1 Monday, 26 January 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, kindly call the
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
9 everyone 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, Mr. Registrar.
14 I'll first greet the accused, the Defence counsel. Witness, good
15 afternoon. You were kind enough to stay over the weekend so that you
16 could continue with your testimony and finish it today. And, of course,
17 my afternoon greetings to all the OTP representatives, not to forget all
18 the people assisting us; the Registry, the usher, the interpreters, and
19 the security personnel.
20 Based on our calculations, you still have two hours and
21 thirty-two minutes, Mr. Prosecutor.
22 Mr. Bos, you may proceed.
23 MR. BOS
24 everyone in the courtroom.
25 WITNESS: DAVOR MARIJAN [Resumed]
1 Cross-examination by Mr. Bos: [Continued]
2 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Marijan. I hope you had a pleasant weekend.
3 A. Good afternoon. Well, it's past me. That's what -- the most
4 important thing.
5 Q. Very well. Mr. Marijan, on Thursday, we left off discussing
6 political decisions by the HVO government, and I showed you two orders of
7 the 15 January, 1993
8 by Bruno Stojic relating to the implementation of the Vance-Owen Peace
9 plan. Do you recall that evidence?
10 A. Yes, Your Honours, I do remember that.
11 Q. Now, on this issue of Bruno Stojic issuing political decisions,
12 let me ask you to look again at an exhibit that I also showed you on
13 Thursday, which is P 03038; 3038. This is the joint proclamation by
14 Mr. Prlic and Mr. Stojic. P 03038.
15 Maybe, Mr. Usher, you can help the witness getting -- finding
16 this document in the binder, 3038.
17 Now, Mr. Marijan, I take it you recall these documents from
19 A. Yes, I do recall.
20 Q. Now, sir, isn't this a document where the HVO government, in this
21 case so Mr. Prlic and Mr. Stojic, is trying to unite the people on the
22 territory of Herceg-Bosna in the defence against what they refer to in
23 this document as the Muslim aggression?
24 A. Your Honours, this is undoubtedly a call for the defence. It was
25 created at a very difficult point in time. It is a public appeal for
1 defence, since it has already been addressed to public media, and it
2 contains a very strong message.
3 Q. And is it not correct, sir, that this particular proclamation, in
4 fact, initiated subsequent military activity by the HVO armed forces?
5 A. Your Honours, I did not gain an impression that this was a
6 discontinuation of -- the HVO continued to have defencing problems after
7 this appeal, just as it had before it. Mr. Prosecutor, you should be
8 more precise and specific in your questions. And my research and my
9 degree of familiarity, what followed -- with what followed, did not leave
10 an impression that this was a qualitative breakthrough in respect of the
11 state of affairs before that. The HVO was -- continued to be militarily
12 ineffective, in a way.
13 Q. Well, let's look at some specific examples. Let me ask you to go
14 to Exhibit P 03026. So that should be a bit before this document in your
15 binder. No, a bit the other way. It's in numerical order, Mr. Marijan,
16 so 3026 would be somewhere before that.
17 Sir, this is a document from Commander Siljeg, the Operational
18 Zone commander, and it's dated the 30th of June, the same date as the
19 date as the proclamation, and it's addressed to Mr. Bruno Stojic and
20 Mr. Petkovic. Let me just read out. It starts off by saying,
21 "Instructions for work." And then I'll read out the first part:
22 "Brada was familiarised with the report from Mostar with the
23 conversation between Arif Pasalic and Sefer Halilovic, and with the
24 command issued by the head of the Defence Department for the president of
25 HVO, Herceg-Bosna. Based on that, the following is requested:
1 1. Have Obradovic take Blagaj. If need be, have him use the
2 tanks, turn towards the Chetniks to squeeze them from the south;
3 2. At all costs, prevent them from linking together from Mostar
4 to Jablanica;
5 3. Start working on Dreznica."
6 And then it continues. I'll stop reading, but you can continue
7 reading the rest of the document.
8 Let me ask you a couple of questions on this document,
9 Mr. Marijan. First of all --
10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours -- good afternoon, Your
11 Honours. I apologise. I would move for the whole document to be read to
12 the witness. At the exact place where the Prosecutor stopped, after that
13 follows something which is very important for the witness's answer. I
14 believe it would be fair for the witness to be read the whole document.
15 MR. BOS
16 continue reading the document.
17 So after I had stopped reading, I'll continue reading. The last
18 paragraph of this document:
19 "My opinion is that drastic sanctions, with immediate effects,
20 that is, seizure of movable and immovable property and other measures,
21 should be built into your command on mobilisation. The latest
22 developments and the conversation between Pasalic and Halilovic have
23 openly exposed their objectives. It is also apparent that it will be
24 difficult for us to hold out as we make up only 17 per cent. Let those
25 who want to live here come and fight. Those who will not must be forced
1 to, at least those who are not here. We either defend ourselves or
3 Sir, let me ask a couple of questions on this document.
4 First of all, it starts off by: "Brada was familiarised ..."
5 Have you come across the reference "Brada" in any other documents that
6 you have examined for this -- for your report, and do you know who Brada
8 A. Your Honours, the term "Brada" or "Beard," under quotation marks,
9 I have come across it. I can share with you my presumptions, but I'm not
10 sure -- I suspect this might be Mr. Praljak, but I cannot guarantee it
11 100 per cent. It's just my assumptions, which need not be true,
13 Q. And would you agree with me, in reading that first paragraph,
14 that here there's a reference made to the joint proclamation that we --
15 that I just showed you, when it says "the command issued by the head of
16 the defence department and the president"?
17 A. Your Honours, my conclusion from the first paragraph is that
18 Mr. Siljeg is referring to several reports, inter alia, the document that
19 you just showed me. I do believe that there are at least three
20 documents, which include the proclamation dated the 30th of June, 1993
21 the one that the Prosecution just showed me.
22 Q. Thank you. Now, sir, and the fact that this document is,
23 inter alia, addressed to Mr. Bruno Stojic, does it not show that
24 Mr. Bruno Stojic was not only initiating this military action, in his
25 role as a politician, but that he also was directly involved with the HVO
1 military commanders, in this case Mr. Siljeg, in the actual
2 implementation of this military action on the ground? Doesn't this
3 document show that?
4 A. Your Honours, I believe that this document, as a complaint of the
5 Colonel Siljeg's against the documents he referred to in the
6 introduction, I draw an impression that this was his opinion on what
7 should be added further. It was his assessment of the situation,
8 particularly the last paragraph that you read, Mr. Prosecutor. And I
9 believe that he thinks that the measures taken to mobilise the population
10 are ineffective and insufficient, and that judging and assessing the
11 state of affairs at the HVO, that radical and drastic measures should be
12 taken against all those who do not wish to take part in the defence of
14 My impression is that although certain parts of that document is
15 not clear to me, and after all, Siljeg is the commander of the operations
16 zone, and I treat this document as his complaints or remarks concerning
17 the documents that he had received and on the basis of which he had been
18 familiarised with the state of affairs obtaining in Mostar.
19 Q. Let's move to another document, which is P 03077.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I guess you have
21 examined thousands of documents in the archives in Zagreb. I have a
22 question in my mind.
