main Staff had the codes. At
15 least I heard that. What did you mean? What did you mean by that?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In fact, it's the transmission
17 number, a reference number. In this correspondence, in the registers of
18 correspondence, every institution has its own number, its reference
19 number. The Main Staff assigns number to lower units. They start with
20 00 -- I can't remember exactly, but in the reference number of the
21 document, you can find one part of the number which tells you exactly who
22 created it, regardless of who signed it. So it can contain several
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please give an example.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Specifically, let's take an example
1 that I came across in my unit. The first part of the reference number is
2 the number of the military post box where I was, 1736. Then it goes
3 dash, then the number of the sector to which I belonged. That's
4 political affairs. Let's say it was 08. And if I drafted the document,
5 "08" would be followed by a stroke or a slash, and then would follow my
6 number, "03," and then the general sequential number in our register,
7 including the year the document was created.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So all of the documents should
9 have these references?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if the records were kept
11 properly, yes. I did not look at the keeping of files and documents
12 elsewhere, but I did look at the HVO, and I found very few units that
13 strictly applied the instruction on the keeping of records.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Was the situation in Herceg-Bosna so well ordered and peaceful
17 that there was no chance for a document to come into or leave an
18 institution without being properly recorded?
19 A. The possibility that some things were not recorded always exists.
20 Q. And you would say that otherwise there was total order, office
21 management was perfect, registers of correspondence were kept perfectly?
22 A. I told you I did not supervise the archiving performed by the
23 HVO. I looked at the archives of the HVO after the war.
24 Q. I'm asking about your general knowledge, as a historian, about
25 the situation in Herceg-Bosna, because some believe that chaos was so
1 complete that it's absolutely out of the question that office management
2 and record-keeping was proper.
3 A. It certainly wasn't.
4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I wanted the witness to clarify
5 why he insists repeatedly that the Defence Department was established in
6 July and that the system of defence was established when Bruno Stojic was
7 appointed to his position. I need five minutes for that, Your Honours,
8 and I kindly ask you to grant me these five minutes to deal with this.
9 Let me recall that my colleague Ms. Nozica did get additional
10 time, and so did my learned friend Mr. Karnavas.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to consult with my
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have used all of your time,
15 the allotted time, and since the Chamber can grant additional time, we
16 give you an additional five minutes. In five minutes, you can have a lot
17 of things said by the witness. Take example from myself.
18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
19 Q. Sir, Mr. Marijan, in several places you claim that the Defence
20 Department was established on the 3rd of July, 1992, according to the
21 Decree on the Armed Forces; is that correct?
22 A. Yes. I think -- let me not look for the specific reference
23 now -- it was established based on the statutory decision on the basics
24 of the organisation on the 3rd of -- taken in May.
25 Q. So it's true that it was established along with other organs on
1 the 15th of May, 1992?
2 A. Yes, it is mentioned in the decision.
3 Q. If I understood correctly, it was only in July with the
4 appointment of the head of the Defence Department that the organisation
5 of the Defence Department really begins, people are being appointed, and
6 certain conclusions are made?
7 A. Yes. After the 3rd of July, the Defence Department gradually
8 gets organised.
9 Q. Was the system of the Defence Department already defined in July,
10 and Bruno Stojic was appointed to an already-defined organ or body, or
11 was it just in the process of getting organised?
12 A. It was in April, with the start of the war in Bosnia, that the
13 defence system started to get organised.
14 Q. Well, if I understand you correctly, the contours did exist, but
15 the system was still being built up.
16 A. Yes, the system was still being built up.
17 Q. All right. Now, in my set of documents, and I know you're
18 familiar with them also - we needn't waste time on them - but, anyway, in
19 the proposal for the programme of the Defence Department, which is
20 document P 646, dated the 24th of October, 1992, that document speaks
21 about the fact that the activities of the Main Staff, as part of the
22 Defence Department, will be geared towards the constitution of brigades,
23 the setting up of brigades, and their commands, and that is borne out,
24 Mr. Marijan -- or that bears out your theory that the system was still a
25 burgeoning one, under construction?
1 A. Yes. Perhaps they were on to the second phase.
2 Q. Now, in document P 128, which is a report on the work -- on work
3 for 1992, at the end of the fifth page and the beginning of page 6, it
4 says, in both versions, Croatian and B/C/S, that -- and English, that
5 after the decision of the 17th of October, 1992, on joining all the
6 Croatian communities in BH into the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,
7 that all the armed units of the HVO came under the united command of the
8 Main Staff. That assertion on the establishment of a united command in
9 mid-October 1992, does that confirm this theory that the system of
10 defence in 1992 was just beginning to be built up?
11 A. Well, the system was being built up, and this relates to the
12 Operative Zone of Bosanska Posavina, and only then did it come within the
13 composition of the Main Staff or, rather, the HVO.
14 Q. All right. Now, document P 661, which is a decision by
15 Mate Boban on the appointment of commanders of the operative zones, dated
16 the 28th of October, 1992. Can we conclude, therefore, that it was in
17 October and during 1992 that the appointments of commanders was an
18 ongoing process to the operative zones and other units of the HVO; is
19 that right?
20 A. Yes, that is right. The three men, gentlemen, were appointed
21 because two operative zones had been functioning previously without
22 commanders having been appointed.
23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Do I still have one more minute at
24 my disposal, with your indulgence, Your Honours? No, I don't? Okay.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have one minute left.
1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I have to complete my
2 cross-examination, Mr. Marijan, unfortunately. Ah, I have been given a
3 minute, right. I have one extra minute.
4 Q. Now, in item 8 of your report, that is to say, at the very
5 beginning, you speak about an introductory presentation by my client,
6 Mr. Petkovic. The document is P 279, an introductory speech by my
7 client, Mr. Petkovic. We handed this out to everybody this morning.
8 And, Mr. Marijan, you say that with that speech, the defence priorities
9 of Herceg-Bosna were defined, do you remember that, in paragraph 8 of
10 your report?
11 A. Yes, it sets out the defence priorities. They weren't defined,
13 Q. All right. Now, this introductory speech, was it actually
14 delivered? Was this speech uttered and delivered?
15 A. I can't claim that.
16 Q. All right. Now, you say that it was a meeting in Grude; right?
17 How do you know that the meeting was held in Grude?
18 A. Well, I assume that on the basis of the title, the heading.
19 Q. And what does the heading mean, "The Command of the Battle-Field"
20 and so on? It was a forward command post.
21 A. It was a forward command post. And the command of the southern
22 front at Grude. The southern front was -- there was a unit of the
23 Croatian army, but Mr. Petkovic signed it as a -- the commander of the of
24 this area of Grude and of the Main Staff.
25 Q. As commander of the Main Staff, as chief of the Main Staff?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did you see documents to the effect that as he was brigadier at
3 the time, Brigadier Petkovic signed himself as chief of the Main Staff of
4 the HVO; are you quite sure about that?
5 A. I think there are documents, I have documents as commander, not
7 Q. Now, this definition of Grude here, does it mean that in Grude,
8 it was this, the Command of the southern front was there?
9 A. Yes, it was the Forward Command Post.
10 Q. So this definition of Grude doesn't actually mean that the
11 meeting was held in Grude, does it?
12 A. Well, possibly the meeting was not held in Grude.
13 Q. Let us assume that the speech was delivered and he is addressing
14 the heads of the municipalities. Tell us which municipalities.
15 A. Well, there's several municipalities listed here, probably the
16 municipalities of Western Herzegovina.
17 Q. All right, fine. Now, tell me, please, what happened at the end
18 of June 1992 in Western Herzegovina, on that -- in that area there?
19 A. Well, at the end of June, that is to say, the second half of June
20 1992, in Western Herzegovina what was happening was this: The HVO had
21 crossed the Neretva River
22 Neretva River
24 Q. Tell us, and is that when Stolac was liberated?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Now, at that same time, the army of Croats and Muslims in
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina --
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, you really must
4 conclude, because you really have gone beyond the allotted time.
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. In view of the fact that mention is made of the enemy in this
7 document, let's try and define it. Were the enemies the army of the
8 Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. In May 1992?
11 A. Yes, in May --
12 THE INTERPRETER: In June 1992, interpreter's correction.
13 A. Those were the Serbs.
14 Q. Here it says: "South-east Herzegovina, the Muslims and Croats
15 collaborated"; right?
16 A. Yes, right.
17 Q. Now, from the priorities defined here, and they are --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, Madam, this will be
19 your last question. You really have overstepped the limits.
20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. [Previous translation continues]... it was the
22 professionalisation, as it says -- yes, my last question, here it comes.
23 Defining defence priorities, the professionalisation of the army as being
24 one, the status of HVO members, records kept for everybody participating
25 in the war, and care and attention to the wounded and the families of
1 killed persons, housing -- et cetera. Now -- or, rather, not
2 "et cetera." Are those the defence priorities if you considered that the
3 war had already ended, that war had ended in a given territory; would
4 that be right?
5 A. I think that Mr. Petkovic says that there are soldiers who
6 consider that the war was already over.
7 Q. But I'm asking you about defence priorities here, just your
8 comments on defence priorities, which was my question.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, Madam Alaburic. The
10 Chamber has been flexible. We gave you an additional five minutes.
11 Really, you must keep to the five minutes, because otherwise there's a
12 boomerang effect. When someone else asks for additional time, the Judges
13 are reticent to grant additional time. So you do understand, I'm sure,
14 the risks involved in our granting additional time, because there's
15 always a risk of slippage. And, frankly, I don't think there's any need
16 to continue. The Chamber therefore decides that this will be the end of
17 your examination.
18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] [Previous translation
19 continues]... well, if you will, that's fine, if that would be all right
20 with the Trial Chamber. If not --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I will allow the witness to
22 answer, but you will ask no further questions, please.
23 Go ahead, Witness.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, they are and they're not.
25 Now, professionalisation, if you're going to talk about the
1 professionalisation of the army, it means the war isn't over yet.
2 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Marijan, thank you for your
3 answers. I have no more time left, and therefore I have to complete my
5 I would like to thank the honourable Trial Chamber, and I ask
6 that the Petkovic Defence should be treated equally, just like the
7 Defences of Bruno Stojic and some other Defence teams, when Mr. Karnavas
8 presented his evidence. So thank you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, there is a question
10 that should have been asked to you, based on the document we have before
11 us, where there is a breakdown of the military personnel, Mostar,
12 Capljina, Grude, Stolac, et cetera. When I add up the numbers, it comes
13 to about 10.000 soldiers. And a few days ago, I saw another document
14 where I did a similar addition. And when I was doing that, I wondered
15 what the HVO represented on the ground in terms of military force. Just
16 a few thousand soldiers, whereas we know that on the other side -- well,
17 I'm not going to speak about the Serb side, but -- because we're
18 essentially interested here in the Muslim side. They were far more
20 You, yourself, were on the ground. You were in the field, and
21 you said that you fought. Did you have the impression that you were
22 out-numbered, that there was an imbalance in terms of military personnel,
23 weaponry, and military force? Did you have the impression that you were
24 on equal footing with the other side or were you in a situation of
25 inferiority, number-wise?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Bosnian Serbian
2 army, or rather the Serbian army in Bosnia-Herzegovina, took over all the
3 capacities of the Yugoslav People's Army, all their facilities, so in
4 this specific case on the opposite bank of the Neretva River
5 corps that was pulled out of Croatia
6 and so the corps was an establishment corps with three brigades, an
7 anti-aircraft team, an artillery regiment, and all the elements that a
8 corps has. Now, the overall HVO did not have the necessary resources to
9 amount to one corps, and then there was the human problem as well.
10 The Serbs during this period were facing a lot of confusion. In
11 the summer of 1992 itself, they managed to consolidate themselves in July
12 with additional mobilisations, so their supremacy, both in manpower and
13 technical equipment, was constant; whereas with the Muslims, they had
14 superiority in manpower, and this could be seen on the ground, they had
15 more men, the Muslims were more numerous; although, just like the HVO,
16 they didn't have support which would correspond to the number of
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question, and then I
19 will call upon the Stojic Defence.