23 Mr. Siljeg sent this document to Mr. Stojic and to Mr. Petkovic.
24 Given the way the army operated, as you found out, if an officer sent to
25 his minister of defence, did he not have to go through his hierarchy, or
1 was it possible for anybody in Herceg-Bosna to write to the minister of
2 defence without worrying about the hierarchy?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, respect for hierarchy
4 I see as a sign of a military being structured, and if this is taken into
5 account, respect for hierarchy, particularly in official correspondence
6 at the HVO, that was not their forte. There are many documents where
7 people go over other people's heads, even in cases where the subordinates
8 have correspondence with somebody who are two or three ranks above their
9 station, bypassing the immediate superior officer, not even sending a
10 copy to their immediate superior officer to familiarise them with what is
11 being discussed in the correspondence, so my final conclusion would be
12 maintaining hierarchy and respect for hierarchy was not a forte of the
13 HVO, which should not unduly amaze us, because this was a military
14 structure that had started being organised slightly before the date of
15 this document. Before the date of this document, the HVO had existed for
16 14 months.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, I seem to recall that the way you
18 presented the organisation of the defence in Herceg-Bosna, the Supreme
19 Commander and the person uniquely as the only person competent to command
20 the army was the president, Mr. Boban, whereas according to what you told
21 us so far, Mr. Stojic had a very secondary administrative function. He
22 was sort of the office in the background. Now, here it looks like -- as
23 if Mr. Siljeg has a different conception, because he's asking immediate
24 military action, ordering a commander to put tanks somewhere else, to
25 take a locality, and he requests not from Boban, but from Mr. Stojic and
1 Petkovic. I seem to note a certain contradiction there, and I would be
2 glad if you could clear it up.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the document dated
4 the 30th of June, 1993, where Colonel Siljeg addresses Mr. Stojic and
5 Mr. Petkovic does, indeed, contain three items which have been
6 enumerated, and these matters, in my opinion, are the subject matter to
7 be discussed by the Main Staff. And since communication with Mr. Boban
8 was very scarce, at least I did not see such documents, communication is
9 maintained with the person that has been conferred the duties to command
10 the army, and that was Mr. Petkovic, and I believe that Mr. Stojic is the
11 addressee with respect to the last element, and that is mobilisation,
12 because carrying out mobilisation falls within the job description of
13 Mr. Stojic. This would be my interpretation of this document. So there
14 are certain items addressed to Mr. Petkovic, and there are others
15 addressed to Mr. Stojic.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay.
17 Mr. Bos.
18 MR. BOS
19 Q. Mr. Marijan, let's continue with the document P 03077, which is a
20 document dated the 1st of July, 1993; 3077.
21 So as you can see, this a document -- an order from
22 Mr. Valentin Coric, and if we read the operative paragraph, it says:
23 "Pursuant to the order of the head of the defence department,
24 Mr. Bruno Stojic, and the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna president,
25 Mr. Prlic, of 13 June 1993
1 1. All conscripts from Herceg-Bosna, regardless of their current
2 whereabouts, must report to the offices for the defence of their local
3 municipality ..."
4 And then it continues. I will stop reading there. Sir, isn't
5 this, again, a direct reference to the joint proclamation that we have
6 seen before, P 03038?
7 A. That's correct, Mr. Prosecutor.
8 Q. And wouldn't you agree that this -- these reference, you know,
9 that this is an actually an implemented -- implementation of this
10 proclamation, in this case through the HVO military police, by
11 Mr. Valentin Coric?
12 A. Your Honours, this falls within the remit of military police,
13 pursuant to that order, and the paragraph read out by Mr. Bos refers to
14 the issue of mobilisation of conscripts who have failed to respond to the
15 call-up or who should be apprehended and brought in.
16 Q. All right. Mr. Marijan, let's leave this topic aside and let's
17 move to another topic, and for that I --
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, before we leave the topic, Your Honour,
19 perhaps it might be good to refresh all our memories on what happened on
20 or about June 30th, which would -- you know, which is why you had -- in
21 order to put it into context.
22 MR. BOS
23 what happened on the 30th of June. I don't see the need for me to ask
24 questions about that at this stage in my cross-examination, Your Honours.
25 And if that needs to be done, I think it can be done --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, do you know what
2 happened on the 30th of June?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do believe that
4 we've referred to that over the past four days. On the 30th of June, in
5 Mostar, there was the treason occurring and a number of Muslims, members
6 of the 2nd HVO Brigade, who turned coats and went into the ranks of the
7 Muslim forces. I had an impression that this was clear to everybody.
8 This was a turning point -- one of the turning points, I believe.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
10 MR. BOS
11 Q. Mr. Marijan, can I ask you to get your report before you, and I
12 would like you to look at the last paragraph of your report, which is
13 paragraph 131. This is one of your concluding paragraphs, and it starts
14 off by reading:
15 "Stojic was a civilian, and his position in the HVO was purely
16 administrative, like it was supposed to be. This position was specified
17 by decrees and decisions that regulated the defence department's sphere
18 of activity. Stojic behaved entirely according to the legal boundaries
19 within which he acted as the head of the Defence Department, and this is
20 confirmed by decisions and documents that were analysed in this
22 Sir, last week Ms. Alaburic questioned you on this conclusion,
23 and what remained a bit unclear to me is what you actually meant when you
24 concluded that Bruno Stojic's position was purely administrative. Could
25 you please again explain what you meant by the term "purely
2 A. Your Honours, what I meant was that his role, and as I understood
3 the basic issue that this Court is dealing with is the position of
4 Mr. Stojic in the chain of command and the hierarchal chain of
5 Herceg-Bosna, and his relationship with the armed forces. And my opinion
6 is on the basis of what I saw, was that his relationship with the armed
7 forces was an administrative one, that he did not have the right to order
8 and command forces.
9 Q. Right. And that's, I think, what you also said in your
10 examination-in-chief last week, where you were very adamant that you did
11 not see any evidence where the Defence Department would be engaged in
12 business connected to the command and control of the HVO armed forces.
13 Is that correct? This is, in fact, what you said? You were asked:
14 "Have you seen evidence of the department engaging in business
15 connected with the command and control of the armed forces?"
16 And you answered: "No."
17 A. That's correct. I did not see any evidence that he was in the
18 business of commanding military units or armed forces.
19 Q. Now, so in response to that opinion of you, Ms. Alaburic showed
20 you, in cross, and you may recall that, at least a dozen exhibits to make
21 the point that Bruno Stojic in fact did have an active role in the
22 command-and-control structure of the HVO. Do you recall that?
23 A. Your Honours, sir, if I recall correctly, you most probably
24 referred to the documents that we went through very quickly, without
25 commenting on them. They do show a communication line between Mr. Stojic
1 and units, pursuant to the decree of Mr. Boban, the decree on the basis
2 of the structure of the Department of Defence from 1992 -- in September
3 1992. And what is the most confusing matter, which confuses even me at
4 times and -- used to confuse me at times, was -- and I believe I
5 mentioned that on the first or second day of my testimony, was the
6 not-very-clear terminology of the HVO. Mr. Stojic uses the word "order,"
7 where it should stand and where it shouldn't stand. There is an opinion
8 that a civilian, a minister of defence cannot issue orders, and even in
9 2000-2001 I had occasion to see such documents. But as far as I recall,
10 most of those documents would have the same effect if they were
11 headlined "request" instead of "order." But we cannot say what each of
12 those documents had as its purpose without analysing each of them.
13 I can tell you that Mr. Stojic's communication manner lacks
14 finesse. He uses words which are too strong for the purpose they are
15 meant to have. I remember that in May and June, Mr. Petkovic would never
16 have written a headline "order" for most of the things that Mr. Stojic
17 used it for. He would have used the word "request" to achieve the same
18 purpose. And this may leave an impression that Mr. Stojic is trying to
19 butt in into the chain of command.
20 And going back to the decree, the four articles in the decree,
21 either of the 3rd of July and the 17th of December [as interpreted],
22 these are headlined "command and control." And from items 31, 32, make
23 it clear what commanding is and how it is defined, but we do not have the
24 proper term for the concept of managing or leading, and some people did
25 not think that the term in Serbo-Croatian was not Croatian enough, so
1 they invented this other term, "vodzinja," [phoen] and I believe that Mr.
3 Q. I'm going to interrupt you here because you're giving a long
4 answer. I take it from your answer that despite the documents shown to
5 you by Ms. Alaburic, you still have the opinion that Mr. Bruno Stojic did
6 not have any role in the command and control of the HVO armed forces. So
7 what I will do today is I'm going to show you another ten documents, and
8 unlike Ms. Alaburic, I will give you a bit more time to actually look at
9 these documents and give your opinion as to why these documents would not
10 make the point that Mr. Bruno Stojic was in the command and control.
11 What I will do is -- it's a series of ten documents, and we'll
12 present them in chronological order. So I will start in October 1992 and
13 continue up to November 1993, when, in fact, Mr. Stojic --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before you look at the
15 documents, Witness, let me go back to the previous topic, because I and
16 my fellow Judges tried to see some logics in all this chronology of
18 I was very perturbed before by this reminder of the 30th of June,
19 1993, when the Muslim HVO troops deserted, and you confirmed it -- you
20 confirmed something that seems illogical to me, to the extent that
21 something important had happened on the 9th of May, 1993. And we have
22 heard two versions of events, one by the Prosecution that said that it
23 was the HVO that attacked the Vranica building. The Prosecution are of
24 the view that it was the HVO that attacked the building held by the ABiH,
25 whilst the Defence said that it was the ABiH that attacked the HVO
1 positions in Mostar. So there is this discussion between the Prosecution
2 and the Defence teams. But you were fortunate enough to look into all
3 these documents, so I'm asking you this: If there was an attack on the
4 9th of May by one or the other party, is it logical that the Muslim HVO
5 unit would not be disarmed straight away on the 9th of May, but on the
6 30th of June? Is that something logical or is that something that is
7 absolutely normal. Do you have an opinion on that? Otherwise, we can
8 move on.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in the chronology of
10 the conflict between the HVO and the BH Army, the 9th of May in Mostar
11 has a definite place. I have seen several documents from which I can
12 draw the conclusion that on the 9th of May, there was indeed quite a
13 major conflict between the Command of the 4th Corps in Mostar, and it is
14 indeed an interesting question that you're raising; that is, why they
15 were not disarmed at the time. But maybe this also provides the answer
16 as to who is to blame for that conflict. I did not study it in detail,
17 because I didn't have sufficient elements to do so, but there is this
18 dilemma as to why they were not disarmed. The problem of Muslim soldiers
19 in the HVO had been noticed earlier on; in 1993, with respect to the
20 Bregava Brigade. But with respect to this particular instance, I cannot
21 provide a clear answer.
22 Let me just say that the Bregava Brigade is from Stolac. I don't
23 know whether this was referred to. Their commander by Baja Stipovic. I
24 assume you have discussed this issue already.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you don't have an answer to
1 give us. Thank you.
2 MR. BOS
3 Q. Mr. Marijan, could I ask you to move to Exhibit P 00670. It's
4 more in the beginning of the binder. 00670. This is an order signed by
5 Slobodan Praljak and Bruno Stojic, dated the 29th of October, 1992, and
6 it's addressed to Colonel Laskic and to Stjepan Blazevic, and it says:
7 "We have been trying for 58 hours to insert an HVO armed
8 formation of about 400 armed soldiers in the direction of Jajce."
9 "So far, this group has twice been prevented from passing towards
10 Jajce by Muslim units."
11 And then I'll read the last sentence. You can read the rest as
12 well, but I'll read out just the last sentence:
13 "Do your utmost to smooth out any disagreements with the Muslims
14 in Novi Travnik and Vojnica and to influence the Muslims to ensure
15 unhindered passage towards Jajce from their side."
16 Sir, why would Bruno Stojic in this instance be concerned with
17 the free movement of a formation of a group of 400 HVO soldiers in the
18 direction of Jajce?
19 A. Your Honours, this story, if you may call it that, has a prelude
20 of several days. There was, indeed, a joint group of the BH Army and the
21 HVO who were trying to strengthen aid to Jajce, which was about to fall,
22 when it was attacked by the Bosnian Serbs. I think a day later, in fact,
23 it did fall, and then this group was stopped because of the conflict in
24 Prozor and Central Bosnia. Now, the question as to why Mr. Stojic --
25 I think that he did have the authority to allow movement to members of
1 the BH through the territory supervised by the HVO, so I think his
2 signature here, I would interpret in that way. As for Mr. Praljak,
3 I think there's no need for me to go into that, because there's the
4 military police there too as well.
5 Q. Okay. All right, let's move to the next document, which is
6 P 00933. This is a document dated 18th December 1992, and it relates to
7 Christmas, and it's signed by Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak, and
8 Milivoj Petkovic, and it reads:
9 "Due to the fact that Christmas is a family holiday and that, at
10 this moment, your unit and your soldiers are your real family --"
11 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you for reading slowly.
12 MR. BOS
13 Q. "Due to the fact that Christmas is a family holiday and that, at
14 this moment, your units and your soldiers are your real family, I hereby
15 issue the following order:
17 And I won't read the whole order, but it basically is -- you
18 know, they can read it for themselves.
19 Now, don't you agree or isn't it correct, Mr. Marijan, that this
20 document clearly shows that they are here, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak
21 and Milivoj Petkovic, which are acting together in a joint command
23 A. Your Honours, from this document there's no doubt that this is an
24 order signed by three persons, Mr. Stojic, Mr. Praljak and Mr. Petkovic,
25 but then if we were to really analyse things, I think point 4 could be
1 linked directly to Mr. Stojic, because it is a logistics item, at least
2 in my opinion.
3 Q. Let me ask you now a question about this document. The order in
4 which it signs, it's Bruno Stojic on top, then Mr. Praljak, and then
5 Brigadier Petkovic. Does this order say something about the hierarchy
6 between these three people?
7 A. That was not how I saw it.
8 Q. Let me ask you this: Do you think that Mr. Praljak or
9 General Praljak and General Petkovic were to treat Mr. Bruno Stojic as
10 their superior?
11 A. And judging by the documents, I did not get that impression,
12 Your Honour. I would rather say that they treated him as being someone
13 of the same level, though he wasn't. He was responsible for logistics.
14 Anyway, it was not my impression that they treated him as their superior.
15 Q. Let's move to another document, which is P 01205.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you have seen
17 thousands of documents in the Zagreb Archives. If Mr. Stojic had had
18 full competence in military matters, was it necessary for him to have
19 this document counter -signed by Mr. Praljak or Mr. Petkovic? Was that
20 common practice? What does it mean?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, it was some sort
22 of a practice regarding -- the signature of documents by several people
23 is rare in other armies. I think in the past few days that I have been
24 here, the general picture one sees from all the documents is that there
25 are very few of this kind. However, this type of document was frequently
1 done -- in my view, according to the rules of correspondence, each one of
2 them should have signed his segment so there would be no doubt about it.