20 Given the number of soldiers and presence that you've just
21 described, how can it be that the HVO and its military component was not
22 simply wiped away? Why weren't they just swept away very rapidly? I
23 mean in military terms, of course.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, that is indeed a
25 question, and the same question can be asked of Croatia, because it took
1 one of the JNA's corps, the 17th corps, but it did manage to resist an
2 attack. And I suppose that it came down to the human factor, especially
3 on the Serb side. The human factor was not on a par with the weapons, on
4 the same level as their level of armament. That's the only explanation,
5 I think, because morale was the decisive factor, and the will to fight.
6 That was the decisive factor in all these conflicts, and it was the
7 source of all the successes and failures of any one of those armies.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps we'll have an
9 opportunity to come back to that.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Marijan, your previous answer, towards the
11 end, features your assessment that while the Muslims were in a majority
12 as far as people, men, are concerned, they lacked support. If one has a
13 minimum knowledge of military and war, one knows that it's mainly fire
14 that is important, more than legs, so wouldn't that be an explanation?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, no. I can quote a
16 specific example, if you would like me to do that, so that I back up what
17 would otherwise just be my story, a tale told by me.
18 On the 13th of April, 1992, for example - this is a specific
19 case, and I can quote that - I was along a sector that was 13 kilometres
20 long, a line defended by 350 men. We had -- of heavy weaponry, we had
21 one non-recoilless gun - it's a small one - 80 millimetres, two mortars
22 of 120 millimetres, and apart from those of us who were outside the local
23 structures, there was a group of volunteers from the Croatian Army, some
24 30 men in all, and they also had two mortars of 120 millimetres, and
25 there was another group of 20 or 30 men of the Croatian Party of Rights,
1 the HOS group. I think you've already heard about the HOS.
2 Anyway, on that particular day, after intense preparations where
3 our lines were -- artillery preparations, we were attacked by an armoured
4 battalion, about 20 armoured vehicles, mostly tanks, and they didn't
5 manage to break through. So if you look at that and look at some
6 examples -- call examples that would be taught, to all intents and
7 purposes, they would have had to break down our lines, but they didn't,
8 they didn't break down our defence. Although there was a lot of panic
9 and fear, but nonetheless we managed to stick to our guns and hold our
10 positions, so that I think that morale is all important and a basic
11 feature in a war.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much for that
15 I would like to call upon Mr. Coric's Defence. You have 30
16 minutes, in order to avoid any difficulties, 30 minutes.
17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning,
18 Your Honour. Good morning, Mr. Marijan. Good morning to everyone in the
20 My questions will refer to certain paragraphs in your report
21 under the heading "Military police."
22 Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:
23 Q. You have the report before you? You must have my documents plus
24 your own report.
25 A. I do.
1 Q. In paragraph 44 of your report, you refer to two documents, and
2 one of them reads that the Military Police Administration leads and
3 commands all military police units, and in the other document it says it
4 commands military police units in units, operation zones, and the light
5 assault brigade.
6 Now, in the follow-up, not because I always want clarifications
7 but because I have very little time, please answer me with a "yes" or
8 "no." Tell me, do you -- have you found this parts of your report and do
9 you remember these documents?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Yesterday and in the previous days of your testimony, you pointed
12 out a problem, or what you see as a problem, in the documents in general
13 enactments of the HVO, and the question was raised in the courtroom
14 whether you were a lawyer, whether you were qualified to comment on these
15 documents, and I took all that into account when I prepared for my
16 cross-examination. And I will follow the example of the Presiding Judge,
17 Mr. Antonetti, and try to focus my examination on very specific issues
18 and what happened in practice. That's why I would like us to look
19 together at a few documents, starting with the last one in your binder,
20 5D 0 --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat the number.
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] While this document is
23 coming up -- 5D 00440.
24 Q. I'll remind you that in paragraph 43 of your report, quoting the
25 Decree on the Armed Forces, you said that the military police was charged
1 with security and military traffic, military order and discipline, and
2 elimination of criminal elements in the armed forces. Now, these things
3 that I quoted from your paragraph 3, is this in fact the basic job
4 description of the military police, what they are supposed to do on a
5 daily basis; yes or no?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Now we have the document on the screen. It's a document signed
8 by the commander, Tihomir Blaskic. Let's see what it says. It's a
9 warning to one of the brigade commanders of the HVO, where he says that
10 the overall status of the military police of the HVO is the
11 responsibility of the brigade commander, and he says further below that
12 the brigade commander is under obligation to prevent all incidents of
13 robbery, crime, and seizure of motor vehicles. Does this fall within the
14 daily tasks of the military police; for instance, the elimination of
15 criminal elements in the armed forces?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Look at the next --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, I would like to take --
19 I'd like to take advantage of your looking at this document. I'll ask a
21 We have this document signed by Mr. Blaskic. Could you comment
22 on the codes 01-1-425/93? Could you tell us what it means, so we have a
23 specific example.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think you could
25 explain it this way. "01" should be the code of the Operation Zone
1 Central Bosnia
2 operation zone, because if it had been the head of the Main Staff, it
3 would have been "02," and other assistants would follow. "425/93" would
4 mean that it is the 425th document written in 1993, which means that in
5 the first nine days of the year, the operations zone had already had 425
6 different documents developed in its General Affairs Department.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Summarising "01," operational
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "01" is commander.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. "1" means Colonel
11 Blaskic is in command, and "45" is the 425th document in 1993, date and
12 time. Fine.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I have a small rather linguistic question. The
14 document, in the English translation, mentions "seizure of motor
15 vehicles." Now, "seizure" is a technical/legal term and it doesn't make
16 sense in this context. Isn't car theft or taking cars for joy-riding
17 rather what was meant here?
18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] In the original
19 documents, it says "otimanje," [phoen] that is appropriation, illegal,
20 unlawful appropriation, something that is a crime.
21 Q. Now, let us move on to document 5D 04384. It's the next one in
22 line, again from Mr. Blaskic, addressed to the 4th Battalion of the
23 Military Police of Vitez. It's a command that is -- it's an order, where
24 it says, "Immediately distribute or deploy confiscated vehicles."
25 Does this fall within the normal job description of the military
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. 5D 03046 will be our next document. Now, we are moving to the
4 South-East Herzegovina Operational Zone. This document was signed by
5 Commander Bozo Pavlovic. He issues orders to the military police in this
6 document. And if we look at paragraph 1, he stipulates passage through
7 check-points. 5D 03046. Check-points in traffic. Check-points, is that
8 a normal job of the military police?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Let's move on to the next document, 5D 04380, again from Mr. Bozo
11 Pavlovic, again an order to the military police of Stolac, and it
12 concerns the taking into custody and disarmament of those who leave their
13 positions without official leave. Is that one of the jobs of the
14 military police?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Let's move on to the next document. In fact, we can skip it,
17 because we have enough from Operation Zone South-East Herzegovina. We're
18 skipping one. And let's move to 5D 04392. That's another order from
19 Mr. Bozo Pavlovic, addressed to both the civilian and the military
20 police, and again he deals with check-points, orders a ban on the
21 misappropriation of property. Is that another job of the military
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Next document, 5D 02009. This is an order from the commander of
25 the Sector South, Nedeljko Obradovic. We see down below that it was
1 addressed to the chief of the active police, Dretelj. It's entitled:
2 "Order concerning check-points"; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. 501548, Operation Zone West Herzegovina. It's from commander
5 Zeljko Siljeg, and the title is "Engaging Forces to Execute Military
6 Police Tasks in Gornji Vakuf." Now, in the introductory paragraph of
7 this order, somewhere towards the middle, there is a sentence that reads:
8 "Since the military police, since some time ago, has been
9 subordinated in the command sense to the commands of brigades and
10 operations zones, and with a view to appropriate engagement and
11 establishing order in Gornji Vakuf ...," we need not read the rest,
12 "... he orders brigades Kvaternik and Ante Starcevic to proceed with
13 performing their daily regular tasks."
14 It's document P 01548. Is this correct?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Now, put your finger on this passage. In fact, we can move on
17 with the documents.
18 We'll skip one, and we'll skip the next one. 5D 0201. Leave
19 your finger on 5D 02001.
20 In your report, you said that the military police had been
21 engaged from the very beginning in combat operations; am I right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now, with regard to these combat activities, I'd like to look at
24 certain documents. Let's look at document 5D 04371. Can you see it?
25 It's the first one after the one where you left your finger. Have you
1 found it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. We see that this is an order from Commander Zvonko Vukovic. He's
4 the commander of the 4th Battalion of the Military Police in Vitez, and
5 he addresses this order to all military police units in the Central
6 Bosnia Operation Zone. He says:
7 "Pursuant to the order of the HVO Main Staff," number such and
8 such, "and further to the order of the Operations Zone Central Bosnia,"
9 and he gives an order to raise command readiness in all the military
10 police units. Is this the chain of command in the combat operations
11 involving military police?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. 5D 04382 is the next document I need. It's an order from the
14 commander of the Operations Zone South-East Herzegovina,
15 Mr. Milenko Lazic, sent to the military police, among others, and in
16 para 3 it says that an anti-aircraft machine-gun should be mounted on the
17 military police vehicle. Does this order relate to the supply of a
18 certain weapon to the military police in connection with an operation?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The next document, P 03117, again from the commander of the
21 Operation Zone South-East Herzegovina
22 to the 3rd Battalion of the Military Police, and it says: "Pursuant to
23 the order from the Main Staff, specifying the responsibilities of the
24 operation zone in stabilising the situation," and he goes on. And I'd
25 like to look at item 2 -- paragraph 2, the point that begins with the
1 second zone of responsibility. He describes the location and he says:
2 "I appoint Mr. Mijo Jelic, sector commander," and in brackets "commander
3 of the military police."
4 Now let's look at item 4. It says daily reports in writing,
5 describing the situation as of 1800 hours, to be submitted by sector
6 commanders and telephone reports to be submitted, et cetera, et cetera.
7 Does this reflect the chain of command over the military police in combat
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, one document we'll skip. 5D 04385 is the next document I
11 need. It's an order from Colonel Zeljko Siljeg, sent to the 2nd
12 Battalion of the Military Police in Livno, among others, entitled:
13 "Reporting to the Command of the Operation Zone North-East Herzegovina
14 In para 1, Mr. Siljeg [Livenote read in error "Zilic"] says:
15 "The 2nd Military Police Battalion ..." and he enumerates other
16 units that are not of interest to me, "... shall be required to submit
17 regular combat reports on the situation as of 1800 hours by 1900 hours
18 every day, and interim reports as needed. Send reports in writing using
19 a courier or pact communications."
20 I have just been warned by my colleague that we have "Zilic"
21 instead of "Siljeg" in the transcript. It's Commander Siljeg.
22 Is this the structure of orders received by the military police?
23 A. Yes, we could conclude that this unit is involved in combat.
24 Q. 5D 04387 is the next document. I think it's a combat order again
25 signed by Zeljko Siljeg, and it's called "Order for Active Combat
1 Activity." Look at para 2. In para 2 of the order, it says "Tactical
2 Group 2." Now, look at its composition, please. Among others, we see
3 the military police. Do you see that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And it says, Tactical Group 2 has the mission to launch an attack
6 on enemy forces from line such and such. Now, let us look at para 8 of
7 the same order, where it says the 2nd Military Police Battalion, and he
8 lists others, shall move on the axis of operation of Tactical Group 2,
9 and describes that mission in that operation. Remember that we have the
10 2nd Battalion of Military Police in para 8, and let's see to whom this
11 order was addressed. Addressees, units from para 8.
12 Tell me, is this a combat order sent to the military police?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, I'd like to go back to the document I told you to put a
15 finger on, P -- 5D 02001. Look at point 3 of that document. It's once
16 again a Zeljko Siljeg document.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you said something on
18 the evaluation, the assessment of the forces in presence, and I can see
19 here from this document that there are T-55 tanks.
20 Have you heard what I said?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, T-55. I did hear that,
22 Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No comment on this?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, a tank platoon is mentioned
25 there, which means two or three tanks at the most. To be quite honest, I
1 didn't understand. Did you say something before? I just heard you say
2 "T-55 tanks," but I didn't hear what you said before that.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I said, we had a
4 discussion earlier on, on the assessment of forces in presence, and after
5 what you said, I just point out to you that the paragraph in question
6 states that there were some tanks available to the HVO.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, without a doubt the
8 HVO had tanks, but the overall HVO in all three zones, well, I think the
9 figures exist, but I don't think that the Operative Zone had more than 10
10 or 12 tanks, the whole of the Operative Zone. So just two or three are
11 used to reinforce the infantry.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. It was a minor issue.
13 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. And to conclude this area with respect to the combat operations,
15 let's look at the documents P 02001 [as interpreted] and item 3 of that.
16 It is a Siljeg document in which he says that the general principle was
17 that the unit, who was the strongest establishment-wise and is to be
18 found in a given territory, at a given time, should command all the other
19 units in that territory, and this is regulated by an order from the
20 superior commander. 5D 02001 is the document number, 5D. So it commands
21 all the units on the territories, and this is regulated by the order
22 issued by the superior commander.