3 But in the HVO, it was quite customary for several people to sign the
4 same document. You've probably seen documents in the Operative Zone of
5 Mostar that an order of the superior would then be also co-signed by
6 somebody called Lazic, for example, which is rather strange in official
8 MR. BOS
9 Q. Mr. Marijan, P 01205 is the next document that I would like to
10 show you. This is a document from Mr. Arif Pasalic, addressed to the BiH
11 Army staff, and it relates to -- it's dated the 19th of January, 1993
12 and it talks about an order on the cessation of operations in
13 Gornji Vakuf. And it says:
14 "We, the HVO Main Staff here, Bruno Stojic and Milivoj Petkovic
15 and Arif Pasalic, will draft an order on cessation of operations in
16 Gornji Vakuf. The order would be signed by HVO Main Staff Bruno Stojic
17 and Arif Pasalic, subject to your authorisation."
18 I will not read out the rest of the document, but my question to
19 you is: Does it strike you as awkward for Mr. Bruno Stojic to sign a
20 military cease-fire agreement on behalf of the HVO forces?
21 A. Your Honours, that is absolutely unusual, but I don't know
22 whether afterwards there was any specific document signed by Mr. Stojic
23 and Mr. Pasalic. But I think I did see several documents signed on
24 behalf of the BH Army by Mr. Pasalic, but I think that on behalf of the
25 HVO, but the Prosecutor may correct me, the documents were signed by
1 Mr. Petkovic. So it is rather unusual, what Mr. Pasalic says here, but I
2 don't know what followed, in concrete terms, after this. It is indeed
3 strange for Mr. Stojic to sign it.
4 Q. Let's move to another document, P 01418.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, in listening to your
6 answer concerning that document, did you know that in the context of the
8 General Halilovic?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On this specific day, the 19th of
10 January, Your Honour, no, I didn't know that. I thought it was just
11 Mr. Boban who was there then. I didn't know that Mr. Petkovic was there
12 on the 19th of January.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But if we assume that Petkovic
14 and Halilovic were the partners in discussion acknowledged by the
15 International Community, as we have seen documents where the high
16 representatives of the International Community also signed documents that
17 were signed by Petkovic and Halilovic, would it be normal in that case,
18 and you'll forgive the expression, that the secondary role players, in
19 other words, those who are not acknowledged as international bodies, such
20 as Mr. Stojic and Petkovic [as interpreted], would then be involved in
21 matters such as logistics or practicalities?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojic could take over --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Previous translation continues]... in the
25 transcript, I said Stojic and Pasalic were the second fiddles, not
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This could perhaps be interpreted
3 in that way, Your Honour, even though it would then be logical for the
4 logistics man to sign it on behalf of the ABiH. But something has
5 occurred to me, in view of the fact that Mr. Stojic was not there at the
6 time. I think I had occasion to see one or perhaps two documents, the
7 document of the Main Staff rather than the Defence Department, signed by
8 an officer from the Main Staff, the second or third in the chain of
9 command, and my interpretation was always that Mr. Stojic had authorised
10 somebody who was not so well known more broadly. I think I saw one or
11 two such documents.
12 And now I am speaking as a soldier, as a former soldier. Among
13 all the persons mentioned here, with the exception of Mr. Praljak, I was
14 familiar only with Mr. Petkovic, and Glasnoc [phoen] from Tomislavgrad,
15 but he was of a lower rank, so he was the person who the public was most
16 familiar with.
17 MR. BOS
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: Yes.
19 MR. BOS
20 Q. Sir, if I could next ask you to move to Exhibit P 01418, and this
21 is a document dated the 4th of February, 1993. P 01418. It's a report
22 from a Mr. Zulovic, Adem Zulovic, and it's inter alia addressed to the
23 head of the Defence Department, the chief of the Main Staff, and the
24 commander of the south-east Herceg Operational Zone. And it's -- well,
25 I'll read again the first paragraph:
1 "Pursuant to the order of the chief of the Main Staff of the HVO
2 HZ-HB," and then there is a number, "dated 28 January 1993, a team from
3 the Main Staff and the 4th Corps visited the defence line in Konjic and
4 on that occasion observed the following shortcomings."
5 And then, well, I'm not going to read out the whole document, but
6 there is a detailed of the defence line in Konjic.
7 Sir, my question on this document is -- well, my comment on this
8 document: Isn't this a report where Mr. Stojic is, in fact, being
9 closely informed about the military situation on the ground?
10 A. Your Honours, that is a report which describes in detail the
11 situation on the ground, but in paragraph 1(c) it refers to the question
12 of morale, and this is within the terms of reference of Mr. Stojic. So
13 that is what I link him to, to paragraph 1(c) on page 1, because it
14 refers to the Sector of Morale, for which Mr. Stojic is responsible. So
15 he's being told that certain political activists or people responsible
16 for morale are not doing their job properly, and this was an important
17 issue, referring to the combat readiness of the armed forces.
18 Q. Let's move to another document, P 02093. P 02093. This is a
19 joint order signed by both Bruno Stojic and Milivoj Petkovic, and it's
20 addressed to the -- to all operational zone commanders, and it's to
21 declare an immediate halt of offensive operations against units of the
22 Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Now, sir, is this not an order from
23 Bruno Stojic directly connected to combat activities of HVO units, in
24 this case to cease combat activities?
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. If
1 possible, I would like the witness to see the document properly. The
2 preamble is hardly legible. So could the Prosecutor read out the
3 preamble, because he has a clean copy, if the witness is unable to read
4 it, and the interpreters can interpret for him.
5 MR. BOS
6 Q. Sir, I'll read out the preamble from the English version, and you
7 can listen to the translation:
8 "In keeping with the agreement on a cease-fire and cessation of
9 hostilities, as well as the resolution of problems between the Army of
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina and the HVO, signed in Zagreb
11 Mr. Boban, and Generals Petkovic and Halilovic, and co-signed by the
12 president of the Republic of Croatia
13 I hereby issue the following order:"
14 And then I think -- well, the rest of the text is legible.
15 So, sir, again, my question is -- or is this not an order from
16 Bruno Stojic directly connected to combat activities, in this case to
17 cease combat activities of the HVO forces?
18 A. Your Honours, it is an order by Mr. Stojic. However, when I was
19 referring to this problem of co-signing documents, I had in mind this
20 order as well, because this order, on behalf of the Main Staff, was
21 actually signed by Colonel Zeljko Akrap, who was deputy Chief of Staff or
22 maybe an operative officer in the Main Staff; anyway, a person who is
23 third or fourth in the chain of command in the Main Staff who may stand
24 in for someone if the Chief of Staff or his deputy are not there. So in
25 my view, this is the document whereby Bruno Stojic, by his signature, is
1 authorising an officer who is probably unfamiliar to most.
2 Q. Well, it seems to me that this is not very clear from the
3 document, making a conclusion like that. How can you conclude that from
4 the document; simply by -- if that was the case, it would have been made
5 more clear in the document; no? Is this something you guess about, or
6 how can you read this from the document?
7 A. It is my assumption, Your Honour. Your Honours may not agree
8 with me, nor may the Prosecutor, but this is the signature of Mr. Akrap,
9 so we have signatures at different levels already. There were political
10 signatures and military signatures, Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Halilovic, so
11 this would be some sort of a third level. One may even question the
12 purpose of this document if Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Halilovic have already
13 signed the document. It would be interesting to see their document.
14 Q. Let's move to the next documents. We're now moving into May,
15 Exhibits P 02292.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Mr. Bos. I would like to insist a
17 bit on your guess-work, witness/expert. You say that this signature is
18 the signature for someone called "Akrap." You pretend that you know the
19 signature, seeing it here. Of course, we cannot -- we have no way to
20 follow this, to control this, so we have to leave this open. But what is
21 the meaning of it? In the typed text, clearly it is Petkovic who signs.
22 Now, you say this was drafted by Mr. Akrap. I don't know whether you
23 know how higher-level staffs, higher than where you were placed in the
24 army, how they function. It is my experience, but I think everyone's
25 experience in the room, that it's not always the top chief who will sign
1 who drafts the whole document. That's why one has a staff. But the
2 responsibility is with the person whose name figures as the person who
3 signs, even if it is signed by someone in his name, because it must be in
4 the name of Mr. Petkovic. Otherwise, there would be some mention here.
5 Now, is there any relevance in this, and how would it affect the
6 weight of the signature of Mr. Stojic? I simply fail to follow your
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as far as the
9 signature is concerned, I am personally familiar with Mr. Akrap, so when
10 you know some things, you notice them.
11 With respect to this document, I think I already said one may
12 wonder whether it had a purpose, because a political agreement had
13 already been signed at the political level; Mr. Izetbegovic and
14 Mr. Boban. Then we have the military level, so that I don't see what the
15 purpose of this document was. And as it is signed, I cannot interpret it
16 in any other way, but I assume that Mr. Prosecutor will have more
17 documents and more evidence, and then we will see how many documents of
18 this kind exist which call in question the assessment that I gave in
19 paragraph 131 of my expert report.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness --
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just following this line, you say there was
22 already an agreement; therefore, what's the purpose of this. The
23 agreement, does the agreement say: "Start fortifying your defence
24 positions"? Is that in an agreement?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do believe that in
1 this period, mid-April -- no, at the beginning of April or the second
2 part of April, second half of April, this agreement was one in a row of
3 agreements signed. I would like to see the agreement, myself.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Which agreement are you talking about? This
5 here what we have is an order. It's not an agreement, it's an order, and
6 normally an order is something quite different from an agreement. An
7 order may execute what has been agreed upon, but it's -- how can you say
8 there is no purpose in this because there's an agreement? When you have
9 an agreement and you want to execute it, someone must tell those who can
10 do something what they have to do, and that's what seems to be happening
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I must have
13 misunderstood your question. This order would be much clearer if we were
14 to see the agreement, because it refers to it in the preamble. It says
15 "cease-fire agreement." And of course the penultimate and the ultimate
16 item always regulates the following steps, what the procedure will be
17 from that point onward.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, let's try to shed some
19 light on this.
20 There is no doubt about this. Izetbegovic, Boban, Petkovic, and
21 Halilovic, together with Tudjman and Lord Owen, agreed on cessation of
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, this should be beyond doubt
24 from the preamble.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Well, if
1 Mr. Petkovic was not on the ground, the military aspects have to be dealt
2 with. Further, to the logic of operation of Herceg-Bosna, did the
3 minister of defence not have the obligation of a translation of Boban's
4 decision into legal terms, so as to inform the forces on the ground that
5 they had to put an end to all actions against ABiH? That's item 1.
6 This document was drafted by Mr. Stojic. You can see the number,
7 021438/93, 8 hours." Was this document initially only signed by
8 Mr. Stojic? Was it distributed to all the people it was supposed to be
9 sent to in the operational zones in Central Bosnia, et cetera? Was this
10 document then sent to the headquarters or the Staff, because you can see
11 a stamp showing the date of the 5th of April, 1993, "02/1595-343," which
12 shows that it was received, and when it was received the head of staff,
13 this famous Akrap that you know, did he think it was useful to add to the
14 document his own initials, but so that Mr. Petkovic is charged with
15 distribution of the document, so he stamped the document and signed on
16 behalf of Petkovic, who was not present? Is this a possible scenario?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, you're pointing to
18 the attention of the stamp was something which I looked over. This is
19 from the Army of BiH, Sarajevo Main Staff's stamp. They are the source
20 of this document, and in their opinion, their impression may have been
21 that this was proof that the HVO was observing the cease-fire. It can be
22 seen here that it was transferred by fax, although it says "strictly
23 confidential," and since it is obvious from the initials that this was
24 not the signature of Mr. Stojic, it was somebody else's, but who is
25 completely unfamiliar to the people in the Main Staff in Sarajevo, and
1 this is why Mr. Bruno Stojic's name is mentioned here. And this is the
2 most probable explanation of this document. I completely ignored the
3 stamp or the stencil of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of BiH.
4 And you did not overlook it, Your Honour, to your credit.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry, Witness. First, for the record, it is --
6 the stamp must be read "25th" and not "5th," because it's not possible
7 the document arrived 20 days before its drafting. But were you now
8 seriously saying that this bears the "au tete" and the signature of
9 Mr. Bruno Stojic, and it is in the first place, of course, addressed to
10 the operation zones of the HVO, but Stojic only signed this document
11 because perhaps the gentleman who signed in place of Petkovic was not
12 known to the other side? Is that what you want to make us believe,
13 Witness? I find this a bit far-fetched, honestly.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is my opinion,
15 and of course it will be up to you to decide this matter. That's
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos.
18 MR. BOS
19 Q. Sir, can I ask you to move to Exhibit 2292. It's dated the 11th
20 of May, 1993. It's a document entitled "Instructions for Work." It
21 comes from Colonel Siljeg, and it's addressed personally to Bruno Stojic
22 and personally to Milivoj Petkovic. Now, there is a number of items in
23 this document, and you can read through them. I will read out item 9 and
24 item 10:
25 "I await your urgent reply, because we will be pounding anything
1 that moves with artillery deep inside the area, as well as Jablanica.
2 Give us the exact location of UNPROFOR on a map on a scale of 1:50.000:
3 I'm requesting an urgent reply and other instructions, if any. We are
4 alone and under great psychological pressure."
5 Now, sir, is it not awkward for an operational zone commander to
6 address -- to request for specific instructions relating to combat
7 operations to the head of the Defence Department, personally?
8 A. Your Honour, Colonel Siljeg requests this from both Mr. Stojic
9 and Mr. Petkovic, so he is requesting things from the head of the
10 Department for Defence and the chief of the Main Staff. This is
11 obviously an action that he took of his own volition, and maybe he's
12 requesting their approval, but this is a matter to be decided by others.
13 It is evident from item 10 that he's asking for instructions, for
14 something like that, but here we go back to the duties and rights of
15 Mr. Stojic in terms of logistics support and other matters which concern
16 combat readiness of an army.
17 But just to make it clear, I did -- do not think that he
18 requested to be sent the location of UNPROFOR in order to pound them as
19 well, but to avoid pounding them, and he requested it on a map which is
20 of a pretty detailed scale, 1:50.000.
21 Q. Let's move to the next document, which will be P 03124. P 03124.
22 This is an order signed by Bruno Stojic dated --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, I have a question for
24 you. Undoubtedly, Colonel Siljeg was asking for instructions from Stojic
25 and Petkovic, because the attack was scheduled at 5.00 in the morning on
1 the 13th of May, and he sends this on the 11th. Did you check in your
2 documents whether Petkovic or Stojic replied to Colonel Siljeg?
3 MR. BOS
4 so, I can do so and then come back to you later on this.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In support of your
6 demonstration, if you had checked whether Mr. Stojic replied by saying,
7 "Okay," et cetera -- well, we don't have that answer.
8 Continue, Mr. Bos.
9 MR. BOS
10 Q. Mr. Marijan, do you have Exhibit P 03124 in front of you?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. Now, sir, this is an order from Mr. Stojic, and I'll read out the
14 "Assessing the complexity of the situation on the front-line in
15 Mostar that has so far been jointly held by members of civilian and
16 military police, and particularly due to the perceived omissions in
17 command and performances -- performance of joint operations, I hereby
18 issue the order:
19 "1. Members of the civilian police that are holding the
20 front-line in the area of the town of Mostar are being subordinated to
21 Mr. Mija Jelic, commander of the 1st Battalion of the Military Police."
22 I won't read the rest of the order, you can read it yourself,
23 but, sir, doesn't this document again show an active role by Bruno Stojic
24 in commanding the defence line in Mostar, at least in organising the
25 troops in Mostar?