23 Now, do you agree with what Colonel Siljeg writes there, yes or
25 A. Yes, that is the general principle of a commander on the ground.
1 Q. All right, fine. Let's move on to the first document in my
2 binder now. And we can go to the last page of that document or, rather,
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Hold on. There may be legal
5 consequences for that principle in paragraph 3.
6 You're not a lawyer - we know that - but I'm asking you this
7 question because you were in the field. According to this document, it
8 would seem that when, in the field, automatically a stronger unit
9 subordinates all the other units present in the field, is it how this
10 paragraph is to be understood? Because then I would have another
11 question ensuing from your answer.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour --
13 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise,
14 but I think there was a mistake in the interpretation, because it says
15 that you said that that strongest one was subordinated to all the rest,
16 whereas I think you meant to say that it was superior to all the others.
17 There was a mistake in the translation of your words into Croatian and
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have understood, but since
20 the French interpreters are excellent, there's never any problem. I have
21 understood that it is the stronger unit which has authority over all the
22 other units on the ground. Is this what this text means?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The principle is that the largest
24 unit or, rather, the commander of the largest unit commands the forces
25 attached to him on the ground, because that is how to avoid multiple
1 chains of command.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Assuming that, let us imagine
3 the following hypothesis. Well, it's actually not a hypothesis; it was
4 the reality. We have seen this. But for you, it would be a hypothesis.
5 Imagine the military police unit, who's not from the brigade but
6 from other brigades, i.e., it comes from elsewhere, imagine that unit is
7 in the field. Is it automatically subordinated to the unit which in the
8 field is the strongest one, and is that military police unit subordinated
9 to the commander of that stronger unit? So it's a very specific point.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Its very entry, entry of that unit,
11 into the zone of a bigger unit, brings it into that position, and in most
12 cases there should be an additional document from the commander who sent
13 the unit there to avoid any possible queries in that sense.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So this outside unit is placed
15 under the authority of the commander exercising the main authority? Are
16 we in agreement?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, precisely, Your Honour, quite
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Counsel, please.
20 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Well, let's take the first document in my binder now. It is
22 about the military police and its establishment. You've referred to that
23 many times, and so have we all in the court. So let's move to the last
24 page, and you can recall the documents we showed a moment ago related to
25 daily assignments. And let's read the penultimate paragraph of that
1 document, in which it says that the commanders of the military police
2 battalions in operation zones, in performing their daily duties, are
3 directly subordinated to the operation zone commander and carry out all
4 orders relating to military police work and assignments, in accordance
5 with the powers and responsibilities of the military police. That is
6 document, let me repeat again, P 00957.
7 Now, what I've just read out, is that in keeping with the orders
8 we looked at a moment ago about check-points, law and order, the
9 documents I showed you a moment ago; yes or no?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. Now I'd like to read out a sentence. This is a bit
12 confusing, and then another document, so that we can clear up what that
13 actually means, because I would like to draw a conclusion about what it
14 is, in actual fact, that the military police does. And in this same
15 document, one sentence before the part I read out, says, "The Military
16 Police Administration leads and commands all military police units."
17 Remember that sentence, please.
18 Now, in the binder, find P 00143 now, P 00143 is the document you
19 should be looking at now. It's a document to which you refer in
20 paragraph 24. Have you found it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And after that, there's a later document, a subsequent document,
23 P 00837 by another author, and it comes next in my binder. I'm just
24 going to read out the P 00143 document because they are identical in the
25 portion that interests me. So let's look at general provisions,
1 Chapter 1 in that document.
2 Let me help out Your Honours and tell you where it is in the
3 English. It is on page 4, page 4 of the English.
4 Have you found Chapter 1, Witness?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, in Chapter 1, we have something under number 1, and what you
7 said is quoted there; that the Military Police Administration shall lead
8 all the military police units. And I showed you a document linked to
9 daily operations, combat operations. Now, in that same document, under
10 item 9 -- let's look at paragraphs 9 and 11 and see what the author of
11 the document tells us there. 9 and 11, please.
12 In point 9, the author of the document says as follows:
13 "The Military Police Administration of the HVO is responsible for
14 the general situation, professional training, and combat readiness of the
15 military police units.
16 "It shall monitor and study the organisation and formation of
17 military police units and control and evaluate the level of training and
18 combat readiness of military police units, and the HVO shall propose
19 measures for their improvement and replenishment.
20 "The Military Police Administration shall also draw conclusions
21 from experiences gained in the work of the military police units and
22 incorporate them into the training of the military police units."
23 Let's look at paragraph 11 now, please. 11 paragraph, which says
24 the following:
25 "The Military Police Administration is responsible for equipping
1 the military police units with military police equipment and insignia
2 showing that they belong to military police units, while for the armament
3 and providing other materiel and technical equipment, it is the command
4 of the basic unit that is responsible for that, attached to which the
5 military police unit has been formed."
6 Paragraph 11.
7 Now, I have two questions, in conclusion. What I've just read
8 out, paragraphs 9 and 11, that is, do they explain the way in which and
9 the sense in which all the military police units are commanded by the
10 Military Police Administration and what the Military Police
11 Administration is responsible for; yes or no?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, my last question, and I will conclude my cross-examination
14 with that question: Can I therefore conclude that when, in paragraph 37
15 of your report, in the last sentence there, you state - take a look at
16 paragraph 37 now, please - that the military police was treated as part
17 of the armed forces. When you say that, do you mean the military police
18 units, in fact, and not the Military Police Administration, which is the
19 administrative part of the Defence department; am I right there? And
20 that's my last question.
21 A. Yes.
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that
23 completes my cross-examination.
24 I would just like to mention, I don't know whether this was clear
25 enough yesterday, but Ms. Alaburic showed schematics yesterday. Well,
1 they weren't schematics that were compiled during the war; they were
2 schematics drawn up during these proceedings, during this trial, and
3 there are some which are not contradictory to those dating back to the
4 war. So when we present our evidence during the Coric Defence case, we
5 shall be showing those, too.
6 Thank you, Your Honours, and thank you, Mr. Marijan.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. That comment is, of
8 course, included in the transcript, and the Chamber will take account of
10 Thank you very much for having concluded your examination. You
11 used up your 30 minutes, more or less, and that will enable us,
12 therefore, to have a 20-minute break now. And then the Prosecution can
13 begin its cross-examination.
14 Twenty minutes' break.
15 --- Recess taken at 10.36 a.m.
16 --- On resuming at 11.03 a.m.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I call upon the
18 Prosecution, I would like to read out a brief decision on the part of the
19 Chamber regarding the appearance of Slobodan Bozic.
20 The appearance of Slobodan Bozic, a witness for the Stojic
21 Defence, is planned January 26 to February 3rd, 2009. In keeping with
22 the schedule presented by the Stojic Defence, they have asked for five
23 hours in order to carry out the direct examination.
24 On December 16th, 2008, the Praljak Defence had requested the
25 time of 15 to 20 minutes during the appearance of Slobodan Bozic in order
1 to carry out a direct examination of this same witness under
2 Article 92 ter of the Rules.
3 On January 12th, 2009, the Praljak Defence indicated to the
4 Chamber and to the parties -- or, rather, disclosed to the Chamber and to
5 the parties the English translation of the written statement made by
6 Slobodan Bozic which they intend to present in keeping with
7 Article 92 ter of the Rules.
8 On January 16th, 2009, the Prosecution responded that they were
9 not opposed to the request made by the Praljak Defence to carry out
10 direct examination of this witness, while requesting to have additional
11 time for its own cross-examination.
12 The Chamber grants the request made by the Praljak Defence to
13 carry out a direct examination of Slobodan Bozic under Article 92 ter of
14 the Rules, and decides, in keeping with the practice of the Chamber, to
15 grant the following amount of time:
16 First of all, the Stojic Defence shall have five hours in order
17 to carry out the direct examination of the witness Slobodan Bozic. The
18 other Defence teams will have an overall amount of time of two and a half
19 hours, two hours and thirty minutes, for their cross-examination, and the
20 Prosecution will then be able to cross-examine the witness for a duration
21 of five hours.
22 Secondly, the Praljak Defence will have 20 minutes for the direct
23 examination of the witness, in keeping with Article 92 ter of the Rules.
24 The other Defence teams will have an overall amount of time of 15
25 minutes, and the Prosecution 30 minutes for cross-examination of the
1 witness in relationship to the direct examination carried out by the
2 Praljak Defence and on the basis of the written statement of the witness.
3 So to summarise, we will have five hours for the Stojic Defence
4 team. All the other teams will have two and a half hours, and then the
5 Prosecutor will have five hours. Then Mr. Praljak will have 20 minutes,
6 the other Defence teams 15 minutes, and the Prosecutor 30 minutes.
7 I therefore have summarised the situation in just a few seconds.
8 Mr. Karnavas.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Just a point of clarification, Mr. President and
10 Your Honours.
11 Are we to understand, then, that there will be no
12 cross-examination on the part of the Praljak team? Because it seems that
13 they're both doing direct and cross under this -- as the way the order is
14 stated. First they cross and then they do direct? Because I understand
15 initially they had requested both direct and cross-examination time.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No. Based on what Mr. Praljak
17 requested in his submission, he will have the opportunity to
18 cross-examine within the overall time of two and a half hours. And once
19 we've completed all of that, he will then come back, under
20 Article 92 ter, to deal with the issues in that statement.
21 Have you understood?
22 MR. KARNAVAS: I do understand. I just find it rather
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may, it's not the first time that we have
25 this. We've had it with your witnesses, too. And we have developed
1 that. No one objected to the system and --
2 MR. KARNAVAS: I did believe -- I did note that I found it rather
3 curious. I didn't -- it's not my position to object to somebody else's
4 demands at this point in time with respect to cross and direct, although
5 I do find it interesting. On the one moment, he's hostile or being
6 treated as a hostile witness, and the next moment you're embracing him as
7 your own witness. But be that as it may, I accept Trial Chamber's
8 decision, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: We will not discuss now all the curiosities that
10 are associated to this trial because that might take some time.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Indeed, it would take numerous
13 Mr. Bos, you have the floor now. Thank you very much, because we
14 do have a file.
15 MR. BOS
16 Good morning, Mr. President, Your Honours, and everybody else in
17 the courtroom.
18 Cross-examination by Mr. Bos:
19 Q. Good morning, Mr. Marijan. Yes, you have a lot of binders around
20 you piled up. All the binders from the Defence, I think, you can leave
21 now. Please keep them on the ground. What's important is your report,
22 which I think you have in front of you, your expert report, and those two
23 binders that are actually right here.
24 Mr. Marijan, I will deal with a number of topics, but before I
25 do, I'd like to make -- ask you for a couple of clarifications on your
1 report. And for that, I would ask you to go to your introductory remarks
2 on page 4 of your report, the introductory remarks.
3 Do you have that? In those introductory remarks, you make
4 reference -- well, you talk in the plural, you say:
5 "Our intention was to present the organisation and volume of work
6 and task carried out by the Department of Defence."
7 And in the third paragraph, again, you say:
8 "A major obstacle in our work was a lack of clear
9 information ..."
10 Et cetera. Now, who do you refer to besides yourself when you
11 say "our"?
12 A. Your Honours, it's a normal usage in my profession, shared by
13 most of my colleagues, to say "we," "our." You can find it in all of my
14 books. Some people say "I," but I always wrote "we." I don't think
15 I can explain. I simply took it over from others. It's regular usage.
16 Q. Does it in any way imply that other people were involved in the
17 preparation of this report besides you?
18 A. It is my report, Mr. Bos. I signed it.
19 Q. And you signed it, and whatever is written in the report has been
20 written by you?
21 A. I stand by it, yes. Yes, I wrote it.
22 Q. Did you read everything in the report?
23 A. I wrote all of it.
24 Q. Mr. Marijan, did you get compensated for writing this report?
25 A. No.
1 Q. You didn't get any compensation. And did you write this report
2 in your free time or did you prepare it --
3 A. Yes, it was done in my spare time.
4 Q. Now, from the cross by other counsel, it appears that you
5 reviewed a substantial number of documents, and I would like to clarify
6 the documents that you actually reviewed.
7 Did you review -- let me first ask you this: Did you review more
8 documents than the documents you've been [sic] footnoted in your report?