1 A. Your Honours, what is the most contentious matter in this
2 document or which is not known to me is as follows: I must tell you that
3 I have never seen the decree on internal affairs, so I cannot tell you
4 whether Mr. Stojic transgressed his boundaries, because this is the
5 civilian police that we're dealing with. The Battalion of Military
6 Police was directly subordinated to the Department of Defence, although
7 it was part of the Administration of Military Police, so, Mr. Prosecutor,
8 I'm not sure, judging by the heading, this should have been dealt with by
9 the Administration of Military Police, under whom this unit was
10 operating, and since it was addressed to the Operational Zone South-East
12 believe, was Lazic.
13 Q. So you're surprised that Mr. Bruno Stojic actually issued this
15 A. As I'm telling you and as I've realised over the past couple of
16 days, maybe it was my omission that I have never read the decree on
17 internal affairs, which would have made it clearer to me how matters
18 stood. In the previous regime, civilian police would be subordinated to
19 military structures, but I'm not sure whether they took that piece of
20 legislation over. So it would be illogical for Mr. Stojic to address and
21 delegate this to the immediate lower level, to the head of the
22 Administration for Military Police. He should have been dealing with
23 this matter. And I believe that those who were the recipients of this
24 order were familiar with it.
25 Q. Let's move to a new -- another document, which is P 03128. It's
1 the same date, the 2nd of July. Now, this is an order signed by
2 Mr. Petkovic, but it's co-signed by Mr. Bruno Stojic as being in
3 agreement. So -- well, I'll read out the operative paragraph. It's:
4 "Due to the attack of the Muslim armed forces on HVO units in the
5 Operational Zone Herzegovina
6 the aim of eliminating them and carrying out the final show-down (mopping
7 up the MOS) in the Herzegovina
8 which have arisen more efficiently, I hereby issue the following order."
9 And then what follows is a detailed order addressed to various
10 units within the region. And eventually -- sorry, the document is signed
11 by Petkovic, in agreement with -- also signed by Mr. Bruno Stojic. And
12 my question is: Why was this document signed by Bruno Stojic as being in
13 agreement? Could you give an explanation for that?
14 A. Your Honours, Mr. Prosecutor, my opinion is that this document
15 was signed by Mr. Stojic because of item 2, which has three subparagraphs
16 enumerated, 1, 2 and 3, and paragraphs 2.2, logistics supplies, and 2.3,
17 held services, which are services subordinated to Mr. Stojic. I do
18 believe that I've analysed this document already, and of all the
19 documents, this document was closest to something that could be deemed as
20 a military order signed by Mr. Stojic, but is co-signed by him, as we can
21 see. And maybe the Bench has realised that when there was time pressure,
22 it was customary for the HVO to write only one document instead of two
23 and have two signatures, although under normal circumstances Mr. Stojic
24 would be in charge of logistics, health services, et cetera, as being
25 part of that overall order.
1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do
2 believe it is in the best interests of everybody in the courtroom, and I
3 don't believe that Mr. Bos will oppose it, is to note that the previous
4 document and this document bear the same date, the 7th of July, and now
5 it is completely unclear to me who has the right to subordinate civilian
6 police into their ranks. But the problem is that the witness is supposed
7 to testify how the defence of Mostar functioned at that time, that there
8 were sectors, and this is particularly clear from the document which we
9 are reading now. I would like the witness to be given an opportunity to
10 read the document thoroughly, which will make the previous document much
11 clearer in the light of this document, because we -- I believe that the
12 previous document engendered absolute confusion, which may be cleared up
13 by the document we are discussing right now.
14 Thank you, Your Honour.
15 MR. BOS
16 hope it will not count against my time, because I'm ready to move on.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, did you read the
18 entire document ?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have, most of it, in the
20 meantime, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're aware of its
22 contents. Very well.
23 Continue, Mr. Bos.
24 MR. BOS
25 move into private session, as it concerns a confidential document.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One more moment on this
3 I looked at the document in the B/C/S version, Witness, and I
4 could see that there were three types of addressees. There was
5 Mr. Stojic, there were the operational zone groups, and then there are
6 groups -- I don't know what it means, but maybe you can tell us, the
7 groups that apparently are referred to under items 2, 3 and 4 in this
8 order. What are the groups meant or referred to in items 2, 3 and 4?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, what was done by this
10 order was to structure and organise the defence in the valley of the
11 Neretva river. There are three sectors, North, South, Centre. What
12 concerns us is item 3, the defence of the town of Mostar, which is a
13 separate sector, although it does not bear such a name. And in
14 sub-paragraph 3.2, what is regulated is the use of military police, and
15 within that context it is apparent that the police from the previous
16 document, that Madam Tomasegovic referred to, is that which is referred
17 to in this sub-paragraph.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Looking at the B/C/S version
19 and Mr. Stojic's signature, in the English translation I can see the
20 words "in agreement." So Mr. Petkovic is the one deciding over
21 everything, since he was the one that took a lot of decisions and steps.
22 Did he send all this to Mr. Stojic for approval, which would imply that
23 Mr. Stojic did play a part, or did he inform him of what he, Petkovic, is
24 deciding at that moment? Could you read, in your own language, that part
25 of the text above Mr. Stojic's signature? It starts with: "Suglasan."
1 Can you say what that means.
2 A. Is it -- exactly that, it says "Suglasan" or "In agreement," head
3 of Department of Defence, Bruno Stojic, and then the agreement for that
4 part of his duties, logistics support, medical support, which fall within
5 their remit. As part of this action and order, Medical Corps
6 headquarters was part of the Health Sector within the Department of
7 Defence, and Mr. Petkovic cannot issue orders to them without an
8 agreement of Mr. Stojic.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Militarily speaking, and we'd
10 have to have a closer look at the situation, on the 2nd of July, 1993, in
11 the Sector South in Mostar, but in military terms, based on your
12 knowledge, when we speak of an operation of this scale, we can see that a
13 lot of things are happening, in a classical chain of command, are the
14 decisions taken by the minister of defence or are they taken by the head
15 of staff?
16 Let's take a specific example to understand better. Let us
17 imagine an operation in Iraq
18 it the Secretary for Defence taking the decision or is it the commander
19 of the American forces in Iraq
20 when you compare the way both armies would operate? What can you say
21 about this?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honours, it transpires
23 that I have never dealt with normal armies, but, rather, the hybrids of
24 the armed forces of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia,
25 which each of them had their idiosyncrasies, but in the case of Iraq
1 presume that the commander of the forces in Iraq, the American commander
2 there, would decide on matters on the use of forces there. In this
3 specific case, the item 2 and item 3, those paragraphs directly concern
4 Mr. Stojic.
5 Your Honours, may I mention this is the 2nd of July. This is
6 shortly after the 30th of June. And as I remember from the documents, at
7 that time there was a fortnight of very intense pressure of ABiH against
8 the valley of Neretva, and in terms of swiftness of response, I gain an
9 impression that being quick to respond to developments on the ground was
10 not a forte of the HVO.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. For the
12 the transcript, page 33, page 13th [as interpreted], you mentioned a
13 date. I do not -- I don't know French. I apologise. I presume that you
14 meant the 13th of July, in the transcript, but you meant the 2nd of July.
15 We received an erroneous interpretation of the date.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, I spoke about the 2nd of
18 Mr. Bos, well, yes, we're going to have a break, a 20-minute
20 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 4.08 p.m.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think there is a problem with
23 the transcript.
24 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, greetings to
25 everyone in the courtroom. I consider it my duty to draw attention to a
1 part of the transcript on page 32, lines 23 and 24. It is a reference to
2 your words. As this was possibly due to an error in interpretation, I
3 would like to avoid any misunderstandings, so I would like to draw
4 attention to the following:
5 In the transcript, Judge Antonetti is said to have stated, and I
6 will read it out in English:
7 [In English] "So Mr. Petkovic is the one presiding over
8 everything, since he was the one that took a lot of decisions and steps."
9 [Interpretation] If this is a correct interpretation of what was
10 said, then my duty to say that the Defence of General Petkovic sees this
11 position as indicating that the President, Judge Antonetti, has a certain
12 position regarding the guilt of one of the accused, as expressed in these
13 words. If the statement was correctly interpreted, we feel that there is
14 a possibility, for the questions raised in connection with the documents
15 shown to this witness, could be interpreted as favouring one accused at
16 the expense of another.
17 As up to now we have not had occasion to have any doubts
18 regarding the complete objectivity of the Judges regarding the accused in
19 this courtroom, even in the case of conflicts between Defence counsels, I
20 would like us to clear up this dilemma, because it is my opinion that any
21 dilemmas of this kind, with respect to General Petkovic, and also with
22 respect to any other Defence counsel, can cause [as interpreted] in
23 question the fairness of the trial, which I think has not been the case
24 so far. So I would like an explanation to be given as to whether this
25 was the position of Judge Antonetti, or was it an error in the
1 interpretation, or a misunderstanding, or is it due to my own incorrect
2 interpretation of this statement?
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, before embarking
4 upon that at great speed, first of all, I don't have page 32 before me.
5 We will have, first of all, to check what I said in French. I would be
6 very surprised to discover that I said Mr. Petkovic decided on
7 everything. I never said that, so I would be very surprised to see that
8 it might imply that I said that. And even if I had said that, I don't
9 see how in any way Mr. Petkovic's guilt could be construed, because we're
10 talking about a military command and orders. Anyhow, I will have to take
11 a look at what has been said in French. I put the question, it would
12 have to be referring to the document, because we had documents signed by
13 Petkovic and Stojic, and my questions were trying to find out how
14 responsibility was shared between the two; that's all.
15 If you feel that the share of responsibilities is to be perceived
16 as negative, as regards Mr. Petkovic, well, that is up to you, but I
17 don't see any real problem. And, anyhow, we'll check the transcript to
18 see what the context was.
19 Let us proceed.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Perhaps it is better that the Presiding Judge be
21 not the only one to comment on this. I have noticed this. I think it is
22 translated and transcribed in the right way, but now taken completely out
23 of context. It is only referring to this document and to the fact that
24 Mr. Stojic's signature is introduced with "Suglasan," which means
25 "d'accord," I agree, which then the President wanted to have it confirmed
1 that the decisions herein were taken by Mr. Petkovic, whereas the role of
2 Mr. Stojic was limited to giving his approval. I think that's all, and I
3 cannot see how, in the least, it can betray any bias.
4 MR. KHAN: And Your Honours, Your Honour, perhaps if I can just
5 add for the record, I think that the parties, and my friend has put it
6 quite squarely, need to be very slow to ascribe any possible bias to the
7 Bench. My -- certainly, my reading from the transcript is that the
8 Presiding Judge was simply asking a question of the witness as to the
9 witness's interpretation of a particular document, and is this what the
10 witness was trying to say?
11 Your Honour, earlier today His Honour Judge Trechsel made some
12 comments about expressing some surprise, perhaps, regarding an aspect of
13 the witness's testimony.
14 Your Honour, in my respectful submission, we are dealing with
15 professional Judges, and of course testimony is not completed, and the
16 credibility of any particular witness will be determined after hearing
17 all of the evidence in the case. So, Your Honour, the Defence for
18 Mr. Stojic do not take issue with these type of comments. We have full
19 confidence that the Bench will consider the evidence in the round and
20 that these types of interjections that Judge Trechsel made today, the
21 comment that the Presiding Judge, Judge Antonetti, made, in my respectful
22 submission, are quite permissible and should be looked at, in our
23 submission for Mr. Stojic, as a very sincere effort by the Bench to get
24 to the truth of this matter.
25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I see, on line 23, and in
2 English it says:
3 [In English] "So Mr. Petkovic ..."
4 [Interpretation] So in French, I must have said, If Mr. Petkovic
5 is the only one who decides. So it must have been a supposition, because
6 in English it says "so." So I was asking the witness about an
7 assumption, and I don't see how you can draw conclusions from this. We
8 have a document where there are two signatories, so who is the deciding
9 party, the one or the other? And I asked the witness to tell us what his
10 point of view was.
11 And you will also note that there are question marks each time.
12 Take a look at the English text before you go rushing off into this.
13 Take a look at the English translation of what I said. There are
14 question marks. So we are putting questions, making assumptions, or
15 putting questions about assumptions.
16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you for the
17 explanations you have given. I just wish to draw attention to the fact
18 that my intention was not to call in question or make comments regarding
19 the questions that Their Honours have addressed to this witness, because
20 I consider they were quite justified and they are in the interests of
21 all. My observation related exclusively to this one sentence on page 32
22 of the transcript, lines 23 and 24. The sentence ends with a full stop
23 and not with a question mark. And from the English word "so," my
24 conclusion was that this was a conclusion drawn, not a hypothesis,
25 because if it was a hypothesis, it would have to start with the word
1 "if." But I thank Your Honour, Judge Antonetti, and I quite accept the
2 explanation that this was a hypothesis.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We were talking about a
4 hypothesis, because I asked the witness to read what figured above the
5 signature of Mr. Stojic.
6 Well, let us proceed.
7 MR. BOS
8 into private session, because it's going to be a confidential document.
9 So could I ask for private session, please.
10 And, Witness, could I ask you to look at (redacted).
11 [Private session]
11 Pages 35935-35939 redacted.
18 [Open session]
19 THE REGISTRAR: Counsel, I'm really sorry to interrupt you, but
20 for the record, we are now back in open session. Thank you, Your
22 MR. BOS
23 Q. Mr. Marijan, can I ask you to look at document 2D 00485 [Realtime
24 transcript read in error "845"]. What we have here is an order by
25 Mr. Bruno Stojic on the regulation of the passage for UNPROFOR. Now,
1 sir -- and it's dated the 31st of July.
2 Sir, isn't is it correct that under item 2, Mr. Bruno Stojic
3 commands the HVO main headquarters and the HVO military police
4 headquarters are responsible for the execution of this command? So, sir,
5 isn't this a direct order from Mr. Bruno Stojic to the HVO main
6 headquarters and the HVO military police to implement this particular
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, just as a technical point, the record
9 says "1D 00845," and I have it as "2D 00485," as opposed to "845."
10 MR. BOS
11 is wrong. It should be "00485."
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Bos, this is a command
13 which is addressed to the Main Staff of the HVO and the headquarters of
14 the military police.
15 MR. BOS
16 Q. Do you have an explanation? Does it surprise you that this is --
17 that Mr. Stojic is giving such an order to the HVO main headquarters and
18 the HVO military police?