9 A. Yes, certainly.
10 Q. And when you say "certainly," can you give an estimate on the
11 number of documents that you actually reviewed? Are we talking about
12 hundreds of more documents or --
13 A. I'm sure you know that I used to work as the archivist who laid
14 the foundations for this. A lot of documents passed through my hands.
15 And when I say "a lot," that's what I mean, a great, great deal.
16 Q. But when -- when you start preparing for this report, were all
17 the documents that you reviewed, were they all given to you by the Stojic
18 Defence or did they give part of the documents and you also referred to
19 documents that you had already written before or that you already had in
20 your possession, yourself?
21 A. Your Honours, I used the documents I received from the Stojic
22 Defence team and your documents, I believe, because they bear a
23 Prosecution reference number. And in my research, I had access to
24 material, additional material that I used. I don't know if their exhibit
25 number was given them later or was already there when I reviewed them. I
1 didn't pay attention.
2 Q. What I would like to find out is -- so you say that you were also
3 given Prosecution exhibits. Do you know what kind of selection the
4 Stojic Defence made in providing you these documents? Did they give you
5 the complete Prosecution exhibit list or additional documents as well?
6 Do you know what kind of selection they made for you -- for the documents
7 for you to review?
8 A. Your Honours, the Stojic Defence gave me access to the documents
9 they had, and I was given a topic, a subject. And according to that
10 subject, I reviewed documents.
11 Q. When you say "they had," well, let's be concrete, for example.
12 Did you get the full Prosecution exhibit list with all the documents from
13 the Prosecution exhibits list, or a number of the Prosecution exhibits?
14 A. I couldn't tell you if that was all or some of them. I must say
15 I wasn't particularly interested. It was a great number of documents.
16 Q. Okay, very well. Let's move to paragraph 17 of your report, and
17 that's on page 13 of at least the English version. This paragraph 17
18 talks about the role of the Department of Defence, and there I'll pick
19 out one line from this paragraph. You quote it, you said:
20 "The Department of Defence of the HVO was based on a Western
21 European model, with practice of civilian supervision of the army."
22 Now, sir, in most -- and you've touched upon this issue already
23 in cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic, but so in most Western countries,
24 the defence minister is charged with both formulating the defence policy
25 and executing this policy by providing the necessary direction and
1 support to the armed forces. Is it not true did Mr. Stojic had a similar
2 de jure role in the HVO Department of Defence?
3 A. Your Honour, this evaluation I made is based on the practice that
4 I know. I can't say that I dealt with and studied in detail with Western
5 practices. I studied them only through the bulletins published by the
6 army. I don't know if that was the custom in the past or even now.
7 Q. [Previous translation continues]... because you yourself are
8 quoting the Western European model, so I would think that you have an
9 idea of what the Western European model entails. And isn't it true, sir,
10 that it, in fact, means that the defence minister is actually formulating
11 defence policy and is executing this policy by providing direction and
12 support to the armed forces? That's usually how it works in Western --
13 in Western countries.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I will object to the testifying. I mean, I don't
15 know if the gentleman is an expert or has served as a minister of defence
16 in the West, whatever "Western" means.
17 MR. BOS
18 Western European model, and that's what he's referring to --
19 MR. KARNAVAS: The gentleman is testifying, and there's a vast
20 difference between how the Secretary of Defence in the United States
21 conducts himself versus somebody, say, in France or England
22 so I would object to any testifying.
23 MR. BOS
24 Q. Sir, what is your interpretation of -- when you refer to the
25 Western European model, what -- how did you consider the role of the
1 defence minister?
2 A. Your Honours, I understand the role of minister in that model as
3 a person who is not in the chain of command and who is a civilian. And
4 the army, the Main Staff, is directly looking to the Supreme Commander.
5 I believe I said that already. And the fundamental call for a civilian
6 society that arose in the 1980s in the former Yugoslavia, primarily in
8 I believe that was the case.
9 Q. If the minister of defence was a civilian, then the next question
10 is: Would he have, as a civilian, control over the HVO defence army?
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, Mr. Bos.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Excuse me. I did not intervene
14 several times yesterday, but I only noticed it by reviewing the
15 transcript. The full answer of the witness is not recorded. The witness
16 said, in his answer on page 49, line 20 -- he added: "But Yugoslavia
17 peculiar and the JNA was peculiar, idiosyncratic," and that was not
18 recorded, whereas it qualifies his answer. He said it was a peculiar,
19 idiosyncratic model, and that was not recorded.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did say that. And when I'm
21 speaking about this, Mr. Prosecutor, this entire paragraph reflects the
22 ambition, the striving. That's how they perceived, from their
23 perspective, not only of the Croats of Herceg-Bosna; they perceived that
24 the minister of defence is not a military man and is not part of the
25 chain of command, and that was the great novelty compared to the JNA.
1 The JNA, I believe, was against --
2 MR. BOS
3 Q. But what I'm now asking is you -- to you is: Was there civilian
4 control over the military?
5 A. I think there has been discussion about that in the past days.
6 We have this problem of the political organisation in Herceg-Bosna, which
7 I admit is very difficult for me to understand. On the one hand, we have
8 this Presidency of the HZ-HB consisting of presidents of municipalities,
9 and they are on the third step. And based on that, we have my conclusion
10 from what I saw in the documents that their influence and supervision
11 over the army was great at that lower level. Now, you can ask the
12 question whether such influence was desirable at a higher level, but the
13 HVO overall was not a problematic army in that sense. Of course, you
14 have the war, which is always a peculiar situation, leading to
15 militarisation and less civilian control.
16 Q. I understand what you said. You said that also yesterday. And
17 let me repeat to you again, because you're now talking about on a lower
18 level, there was civilian control, rather than on a higher level. But
19 yesterday, when you were asked by Ms. Alaburic the following question,
20 and I'll quote from page 93 of yesterday's transcript, the question was:
21 "So, in principle, what are the instruments of the civilian
22 control over the military?"
23 And then you answered:
24 "Well, when we are talking about the HZ-HB, the civilian control
25 was meant to be in the hands of the HVO, and it was meant to be in the
1 hands of Mr. Stojic. This is what I talked about yesterday or the day
3 Isn't that what you said, Mr. Marijan?
4 A. If it's on the record, then I probably did say that.
5 Q. Yes or no would suffice, Mr. Marijan. I'm asking you whether you
6 said it, and you actually did say it.
7 Now, let me ask you -- and this morning again we went back to
8 this transcript for Mr. Tudjman. What I'm interested in is: Why did you
9 quote Mr. Tudjman as an authority for interpreting what the role of the
10 minister of defence was in the Herceg-Bosna government? What made you
11 choose Mr. Tudjman as an authority?
12 A. Well, I am rather familiar with the biography of Mr. Tudjman, and
13 this is perhaps a curious digression in the former Yugoslavia. There was
14 a 30-year-long discussion, debate, about command and control that we are
15 discussing here, and he was the first person who started it back in 1953.
16 I believe he is extremely qualified, militarily speaking. And regardless
17 of the fact that he left active military service early in the 1960s, he
18 kept thinking as a military man, as a soldier, and he was very well
19 acquainted with the arrangements within the JNA, and he was obviously
20 trying to depart from that in creating the Croatian system.
21 Q. But did it maybe have anything to do with the fact that Tudjman
22 had some sort of control over what was happening in Herceg-Bosna? Would
23 that maybe have been a reason also for you to quote Mr. Tudjman?
24 A. Well, the influence of Mr. Tudjman on Herceg-Bosna is
25 indisputable. It cannot be questioned. We can see that from the large
1 number of transcripts that I had the occasion to read. I cannot be
2 certain about the degree of his supervision, though.
3 Q. Well, sir, having reviewed all these documents and these various
4 transcripts, isn't it true that that -- actually, that the Herceg-Bosna
5 government took directions from Mr. Tudjman?
6 A. In some sessions, yes, this was discussed. I would rather say
7 that it was Tudjman's relationship with Mr. Boban, first of all. Then
8 there were other members of Herceg-Bosna attending these sessions.
9 Whether you can view this as directions or not, I think you have among
10 your exhibits the transcript of his conversation with Boban, where
11 Tudjman and Susak suggest to him that he should withdraw from his
12 position, and from the same transcript you can conclude that this
13 supervision is not really that great. In fact, it's difficult to
14 evaluate it. In my opinion, if there had been full supervision, we
15 wouldn't be discussing -- they would not be discussing it at all. They
16 would just tell Boban, "It's time for you to go." From this
17 conversation, you can see that Herceg-Bosna enjoyed great independence,
18 but of course that's my opinion.
19 Q. Okay. Well, we'll leave that topic and --
20 [French on English channel]
21 MR. BOS
22 Q. -- let me know ask you -- I'm getting the French translation in
23 my earphones here. Again on the civilian supervision, Mr. Marijan,
24 yesterday when you were cross-examined by Madam Alaburic, you agreed with
25 her that the HVO civil authorities had instruments such an finance,
1 procurement, and security control at their disposal to control the
2 military, but then you also claimed that such control was much more
3 obvious at the local municipal level than rather at the higher level; is
4 that correct? Is that what you were saying?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. It just requires a yes-or-no answer. And is it correct that as
7 an example of this more local municipal control, you testified on Monday
8 that municipalities in Herceg-Bosna often financed their own defence?
9 A. I saw that in some documents, and I know a specific case that I
10 saw myself.
11 Q. Yeah, you gave the specific example of Livno, where you claimed
12 that the Livno Brigade, which is the Kresimir 4th Brigade, was actually
13 paid by the Livno municipalities until at least, you say,
14 October/November 1993; is that correct?
15 A. Yes, yes, the Livno Brigade.
16 Q. I'm going to show you two exhibits now. The first one is
17 P 09551, and it's not in the binder, but it's in the bundle that's on top
18 of the binder, the separate bundle. Could you please look at that? Yes,
19 it's that bundle, right, yes, and it's the -- it has two exhibits, and
20 I'm interested in the second one, P 09551. And this is an activity
21 report of the HVO of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. And what
22 I'm particularly interested in, in this document, is it contains a budget
23 for the year 1993, and it's -- in the B/C/S version, there's numbers on
24 the bottom of the pages, and you have to go to page 0040-5235.
25 And for the English, it's on page 42 and 43, Your Honours.
1 So, Mr. Marijan, what we have here is a budget of the HVO,
2 Herceg-Bosna, for the year 1993, and you first see the budget revenue,
3 and that budget revenue totals an amount which is -- I think it's
4 billion, 2.17 billion Croatian dinar. Can you see that? It's the total
5 of the revenue, and it's an amount of 217.772.972.774 [sic] billion, or
6 trillion. Page 40? Yes, for the e-court, it's page 40, the B/C/S
8 Do you see that, Mr. Marijan?
9 A. Yes, yes. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor.
10 Q. And then so what follows is the budget expenditure, and what I
11 would like to focus your attention to is the expenditure -- the money
12 that actually goes to the Ministry of Defence. It's -- if you compare it
13 with the other ministries, it's an amount of 169 billion Croatian dinars,
14 and would you agree with me, sir, that it's -- that if you look at what
15 is going to the other departments, that the Ministry of Defence is
16 getting the main chunk of money? Would you agree with me on that?
17 A. Yes, this figure is obviously the biggest.
18 Q. In fact, it's -- I've made a calculation, and it's almost
19 78 per cent of the total budget that goes actually to the Ministry of
21 Now, if you would put this amount of money against the financial
22 resources that the municipalities had at their disposal, would you agree
23 that whatever the municipalities had at their disposal was peanuts
24 against what the HVO Defence Department had at their disposal for
1 A. I have to admit that, well, I'm not really well-versed in this
2 subject. It is a large number, and why isn't it in -- if it were in
3 German marks, I would be better able to respond, but it's difficult for
4 me to say since it's in Croatian dinars. But I'm not an expert in this
5 matter. To the best of my recollections is this: that we were paid by
6 the municipalities, the salaries, that is, without going into other
7 matters, and this caused a hullabaloo, if I can put it that way. Well,
8 they weren't large salaries. When I was a student, it would have been
9 like pocket money, decent pocket money. So how a family with two
10 children could live on that, I don't know. But the fact remains that it
11 is a lot of money.
12 Q. But -- and would you agree with me, you agree that it's --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, but I have to intervene
16 My learned friend Mr. Bos is asking the expert whether it's a
17 large sum in relation to what the municipalities have. Now, let him show
18 us where, in the budget, we have stated how much the municipalities have.
19 The municipalities have their own budget. This is just for the HZ-HB,
20 HVO HZ-HB. There's no budget for the municipalities here at all. And as
21 the witness says that he's not a financial expert, I think that this is
22 just adding confusion.
23 MR. BOS
24 Q. Well, let me just make this point, and regardless of what kind of
25 budget the municipalities had. Would you agree that if the HVO Defence
1 Department had such large amounts of money at their disposal, that it
2 would make them powerful towards the local municipalities?
3 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to object. I'm going to object to the
4 form of the question, Your Honour. Again, and I was about to object
5 earlier, we don't know what the municipalities have and have not, and
6 there are various municipalities. It all depends on where they're
7 located and whether they have a large number of people in the diaspora.
8 So that question cannot be answered, not by this particular gentleman,
9 but --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, in order to avoid
11 constant objections from the Defence, which may use up time, and since
12 we're all seeking the truth, and since we are all trying to know what
13 happened within the chain of command, when you ask your questions, please
14 lay first the foundations and say, for example, "In the municipalities of
16 follow on, in order to avoid any objection on the time scope, the
17 geographical scope, because your question may not fall into the scope.
18 So by your question, please start setting the scope, time, time-wise, and
19 space-wise, so that the Defence will not be entitled to raising
21 You see, when I ask questions of the witness, I said, "You were
22 in that unit at that," et cetera, et cetera, so I set the question in a
23 particular background so that there is no possible objection.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: And, Your Honour, just to follow up on your
25 observations, if we had looked at P 00588, which is a document cited by
1 the gentleman, which was covered on both direct and cross, it's the
2 Decree on the Armed Forces, and it is dated 17 October 1992, Article 170,
3 which apparently was omitted to be commented on in full, it says here:
4 "Funding of the Armed Forces of the Croatian Community of
5 Herceg-Bosna shall be carried out according to the budget of the Defence
6 Department, adopted by member municipalities of the Croatian Community of
8 And then it goes on about the contributions. And my point is
9 this: If the gentleman wishes to pursue this line of questioning, and
10 perhaps this should have been done in the expertise, at a minimum there
11 should be some proof of what the municipalities' budget was pursuant to
12 Article 170, assuming that they did comply with this particular decision
13 or decree.
14 Thank you.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can move on.
16 MR. BOS
17 Exhibit P 10674, and for that you'll need the binder, Mr. Marijan. You
18 can put that aside.
19 Q. Now, while you are finding this exhibit, it's P 10674, I'll tell
20 you what the document is. This document is a compilation of various
21 documents relating to the financial support of the Croatian Ministry of
22 Defence to the HVO.
23 And, Your Honours, I think I've seen this document before. It's
24 been also shown to another witness. It's P 10674. It's the yellow tab.
25 As I said, Mr. Marijan, it's a compilation of various orders,
1 and, for example, if I take you first maybe to the second order, the
2 order dated the 29th of October, 1992, this is from Mr. Susak to the
3 Financial Administration, and it says:
4 "I order 83 million Croatian dinars from the funds of the
5 Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia
6 The money is strictly intended for the 2nd Stolac Battalion and the
7 Neum Battalion."
8 And then it continues: "The money order should be immediately
9 paid into the account number ... in Zagreb
10 And it's signed by Mr. Susak. And so we have a number of those
11 orders, and the one I'd like you now to look at is the order dated the
12 10th of January, 1993, and it's the fifth order, I think. This, in fact,
13 is not from Mr. Susak, but this is a document from Mr. Stojic addressed
14 to the Defence Ministry in Croatia
15 officers of soldiers in Herceg-Bosna for the period December 1992.
16 Do you see that?
17 A. Yes, I do.
18 Q. Now, so we see a whole list of units and brigades being mentioned
19 there, and please look at, under number 30, there it says: "The Kresimir
20 4th Brigade Command," and then there's an amount of 2.971.450 dinar being
21 requested by Mr. Stojic for this particular command unit for salaries.
22 Now, sir, doesn't this contradict what you said in your
23 testimony, that the Livno Brigade, to your knowledge, never -- that the
24 Municipality of Livno
25 November 1993?
1 A. Your Honour, I know for sure that the municipality -- no -- well,
2 did pay out, during the period of time I was there, that is to say, from
3 1992, the summer of 1992, until September 1992, while I was there, and
4 from July or several months in 1993. I do know that the municipality did
5 provide this. Whether anybody else took part, I don't know. And to be
6 quite honest, it's difficult for me to find my way here, because there
7 are a lot of -- big differences in the sums. The 1st Herzegovina
8 in 1992, for example, which is a little larger than the Kresimir 4th
9 Brigade, has almost 12 times more money. So translated into -- according
10 to the German mark exchange rate, it's not a lot of money; that is to
11 say, there are big differences particularly between that particular
12 brigade and, as I say, the Livno Brigade, and they had a similar number
13 of men. So I don't know -- but I can't say whether that was enough for a
14 salary or whether the salaries were sufficient.
15 Just look at how much the professional units were paid on the
16 next page. Companies received far more money than some brigades, for
17 example --
18 Q. But, Mr. Marijan --
19 A. -- so it's a very small sum.
20 Q. -- that's not the point I'm trying to make here. Regardless of
21 what kind of money was given to whom, isn't it true that money was being
22 also given to the --
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise for getting to my feet
24 again, but I'd like to ask that the entire witness answer be recorded.
25 He said that it is a very small sum of money, so may we have the whole
1 answer recorded, which means, Mr. Marijan, could you speak up, please.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, Ms. Nozica has made an
3 important point. It is difficult to record what you say perhaps because
4 you do not speak loudly enough, and so please speak loudly. And when you
5 feel that what you say is important, please stress it so that it's
6 properly and duly recorded. Thank you.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll do my best, Your Honour.
8 Mr. Bos, without a doubt, looking at this, part of the money did
9 reach the Defence Ministry. That's what you wanted to hear; right?
10 MR. BOS
11 Q. Okay, let's move on, Mr. Marijan. Let me refer back to your
12 report, to paragraph 6 of your report. I'm going to put to you a couple
13 of quotes from your report concerning the role of the Ministry of
14 Defence, where it concerns logistics.
15 And in paragraph 6 of your report, you state:
16 "Article 41," and you're referring to the Decree on the Armed
17 Forces, "stipulates that the Department of Defence will be in charge of
18 supplying the armed forces with combat equipment (weapons, artillery
19 pieces, ammunition) while the supply of the armed forces with material,
20 equipment, food, funds, medical, veterinarian and other supplies will be
21 carried out by the Department of Defence in cooperation with other
22 departments of the HVO, as well as other institutions and bodies."
23 And then moving to paragraph 86 of your report, there you say the
24 following about the logistics:
25 "The HVO Main Staff sought from the Department of Defence the
1 realisation of those obligations and tasks set forth by the Decree on the
2 Armed Forces of the HZ-HB. Its demands were primarily oriented around
3 logistics. It sought the replenishment of weapons, ammunition, fuel,
4 food, clothing, lubricants...," et cetera.
5 That's page 86 of your report. And then finally in your
6 testimony on Tuesday, you actually -- you said the following:
7 "There's no doubt that the chief of Main Staff reported to the
8 head of the Department of Defence with regard to the supply of material,
9 that is, supply of weapons, ammunition, fuel ...," et cetera.
10 Sir, can we agree from these quotes that the HVO Defence
11 Department was the primary department for providing the logistics of the
12 HVO armed forces?
13 A. Do you mean the HVO as an executive body? I'm not sure I
14 understood you correctly. Do you mean the HVO as an executive body?
15 Q. I'm talking about the HVO Defence Department. Was the HVO
16 Defence Department not the primary department for providing logistics to
17 the HVO armed forces?
18 A. In the department, in the Defence Department within the HVO, yes,
19 it was the main body.
20 Q. And can we agree that where it concerns the supply of combat
21 equipment, that the Defence Department was, in fact, the only responsible
23 A. That's what would follow from this provision. That would be its
25 Q. And would you agree that in actual practice, it actually worked
1 that way?
2 A. Well, if you show me another document -- well, that should have
3 been what it was like, in practice, but I have to admit that the
4 logistics, or logistics generally speaking, through the Defence document,
5 et cetera, I have actually have seen very few documents about that, so it
6 wouldn't be right if I were to say or give a position that I cannot
7 confirm and bear out with documents. This is how it should have been.
8 Q. Very well. But -- and would you agree that Mr. Stojic, as the
9 head of the Defence Department, was responsible for the organisation of
10 the logistics?
11 A. In recording the tasks, that would have been one of the tasks of
12 Mr. Stojic. And we were talking about establishment. We know the
13 sectors that existed, and the sector that was in charge of logistics, for
14 example, although the main logistics base was within the Main Staff. But
15 in both cases, I have to say that I have seen very few documents on the
16 subject, compared to other sectors. So as far as the functioning of
17 logistics within the HVO is something I'm not quite clear about. It's
18 very murky, not clear at all.
19 Q. Well, Mr. Marijan, are you saying that Mr. Stojic was not
20 responsible for logistics?
21 A. No. What I want to say is --
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there's really no need.
23 The first answer of the witness was, yes, within the frameworks of the
24 department and sectors under Mr. Stojic. There's no need to attack the
25 witness with something he didn't say. Mr. Bos can read the transcript on
1 line 17 to 19 on page 62. He said quite clearly where he thought
2 logistics belonged.
3 MR. BOS
4 Q. Okay. So -- well, you're saying that from your point of view,
5 yes, the minister of defence was responsible, but you haven't seen a lot
6 of documents as far as it concerned logistics; is that your testimony?
7 A. Well, yes, and if I compare it to other sectors, on the basis of
8 what I saw, the percentage of logistics, well, is negligible, it's a
9 negligible percentage, which I admit seems a little strange. As far as
10 other sectors are concerned, I can speak of the practical implementation.
11 Here we have the theoretical part through the provisions. So as far as
12 logistics is concerned, the Logistics Department, there are very few
13 documents on the subject, and even those that existed, general documents
14 from which I cannot draw conclusions, but the HVO did have logistics
15 which did function, more or less. That is not something that I
17 Q. Well, let me read out another part of paragraph 86 in your
18 report. You say that:
19 "The commanders of the HVO brigades and often" --
21 "Commanders of the HVO brigades and other officers often appealed
22 directly to the head of the Department of Defence in the matter of supply
23 and manpower, disregarding subordination, and thus going over the heads
24 of the Command of the zones of operation and HVO Main Staff."
25 Would you agree with me, when you state this, Mr. Marijan, that
1 based on this that there can be doubt that Bruno Stojic was the man to
2 approach when it concerned to matters of military supply and manpower?
3 A. Well, that's how Mr. Stojic is conceived here, quite obviously,
4 within the system. I don't say that Mr. Stojic wasn't in charge of
5 logistics. There were a great number of requests that went to him,
6 appealing to him. Now, the problem is the quantity, how much. But that
7 the logistics existed within the HVO, nobody can challenge that. Nor do
8 I contest it.
9 Q. Now, on the importance of logistics, I want to put a quote to you
10 from General Eisenhower. He said the following:
11 "You will not find it difficult to prove that battles, campaigns,
12 and even wars have been won or lost primarily because of logistics."
13 Would you agree with General Eisenhower that logistic plays a
14 crucial role in a war?
15 A. I read the general's memoir. It's this American vision of the
16 war. And while we're speaking of Americans, you remember how they
17 entered Bosnia
18 the River Sava
19 as an HVO soldier, I wasn't hungry, I was well dressed.
20 Q. Let's focus on logistics.
21 A. I told you, your investigators have a better and more
22 comprehensive access to that archive, and obviously some things are
23 missing. I can't believe they had never been written, but obviously --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have been listening
25 to every word you pronounce, and I have tried to connect your words to
1 other information we have heard from other witnesses and things we have
2 read in the documents, and there's something you just said that makes me
3 react. You said, "I was never hungry." Could you confirm that as an HVO
4 soldier, you did not witness any problems related to food supply thanks
5 to HVO logistics?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I can say for
7 sure about my participation in the war, as a reserve soldier in the Petar
8 Kresimir, the 4th Brigade in this period, I did not notice that we had
9 any problems with logistics, but you probably know that we were a
10 municipality that was leaning on Croatia. I had relatives in the HVO
11 Jajce, and they did not have the same experience, so there were great
12 differences between regions and between municipalities. The Operation
13 Zone Central Bosnia
14 zones that were based in Mostar and Tomislavgrad. But I, as a soldier,
15 did not experience any shortages, except for a certain period where we
16 did not have enough ammunition of a certain calibre. So the logistics
17 did function for us.
18 MR. BOS
19 Q. Okay. Mr Marijan, let's move to another topic --
20 [French on English channel]
21 MR. BOS
22 I was hearing the French translation.
23 Q. Mr. Marijan, let's move on to another topic, which is Mr. Boban.
24 We've heard some evidence about the role of Mr. Boban, and I'm going to
25 ask you a few questions about this as well.
1 And let me direct your attention to article of -- paragraph 2 of
2 your report, and this is -- and I'll quote from this paragraph. You say
3 the following:
4 "According to the Decree on the Armed Forces of the HZ-HB from
5 1992, the rights and duties of the HZ-HB President, Mate Boban, are
6 clearly defined in the section 'Feeding the armed forces.' His duties
7 were as follows:
8 1. Command and control of the armed forces (Article 29);
9 2. Appointing brigades, commanders, and high-ranking officers
10 (Article 34);
11 3. Issuing mobilisation orders for the armed forces
12 (Article 37)."
13 Sir, is it your position that Mr. Boban personally and actively
14 performed these three duties throughout the period 1992-1994?
15 A. Your Honour, these three powers, these three responsibilities of
16 Mr. Boban, that were within his remit, first of all, we can say without
17 any doubt that under paragraph 2, we have a large number -- the largest
18 number of documents we have about this. He signed appointments of
19 commanders of brigades and higher up. There's no question about that.
20 It's the basic staffing policy of the highest military echelons of the
21 HVO, that was under his supervision.
22 As of item 3, the issuing mobilisation orders, I know about one
23 case, and we had I think one or two documents about that. In July, I
24 believe, was one. He gave such orders on at least one -- two occasions
25 in 1992. There were not that many, although I believe I expressed some
1 of my doubts a few days ago about that very term, "mobilisation," and the
2 way it was understood by the HVO. And then item 1, which I left aside on
3 purpose as the most important one, it's the command and control of the
4 armed forces. There is a series of documents or perhaps a dozen
5 documents from Mr. Boban which go to this, but they are very early
6 documents. A command and control of the armed forces again brings us to
7 this problem.
8 I know that this Tribunal, although perhaps not this case, had a
9 big problem defining these two things. The very terms tell us that they
10 are not the same. The word "command" is often used alone. I will limit
11 myself to "command" and say that practically from the summer of 1992, we
12 have no evidence that Mr. Boban commanded the armed forces, which means
13 he had delegated his powers.
14 The army functions here, Mr. Bos, the same way a brigade does.
15 The unit is commanded by the commander and, in his absence, the Chief of
16 Staff, because powers are assigned to him.
17 Q. Let me stop you there. Now --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What you're saying is
19 important, but I wonder if we don't have a problem with the
20 interpretation here. In order to avoid that there might be a mistake in
21 the interpretation, what exactly did you mean when you said that there is
22 no proof indicating that Mr. Boban no longer commanded the armed forces
23 or that he no longer commanded? What exactly did you mean there? I
24 don't really understand that.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It is perhaps an interpretation
1 problem, Your Honour. His function, as Supreme Commander, was never
2 called into question. I think we discussed this the first day, the issue
3 of his signature on a series of combat documents that were expected.
4 It's a fact, and at least I didn't see it, that we have very few
5 documents from Mr. Boban in 1993. I wonder if there are any, in fact.
6 There was a document about the establishment of a military district, but
7 not appointments. So obviously some powers have been transferred from
8 him, which doesn't mean that he did not remain the Supreme Commander. He
9 remains the Supreme Commander and everything should be under his
10 supervision. There's no question about that.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A question for the archivist.
12 You said that you looked at HVO documents. Did you examine all of the
13 documents? I don't know exactly what the conditions were. Were they all
14 transferred to Zagreb
15 only have access to the documents that were limited to the restricted
16 circle of the Presidency of HZ-HB of Mate Boban? I'm not -- and only
17 that. I'm not talking about the documents related to Mr. Prlic or the
18 other heads of departments, but only the close guards, so to speak, of
19 Mr. Boban, where he actually carried out -- where he actually carried out
20 his power. Did you have only those documents or did you have other
21 documents? What would you say to that?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I did have access to
23 the archive, at least the largest part of the archive; I cannot guarantee
24 that it was all. That's the Croatian State Archive, with more than a
25 thousand binders. I know that I went through most of the documents of
1 the Main Staff, the operational documents at the higher level, at least.
2 I even organised them. And we could not separate a certain part
3 concerning Mr. Boban and say that this is the archive material on
4 Mr. Boban, but the bulk of that material, if not all, refers to the
5 Defence Department and the armed forces, to that part concerning the
6 Defence defence. That's exclusively material of that nature.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If the Chamber had enough time,
8 we would gladly take a look at the archive collection to see how it's
9 classified. It might be very interesting, indeed, and we could probably
10 find some very interesting things.
11 But I'm speaking to you as a professional archivist. In the
12 classification of these various documents, was there a special
13 classification that referred to the Presidency of the HZ-HB? Was there a
14 special shelf or several shelves which contained all of the files dealing
15 with Boban and the inner circle of Boban or is it all mixed up with other
16 documents in various places?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, there was a minor
18 part in the archives of the intelligence community, and I believe I
19 singled out 56 or 57 collections that were a basis for later. There's no
20 collection for Mr. Boban, per se. We have documents of his only through
21 the units with which he had communicated. But as for the existence of
22 something that in archival terms would be called the archival collection
23 of the HZ-HB Presidency, there is no such thing. These documents are
24 scattered through the archives.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The reason I asked these
1 preliminary questions was because I had the following question in mind:
2 Did you see documents, such as the agenda of the personal secretary of
3 Mr. Boban, which might have stated, for example, at a certain day, at a
4 certain time, meeting with Boban, Petkovic, Praljak, Stojic, or whoever,
5 followed by, I don't know, subject, military affairs, something like
6 that? Did you see that kind of document?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, I did not see such
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine, thank you.
10 MR. BOS
11 Q. I have a couple of follow-up questions from what you've been
12 saying in the last five, six minutes.
13 One of the things you said before Judge Antonetti asked you a
14 question was that, and I'm quoting now from page 67 of the transcript,
15 you said:
16 "Practically from the summer of 1992, we have no evidence that
17 Mr. Boban commanded the armed forces, which means he had delegated his
19 If that's the case, who would he have delegated his powers to?
20 A. The powers to command the armed forces were transferred from
21 Mr. Boban to the commander, later called chief of the Main Staff, and
22 that is as envisaged by the decree, and that's the statutory decision of
23 the 15th of September, 1992, that we discussed yesterday.
24 MS. ALABURIC: [No interpretation]
25 MR. BOS
1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, I'm sorry, there is no such
2 provision in the decree.
3 I will repeat what I believe is relevant for a good understanding
4 of the text we're talking about. The decree does not contain a single
5 provision enabling the Supreme Commander to transfer his powers to
6 command and control to the --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But witness, what you're saying
8 is a hypothesis that you're expressing or is it based on objective
9 knowledge? Can we imagine that in any given structure, that the Supreme
10 Commander delegate his essential responsibility, his essential power,
11 which is to be the number-one military commander? Does this exist around
12 the world? Do you have other examples?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We have the same example in
15 president of the republic. He holds the position of the Supreme Command,
16 but operative control is in the hands of the chief of the Main Staff, and
17 he has --
18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe it would
19 be useful, to facilitate your understanding -- perhaps it's inappropriate
20 for me to interrupt, but it's good for your better understanding to see
21 what exactly is written on the Decree on the Armed Forces. There is a
22 very similar provision in the Croatian law, in order to distinguish the
23 transfer of powers to command at the highest level.
24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] It is really unusual for me to
25 intervene at this moment, and it's unusual for me to support the
1 Prosecutor. It's a very rare occurrence. But let us allow him to
2 continue with his examination, because it is inappropriate to continue
3 presenting one's own case on the Prosecution time. The witness will tell
4 us what he knows and what he doesn't.
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Let me just respond to this
7 If a Defence team, in its theory, charges a certain accused more
8 than the Prosecution does, that leads us to Article 30 of the Decree on
9 the Armed Forces. It says that the Supreme Commander --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Can Ms. Alaburic stop reading so fast and just
11 repeat slowly what she wanted to say?
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] First of all, Madam Alaburic,
13 you are not testifying. You can recall that the text exists, indeed, but
14 you can't go any further. I remember that the witness is referring to
15 Croatian positive law, and I don't have the text of the Croatian
16 Constitution before me, but it does define the various levels of
17 competency. And from what I understand, it is the head of the armed
18 forces who, under the control of the president, exercises his power.
19 This is the Croatian system. This is not what we are judging here. We
20 are discussing and judging what happened in Herceg-Bosna. It's perhaps
21 the same system, but it could be a different system.
22 So for the time being, this is not terribly clear. I think we
23 should let Mr. Bos continue.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I would just ask that when Mr. Bos is
25 conducting his cross-examination on this particular issue, to just put --
1 to just make a reference to the particular article. We do have two
2 different exhibits, P 00289, which was the earlier version, followed by P
3 00588, and of course it would be very helpful -- Article 30 is the
4 controlling article in both of those instances, and perhaps if he could
5 lead the witness in that fashion. Well, not lead him, but cross-examine
6 him, by pointing him -- and then asking him, you know, to give an opinion
7 as to how he interprets.
8 MR. BOS
9 and Mr. Karnavas, that I had intend to go to Article 30 and --
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Just do it.
11 MR. BOS
12 gone to it yet.
13 And in fact, let's move to Article 30, and it's of P 00588, it's
14 the second version, the amended Decree on the Armed Forces.
15 Q. Mr. Marijan, could you look at P 00588 in the Prosecution bundle.
16 So please -- I don't think you have the Prosecution bundle there.
17 A. I have the document here as well.
18 Q. So it's P 00588, Article 30. Let me just read out what it says.
19 It says:
20 "The Supreme Commander of the armed forces may delegate certain
21 tasks of leading and commanding the armed forces to the head of the
22 Defence Department."
23 So Boban -- Mate Boban could actually delegate some of his
24 command authority to the head of the Defence Department. And isn't it
25 correct, sir, that this is, in fact, the only decree -- this is the only
1 article in the Decree on the Armed Forces which regulates the delegation
2 of command authority, and so therefore that Mr. Boban, in fact, could
3 only delegate this authority to the minister of defence, being
4 Mr. Stojic?
5 A. We can conclude from this that he was able to transfer his powers
6 to head of department Stojic, but if you look at these four paragraphs
7 that are very, very important, this section is called: "Leading and
8 commanding the armed forces." We have Article 31 that says:
9 "The leading and commanding of the armed forces shall be carried
10 out through commanders of the armed forces, in accordance with the
11 authorisations given them."
12 Now, that begs the question --
13 Q. But that doesn't say anything about delegation. We're talking
14 about delegation of his authority.
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] But, Mr. Bos, it would be fair,
16 then, to tell the witness "transferring some -- some powers." That's
17 what Article 30 says, "may delegate certain tasks," not all.
18 MR. BOS
19 Q. Sir, would you agree with me that based on Article 30, that the
20 Supreme Commander of the armed forces could only delegate certain tasks
21 to the Ministry -- to the minister of defence or to the head of the
22 Defence Department?
23 A. Your Honour, indubitably, he had that possibility, but there's
24 another problem. Did he actually do it? In my opinion, first of all, I
25 didn't see any document on the transfer of powers. That should have been
1 published either in the Official Gazette or somewhere, because it's a
2 public matter. It can be done under the table or it can be done at a
3 general higher level and then brought down the chain of command. So we
4 don't know whether any powers had been transferred and which part of
5 these powers may or may have not been transferred to the area of the
6 Defence Department. So it's a possibility for which we have no proof
7 that it was ever used.
8 Q. So you're saying, well, we haven't seen any official documents on
9 this, but isn't it true, sir, that just looking at the practice and the
10 number of documents that you have reviewed that Mr. Bruno Stojic indeed
11 had a much more active role in the command structure of the HVO armed
12 forces than Mr. Mate Boban? Could you agree to that, just in the actual
14 A. Your Honours, there's no question that Mr. Stojic, within the
15 framework of leading and commanding, as we see in this article, and we
16 have many documents speaking of his contact with the armed forces, but in
17 view of his powers, he has a very large span of communication with units.
18 But there is a problem, I understood yesterday, and I did draw your
19 attention, Your Honours, to this problem. We have two terms here,
20 "leading" and "commanding." I don't think anyone has ever clarified it.
21 "Commanding" is a term that doesn't cause doubts in anyone's minds, but
22 it's a specific term used only in the army. It's a practice that is
23 governed by laws and decrees which gives somebody the right to command
24 and give others the responsibility to obey commands, but it was always
25 said that it was a commander, a soldier, whereas head of department
1 Stojic is head of department. The Supreme Commander is the only one who
2 has the right to command, and he's defined as Supreme Commander alongside
3 being the president of the Presidency.
4 MR. BOS
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to have our second
6 break of the morning, because it's now 12.30, so I think it's preferable
7 to have the break at this point, 20 minutes'.
8 --- Recess taken at break 12.30 p.m.
9 --- On resuming at 12.54 p.m.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So let's resume the hearing.
11 I think Mr. Stringer wanted to take the floor.
12 MR. STRINGER: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Good morning to you and Your Honours and to everyone else.
14 One very brief request, Mr. President. The Trial Chamber has
15 issued its ruling on the supplemental witness summary for the next
16 witness, directing that the summary be filed, at the latest, by tomorrow,
17 the 23rd of January. We'd request that the Trial Chamber direct that the
18 summary be actually filed by 2.00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. Tomorrow,
19 being Friday, if it's filed late electronically, it won't be processed by
20 Registry or received by the Prosecution until Monday, which defeats the
21 purpose, and so we'd like to ask that it be filed by 2.00 p.m. And if
22 counsel could send a courtesy copy of it directly to us, that would be
23 much appreciated as well.
24 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, there's no need for an order. We will
25 endeavour to do it by 2.00, and in any event we will send a courtesy copy
1 to my learned friend.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was sure of it, Mr. Khan,
3 that you would do your utmost.
4 Let's proceed now.
5 MR. BOS
6 Q. Mr. Marijan, I would like to move now to the topic of
7 appointments of brigade commanders and high-ranking officers, which was
8 one of the three duties of Mr. Boban. And you've stated that -- and it's
9 correct that we've seen a lot of orders from Mr. Boban assigning high
10 positions in the HVO command, but isn't it correct also that a number of
11 these high-ranking military positions were actually -- actually had to be
12 approved by Bruno Stojic, as the head of the Defence Department, before
13 they were actually being appointed by Mr. Boban?
14 A. Mr. Stojic? Well, I don't think I understood you properly.
15 Q. Maybe things will become more clear if we look at the exhibits,
16 which is P 02477. It's in the binder, and it's one of the exhibits that
17 was shown to you before, I think, in-chief. It's the 20 May 1993
18 decision on the internal organisation of the Defence Department. It's
19 P 02477.
20 Mr. Marijan, can I advise you to just to use the Prosecution
21 binder and not any other binder, because otherwise we're getting really
22 confused. The document is actually in the Prosecution binder. It's
23 P 02477. There you go.
24 So do you recognise this document?
25 A. I do recognise the document, Mr. Prosecutor, yes.
1 Q. Let me direct your attention to Roman number III, "Special
2 organisations envisaged for the Main Staff," and forms part of this
3 decision, and then under B, that concerns the appointment of several
4 positions, and let me just read out the first paragraph:
5 "Chief of the Main Staff as a deputy, deputy Chief Of Staff is
6 appointed by the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna at
7 the proposal of the chief of the Main Staff and with the approval of the
8 head of the Defence Department."
9 And then if we continue, we see it's similar for the chief of the
10 operative sections, operative centre of military intelligence, again
11 assigned by the president and approved by the head of the Defence
12 Department; likewise, for the assistant chiefs for the home guard, and
13 the assistant chief for organisation, personnel, and legal affairs
14 appointed by the president at the proposal of the Chief of Staff and with
15 the approval of the Defence Department.
16 Now, in-chief you agreed that these were all high-level positions
17 and that's why they had to be appointed by Mr. Boban, but isn't is it
18 true that these positions also needed approval from the head of the
19 Defence Department?
20 A. That is correct. From this, we can see that he gave his approval
21 to these posts.
22 Q. That's the only thing I wanted to raise with regard to the
24 Let's now move to that third duty of Mr. Boban, which was
25 mobilisation, issuing mobilisation orders for the armed forces. I think
1 you've -- before the break, you said that you had seen a couple of
2 mobilisation orders by Mr. Boban, but not too many, and that they all
3 related to 1992. Is that correct?
4 A. Yes. Well, I know of two of them dating to 1992.
5 Q. But is it correct that you didn't come across any mobilisation
6 order by Boban issued in 1993?
7 A. I don't remember having come across any.
8 Q. And, sir, and a couple of these orders you've been reviewing
9 in-chief, isn't it correct that the mobilisations -- all the mobilisation
10 orders issued in 1993 were, in fact, mobilisation orders which were
11 signed by Mr. Bruno Stojic?
12 A. 1990 -- well, I'm just reading it. 1993, there are several,
13 several documents relating to mobilisation. I think they date to June
14 1993, in fact, and I think they were based on an order by the HVO -- a
15 decision by the HVO dated the 10th of June, 1993, I think the date was.
16 Now, I'm not quite sure whether that might be a mistake, whether it was
17 the 18th of June, 1993 --
18 Q. Well, I'll help you, Mr. Marijan, but we'll go through all these
19 documents. Let's move first to Exhibit P 01409, and that's an order
20 dated the 3rd of February, 1993; P 01409.
21 Have you seen this document before, Mr. Marijan?
22 A. I think so.
23 Q. And isn't it correct that this is an order by Mr. Bruno Stojic to
24 conduct a mobilisation in all municipalities of the territory of the
25 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna in accordance with the adopted
1 mobilisation plans?
2 A. Yes, that's what it says, although it's not quite clear. It's
3 not a very clear order.
4 Q. Why is it not a clear order?
5 A. Well, this could be interpreted as an order for general
6 mobilisation, and Mr. Andabak, as chief, I think he was in the armed
7 forces as well, that he was in one of the battalions, Convicts Battalion,
8 but I don't know that he did anything pursuant to this order, so I can't
9 say whether this order was actually carried out.
10 Q. But have you seen this order before or is this the first time
11 you're seeing this order?
12 A. I think I saw the order before, because I was looking for
13 something in it. But it was a long time ago, and I saw no link to this
15 Q. Well, let's move to the next exhibit, then, and I think you've
16 been referring to that. It's 2D 01485, and this is a mobilisation order
17 of 18 June 1993
18 Mr. Bruno Stojic, based on a decision by the government of the Croatian
19 Community from 18 June 1993
20 military conscripts in the municipalities Mostar, Siroki Brijeg, Citluk,
21 Grude, Ljubuski, and Posusje. And so he commands, under item number 1:
22 "In all above-mentioned municipalities to preform additional
23 mobilisation of all military conscripts up to 40 years of age and send
24 them to the operative formation deployed in the mentioned
1 You've seen this document before, have you?
2 A. Yes, I have, Your Honours, I have seen this order previously, and
3 I think I commented on it over the past few days for this additional
5 Now, I'd just like to draw your attention to a problem here, and
6 I also raised that problem earlier on, that we don't have -- the concept
7 of mobilisation hasn't been strictly defined, as it is in Bosnia and the
8 HVO, so it's not clear to me whether general mobilisation, prescribed by
9 Mr. Boban, was an ongoing process, and this is additional mobilisation,
10 or is this a new mobilisation call-up? So it's difficult for me to say.
11 In former JNA terminology, there was the term "dom mobilizatzi
12 [phoen]," which is a sort of additional mobilisation, when the units were
13 already formed, were replenished. And here from point 3, we see that
14 even the older age group is being called to mobilise and replenish the
16 Q. So you're saying this may be an additional mobilisation rather
17 than a general mobilisation; is that your evidence ?
18 A. Well, from the order itself, it would follow that it was
19 additional mobilisation, because general mobilisation, by definition,
20 must relate to the whole of Herceg-Bosna, whereas these are
21 municipalities in Herzegovina
22 already said this before, which, from June and July, new brigades were
23 established and set up to make things clear in those municipalities.
24 They were made up of -- well, two or more municipalities had a common --
25 a joint brigade. So this is linked up to that. When all these
1 municipalities withdraw their recruits or the decision was made whether
2 from -- on pressure from municipalities or whatever, but, anyway, each of
3 these municipalities formed a new brigade.
4 Q. But so if you think that this is an additional mobilisation, the
5 document that we just saw before, the one of 3rd February 1993, that was
6 a mobilisation for all municipalities, would you consider that a general
7 mobilisation, compared to this one?
8 A. Well, you could understand it that way.
9 Q. All right. Let's look at P 03024. We're now moving from 18 June
10 to 30 June, P 03024.
11 Have you seen this document before, Mr. Marijan?
12 A. Yes, I have seen this document before. The document can be
13 linked to the previous document, the one you showed me, and it relates to
14 Posusje, and from this you can conclude that the order on mobilisation
15 was progressing slowly and was never put into effect.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me. Witness, could you be a bit more
17 clearly? Either it never came about or it progressed slowly, but there
18 is an inherent contradiction in your last answer.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the basis of this
20 document and the previous document, dated the 18th of June, 1993
21 states "Posusje," it mentions Posusje, so on the basis of this, without a
22 doubt, that mobilisation of the 5th HVO Brigade, which was what it was
23 called, that it wasn't being mobilised sufficiently quickly. So this is
24 a warning, among other things, because of the explanation given in the
25 introduction to this text. So it became an urgent matter.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. So that it did not proceed at all,
2 you cannot say and you do not say. You just say, There must have been
3 problems, and that, I think, is borne out. Does one have to order -- is
4 it then possible to conclude on the contrary, that the mobilisation in
5 the other municipalities mentioned in the previous document worked, well,
6 satisfactorily, for Bruno Stojic?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on the basis of this
8 order, one could conclude that, yes, except if another order were in
9 existence. But as far as I know, this is the one -- the document I know
10 which wants to speed it up and says that it's urgent with respect to
11 those municipalities.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this short document
13 raises three problems: The causes, the consequences and the means used
14 to solve the situation. I think that the causes are that there is an
15 attack against Mostar and Bijelo Polje by Muslim forces on the 3rd of
16 June, 1993, at 3.00 a.m., so there is an attack. These are the causes.
17 The consequences seem to be the mobilisation of all available human
18 resources, equipment, and material. This is paragraph 1 of the order.
19 And the means used to achieve the objective are in number 2, in which it
20 is asked to carry out -- to engage all political factors, police forces,
21 and the media.
22 I'm interested in the police forces. What does it mean, when
23 engaging the political forces [as interpreted]? Does it mean that you
24 have to ask [indiscernible] to join the army and bring them by force to
25 the HVO units? Is this the way you understand this order?
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Sorry, there's a mistake in the
2 transcript. I don't know how it was interpreted to the witness, but in
3 line 6, 83rd page, it says "3rd June," whereas you said "30th"; right?
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I quoted from the document.
5 There is a date on the document.
6 Witness, the police forces were used to arrest those who resisted
7 mobilisation. Why are the police forces present, or does that mean that
8 they also have to engage in combat activities? This is the question I
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a bit
11 unclearly formulated, but at the end of the day, from the name of the
12 document, because it's an order, it was obviously implied that all forces
13 should be employed. It's a bit illogical for me that the police should
14 be taking someone into custody. I don't know how else to interpret this.
15 And from this text, it's also not quite clear. It associates, in my
16 mind, more with the civilian police, not the military police. It says,
17 "order that all resources be used to carry out the mobilisation."
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you clarify the number
19 02? Does this mean that the Defence Department? In the various
20 departments, does that mean that this number 2 relates to the Defence
21 Department? A moment ago, we saw a number which related to an
22 operational zone, and here we have this number 02. Does this relate to
23 the Defence Department?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, 02 is the number of
25 the Defence Department in the structure of the HVO. That's the number it
1 was assigned. Number 1 should be the head of department.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, yes. And the head,
3 indeed, you can see that the stamp bears the number 1, which is the head
4 of department.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It's number 1, yes, and it is also
6 indicated that this is the 763rd document in 1993.
7 THE COURT: Please continue, Mr. Bos.
8 MR. BOS
9 asked you, I think Judge Antonetti is right when he says that this
10 mobilisation order relating to Posusje is much more related to the events
11 happening on 30 June 1993
12 on the 18 June mobilisation of -- which you have seen before.
13 Maybe things will be more clear if we look at P 03038. You can
14 have a look at that in the binder, P 03038.
15 Q. Now, this is a very important document, and I presume that you --
16 that you have seen this document before, Mr. Marijan.
17 A. Yes, I've seen it.
18 Q. What this is is a joint proclamation from Mr. Prlic and
19 Mr. Stojic, sending a message to the Croatian people who live in
20 Herceg-Bosna, and, well, I won't go through the whole text - people can
21 read it and probably have already read it before - but if we look then
22 starting at the end of the proclamation, it says:
23 "The new Muslim aggression on Mostar causes the changes of life
24 circumstances, behaviour, and activities of the military and civil
25 organisation in these territories. Pursuant to the authorisation and the
1 new situation, the head of the HVO HZ-HB Defence Department,
2 Mr. Bruno Stojic, issues the following order: All conscripts from the
3 territory of Herceg-Bosna, no matter where they are at the moment, have
4 to report to the defence offices in their districts or residence or to
5 their units within the next 24 hours."
6 Sir, is this not again, you know, a very good example of
7 Mr. Bruno Stojic, and Mr. Jadranko Prlic in this case as well, taking the
8 lead into mobilising the Bosnian Croats in a defence?
9 A. It's not clearly emphasised as mobilisation. It's a call, an
10 appeal. It's obviously following on the previous one, and it is a fact
11 that it was signed by Mr. Prlic and Mr. Stojic. It's not clearly defined
12 as mobilisation. I don't know if we could treat it as mobilisation or,
13 rather, a request to everyone to return to their units.
14 Q. Well, regardless of whether we can call it mobilisation or not,
15 and we'll come back to this document to see whether any follow-up was
16 given in response to this proclamation, but -- we'll leave that for now.
17 I mean, clearly it is a call-up to the Bosnian Croats. Would you agree
18 with me on that one?
19 A. It is a call-up.
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would only like to
21 kindly ask Mr. Bos not to suggest what is not in the document. It is a
22 call, but it says on page 2 "In keeping with the authorisation and the
23 newly-arisen situation, the head of department, Mr. Bruno Stojic, issues
24 the following order: All conscripts from the territory," et cetera, "no
25 matter where they are at the moment." I'm sure that Croats are not
1 mentioned anywhere.
2 If the previous one was a call to Croats, it was because it was
3 the Croats who were attacked. But with regard to mobilisation, there is
4 no reference to Croats.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're really anticipating on
6 the question I wanted to put to the witness.
7 Witness, this document is quite astonishing for one main reason.
8 There are two individuals who sign this document, both Mr. Prlic and
9 Mr. Stojic. Now, Mr. Prlic is the president of the HVO HZ-HB, the head
10 of the department. I don't know why the head of the department would
11 sign as well, but -- I can imagine an answer, but I would like to check
12 it with you. Don't you think this document has two elements, two
13 components; a political component that comes under the authority of
14 Mr. Prlic, which is to develop the awareness of his compatriots regarding
15 the attacks by the Muslim forces, and that political element is expressed
16 through the media? In fact, you can see that this is to be sent to the
17 media, this text. The second component is related clearly to the
18 mobilisation, because under paragraph 1(5), the fact that the conscripts
19 must return to their domicile, that there is curfew, and that certain
20 sales are prohibited between certain hours, et cetera, and that the --
21 then there's mention of the legal situation of individuals.
22 You're a historian and you have seen many different documents,
23 thousands of documents, thousands of binders in the archives. What do
24 you think? Do you agree that this document can have two purposes, a
25 political purpose but also an administrative purpose, because these
1 measures are being taken because of the circumstances?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if we treat this as
3 mobilisation, we know that Mr. -- the head of the department had the duty
4 to carry out this mobilisation, so he's not doing anything that is
5 outside of his authority, and the signature of Mr. Prlic is here, if we
6 look at the addressees. He is the representative of the executive
7 branch. A body that belongs to the executive branch is sending a
8 communication that falls within his remit. It's not the only document
9 we'll see that bears two signatures, and in most cases such documents
10 were created if the matter fell into the purview of more than one person.
11 I must say I did not deal with the purview of the power of the president
12 of the HZ-HB, but it does fall within the remit of Mr. Stojic. He did
13 have responsibilities regarding mobilisation, he was carrying out
14 mobilisation. And as for these other matters, they are probably -- it's
15 possible that they are probably the responsibility of the president of
16 the HVO.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question.
18 Clearly, this document was established within the Department of
19 Defence, because the number 02-1-675, shows that it comes after the 673
20 that we saw a few moments ago. So this document was produced in the
21 Department of Defence. What is more surprising is that at that time
22 Mr. Stojic was also involved in politics, because it was he, himself, or
23 his team members who drafted the political aspects of the first few
24 paragraphs, 1, 2, et cetera, and then they took it, it would seem, to the
25 office of Mr. Prlic to have him sign and stamp the document, to
1 authenticate it, to prove that indeed he had seen it and approved it.
2 What do you think about that?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This document did result after a
4 very hard day for the HVO. I believe you know what it was about, Your
5 Honours. It was the betrayal of another part of another brigade of the
6 HVO in the area of Northern Mostar, Northern Camp, where Muslim members
7 of the HVO betrayed their comrades and crossed over to the Army of Bosnia
8 and Herzegovina
9 order, was created.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But you have no explanation
11 about the fact that the document would have been prepared by Mr. Stojic
12 and then counter-signed by Mr. Prlic?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There's no question that this is a
14 document from the Defence Department. We can see that not only from the
15 number, but also from the heading. But regardless of the preamble, it
16 boils down to a call to prepare for defence. If you call it
17 mobilisation, then it's an order for mobilisation with a very long
18 preamble stating the reasons, and we can link that to the example of
19 Posusje, for instance, where people did not really rush to respond to
20 such events, although the introduction of that document --
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, please proceed.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] [Previous translation continues]...
23 the same event.
24 MR. BOS
25 Q. We'll come back to this document a little later on, Mr. Marijan,
1 but for now you can leave that document aside.
2 Let me move to another topic which I would like to refer to, and
3 it's -- for you, it's paragraph 131 in your report. It's, in fact, the
4 concluding paragraph. And let me quote some sentences from that
5 concluding paragraph. This is what you say:
6 "Stojic was a member of HVO with executive powers, and he did not
7 adopt any kind of political decisions."
8 And then a few sentences later:
9 "As a member of HVO, on multiple occasions he was involved in the
10 activities of this body, when it was requested from the Presidency of the
11 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna to adopt political decisions or to
12 create bodies to help them in adoption of such decisions."
13 In relation to this quote, Mr. Marijan, what I'm curious about
14 is: How do you define a political decision? What, in your view, is a
15 political decision?
16 A. Well, in that specific case, and here it was the session held on
17 the 29th of April, 1993
18 of the relationship between Croats and Bosniaks, that is, Muslims.
19 I understand a political decision to be a clearly-defined
20 position towards the BH Army and the Muslims. With a clearly-defined
21 position, one can make a political decision and also a military decision,
22 based on which you can start thinking militarily how to do something and
23 what to do. And in Mr. Stojic's case, it defines his task. That's the
24 problem we mentioned a moment ago, the lack of a clear strategy towards
25 the Muslims, in fact the lack of any strategy at all.
1 Q. In your view, is there a difference between a political decision
2 and an executive government decision?
3 A. Well, I don't think it was by accident that Mr. Stojic said this,
4 because that session was attended by the top representatives of political
5 parties, the HDZ and the Presidency of the Croatian Community of
6 Herceg-Bosna. I believe that was their first meeting in 1993, and it was
7 the right forum to elicit from the Presidency of the HZ-HB a clear
8 position that could help define a long-term and elements of long-term
10 Q. Is it your position that a political decision could only be made
11 with the involvement of the Presidency of the Croatian Community?
12 A. Well, it is my view that the party that had won the elections,
13 and from whose ranks these members of the Presidency were elected, was
14 important in making this political decision. The party's position was
15 important to the political decision. However, the political decision
16 could be taken only by the Presidency of the HZ-HB. However, the opinion
17 of the party must have weighed in a great deal.
18 Q. So understanding your last answer, so you're saying that a
19 political decision could be taken only by the Presidency? That was my
20 question, and you seem to be agreeing with that; is that correct?
21 A. I think that the Presidency of the HZ-HB should have taken a
22 political decision. In fact, it was their job, their authority.
23 Q. Now, sir, in your answer a while ago, you said that, in relation
24 to that, that late April 1993 meeting, that you thought that this was the
25 first time the Presidency was meeting since -- in fact, since their
1 existence; is that correct? Is that what you testified?
2 A. I think I said -- perhaps it's a mistake in the text, but as far
3 as I know, although I might be mistaken, that it was -- I think I said
4 the Presidency of the HZ-HB met rarely, but after the date when they
5 adopted a number of decisions and decrees, I think it was their first
6 meeting in 1993. I may be wrong, but I believe it was.
7 Q. We've heard evidence here from members of the Croatian -- of the
8 Herceg-Bosna government, and in fact the Presidency stopped meeting after
9 17 October 1992
10 Croatian Republic
11 aware of that?
12 A. No. But if I remember that document correctly, in its
13 introduction they are listed, and I believe the Presidency was there.
14 Maybe the Presidency of the HZ-HB did not meet in some legislative sense,
15 did not pass any decrees, but if you have the document here, we can check
17 Q. That's exactly what you said, they didn't meet in some
18 legislative sense. And we've heard evidence to that effect, so I think
19 you can take that the president didn't meet in his capacity as the
20 Presidency -- the Presidency member in April 1993.
21 So taking that into consideration, isn't it true that a number of
22 important decisions, in 1992 and 1993, were in fact rendered by the HVO
23 government, without the involvement of the Presidency?
24 A. I don't know which decisions you mean. I know the HVO passed
1 Q. Let's look at a decision which -- which I'm referring to.
2 If you could look at P 01146.
3 Now, sir, this is a document which the Court has seen on numerous
4 occasions, and I presume that you have seen this document before as well.
5 Have you?
6 A. I think I saw it in a previous trial. Yes, it's a document I
8 Q. It's a document signed by Mr. Jadranko Prlic, as president of the
9 HVO HZ-HB, on the 15th of January, 1993. And let me just read out the
11 "In accordance with the agreements so far reached and signed at
12 the international conference on the former Yugoslavia, and the agreement
13 on peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Geneva Accords, the HVO Croatian
14 Defence Council of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, at its
15 extraordinary session held on 15 January 1993 in Mostar, adopted the
16 following decision:"
17 And then, Your Honour, I won't go into the content of what
18 actually was decided upon, but isn't it true, sir, that this was a
19 decision rendered by the government of the Croatian Community, of which
20 Bruno Stojic was also a member, and that this was, in fact, a very
21 important political decision?
22 A. Undoubtedly, this is an HVO decision, and there's no doubt that
23 Mr. Stojic was there. And this is a political decision.
24 Q. And then let's move, then, to Exhibit P 01140, which is related
25 to this decision. It's P 01140. It's a document which must be close to
1 that other document in the binder. It's a document signed by
2 Mr. Bruno Stojic, dated the same date as the other order; 15 January
4 Now, have you seen this document before, Mr. Marijan?
5 A. Yes, I have seen it before.
6 Q. As you can see in the first paragraph, there's a reference to the
7 decision of the HVO HZ-HB number 1, be it says "001-32/93," which is, in
8 fact, the decision that we just looked at P 01146, and let me just go
9 through the document, and let me just read out, for example, item
10 number 8:
11 "The chief of the Main Staff of the armed forces of the HVO and
12 the chief of the HVO Military Police Administration shall be responsible
13 to me for the implementation of this order, and I order written reports
14 to be delivered to me every eight hours regarding the implementation of
15 this order."
16 Would you agree with me, Mr. Marijan, that Bruno Stojic here, in
17 fact, implements the earlier political decision that we just saw through
18 this -- through this decision?
19 A. Yes, this decision is based on the previous decision, the
20 government decision of the same date, but as far as I know this decision
21 was not implemented. I believe the HVO annulled it after a few days. It
22 appears as much more vocal than it really was.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, I'm going to have to
24 interrupt at this point, because it is now quarter to 2:00, and as you
25 know, there is another case afterwards.
1 Witness, we need you to stay. I know you have a programme
2 scheduled for the weekend. I hope you have a pleasant stay, and we'll
3 have the pleasure to have you back in the courtroom on Monday morning. I
4 would like to inform you that we will resume on Monday at 2.30 in the
6 Mr. Bos, you will have another two and a half hours remaining,
7 approximately. That is the schedule.
8 MR. BOS
9 15 minutes later than normal?
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's two -- about two and a
11 half hours remaining, two and a half hours remaining, but it's more or
12 less two and a half hours remaining for your cross-examination.
Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
14 to be reconvened on Monday, the 26th day of
15 January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.