19 A. I think it would be logical to expect it to be addressed to the
20 military police, which was in charge of check-points, but perhaps one
21 could interpret this that the armed forces also stopped or prevented the
22 movement of UNPROFOR. But again we come to the opinion as to this is
23 certainly an order, but could it also be referring to unhindered
24 movement, which was, after all, within the purview of Mr. Stojic? So
25 I think this command could be interpreted in several ways.
1 Q. Can I then ask you next to look at Exhibit P 05232, which is a
2 document which was also shown to you in cross-examination by counsel for
3 Petkovic last week, but I'm going to show it to you again because I'm
4 going to show it in conjunction with another exhibit, which is P 05235.
5 So maybe you can have both documents.
6 Let's first look at P 05232. This is an order from
7 Mr. Bruno Stojic dated the 20th of September, 1993, and it's an order to
8 engage all human and material resources in all three military and
9 civilian police forces, hunting associations, and other free forces in
10 these areas to eliminate the infiltrated terrorist groups without
11 compromise, master these forces and place them under the command of the
12 1st Sector of South-Eastern Herzegovinian Operational Zone commanded
13 by --"
14 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you for slowing down.
15 MR. BOS
16 " ... Sector of the South-East Herzegovina Operational Zone,
17 commanded by Colonel Obradovic."
18 Q. Sir, isn't this in fact a mobilisation order by Mr. Bruno Stojic
19 to the military police and the civilian police troops in direct response
20 to ABiH military actions in the region?
21 A. Your Honours, there's no express mention of mobilisation in this
22 document. This is most probably a prompt response to the developments on
23 the ground.
24 Well, I will take this opportunity of - Your Honours, I've
25 mentioned this already several times - is that the decree on the
1 structure of the defence of the HZ-HB inherited some regulations from the
2 previous regime, which meant that all citizens of age were meant to be
3 conscripts. This was derived or a reflection of what was termed "armed
4 people" as a doctrine. And as far as I can understand, this document
5 refers to a one-off action which appeals to all holders of weapons to
6 react to infiltrated terrorist or sabotage groups of the MOS which were
7 infiltrated in a certain area.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, when a judge is faced
9 with such a document, in asking questions he tries to understand the
10 scope of the document. And unlike what some may think, a judge will try
11 to find answers to a question that he has to pose, himself.
12 This is not the first time I see this being mentioned in
13 documents; in several documents, and so far nobody has raised the issue.
14 But I am supposed to know this case file from inside-out, because
15 thousands of exhibits have been admitted. I ask myself this: A
16 reference is being made to terrorist groups, and this is not the first
17 document in which Muslims are described as terrorist groups. They're not
18 described as warring factions or qualified as enemy army, but as
19 terrorist groups, and this is the 20th of September, 1993. If some in
20 the government think or thought that Muslims were terrorist groups or
21 would set up terrorist groups, would it then be the minister for defence
22 or the minister for internal affairs, or both, who would then have to
23 take action? Because under paragraph 1, I see the minister for defence
24 is calling upon the civilian police forces. So this qualification of
25 terrorist groups, have you noticed it in other documents, and if you
1 have, what kind of conclusion could be drawn in the situation at the
2 time, and what conclusions can you draw as to the fact that Mr. Stojic
3 signed this document?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think I have
5 encountered this term, "terrorist group," on several occasions, but I
6 read it as meaning infiltration. At any rate, these are members of the
7 BiH Army, and I'm not going to discuss their status. My conclusion, on
8 the basis of this document, was that they were infiltrated behind the
9 first front-lines, they are operating behind the forces of the HVO in
10 civilian areas, and this is maybe why they were termed this way.
11 This is why, under paragraph 1, all resources, and you can read
12 for yourself what other resources are meant here, hunting associations,
13 free forces maybe, home guards, anybody who carried weapons, but in the
14 military zone my presumption is that the head of the Department of
15 Defence would be in charge. But in my opinion, this could have been
16 signed by somebody from the Ministry of the Interior. Maybe they
17 co-signed; I don't know.
18 I would like to draw your attention to several first regulations
19 within the decree on the structure of defence, which stipulates which
20 agencies are included, and this has been inherited from the regulations
21 concerning defence of the SFRY, where the doctrine of armed people was
22 adopted, and this doctrine is elaborated upon, but I do believe that the
23 HVO did not inherit much of that concept. There were some home guards or
24 service for observation monitoring, so I believe that this whole
25 situation would be more clearer, the situation described in this
1 document, if we were to take into account the first ten or fifteen --
2 maybe ten sections or articles on the decree on the armed forces, which
3 define general terms in the system of defence.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are on your feet,
5 Mr. Praljak. Is there a problem of language, of semantics, or is it
6 about military terms?
7 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I would
8 like to ask you one thing; to ask the witness whether he knows or does
9 not know whether any event preceded this order. If he knows, to explain
10 what kind of event, et cetera. If he doesn't know, then so be it.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is a relevant question.
12 Witness, if you say that there were in-depth actions carried out
13 by the ABiH into HVO defence lines in September 1993, it may be that
14 there was, before that, a specific event. Are you aware of any event
15 prior to the 20th of September, 1993?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was in a different
17 sector. This one is the south-east of Herzegovina. But two days
18 previously, in the wider area of Mostar, the BH Army had some success in
19 their offensives. I do believe that we referred to an order of the ABiH.
20 HVO lines were in places broken down, that groups were infiltrated in the
21 rear, and General Praljak refers to that as a context of this order. I
22 believe that the HVO subsequently managed to repel this attack. On the
23 23rd of September, several units were commended for their success in
24 repelling this attack.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We now understand
1 the context.
2 Please proceed, Mr. Bos.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, I would like to come back to this
4 issue of terrorist groups.
5 I seem to recall, then, in the Naletelic Martinovic case, the
6 second accused, Naletelic, was head of an ATG, and anti-terrorist group.
7 And I suppose as you were a witness in that case, also as you've told us
8 that you and everyone else here knows about that, could you tell us what
9 the position within or without the HVO, the armed forces, was of these
10 anti-terrorist groups?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, anti-terrorist groups
12 that you refer to were mainly forces within the Convicts Battalion. I
13 must tell you this: I have never seen a single document describing the
14 Convicts Battalion's structure. I know that there were several ATGs,
15 judging from payroll lists, they were very small units, maybe a platoon
16 or reinforced platoon strength. And regardless of their name or label,
17 however mighty that may seem, and in my opinion, an ATG -- my first
18 association would be of police forces, most of their actions were
19 undertaken on the front-line, belying their name, and not in the rear. I
20 do believe that by adopting such names, they would be enhancing their
22 Throughout that period, there was a fashion of naming units,
23 trying to give an impression that they were better or more trained than
24 other units. It went down or boiled down to cosmetics, as it were, and
25 had no meaning.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Unless I'm mistaken, I
2 believe -- but that has to be checked - I don't have the relevant
3 documents in front of me - but I believe that in municipality
4 organisations or in TOs, some would name their units "anti-terrorist
5 forces." Was that common practice in the former Yugoslavia, to have ATGs
6 or AT units? Because in countries like the United States, France
8 former Yugoslavia
9 defence; namely, that the enemy could resort to terrorist forms, and then
10 an anti-terrorist group would be created, the ATG, as was said by my
11 fellow Judge? In the Martinovic case, there was one, but is it not a
12 unit used as well even in the Territorial Defence, based on the documents
13 you were able to see? That is a question.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, each municipal
15 Territorial Defence staff, as per wartime establishment, contained
16 several units, and in general they had one platoon which, in my native
17 tongue, would be labelled "anti-sabotage platoon." Their purpose was the
19 Let me remind you that Yugoslav defence and the structure of its
20 defence were obsessed by possibilities of special warfare against
22 established. I always thought that before an outbreak of a war, first
23 certain groups would be infiltrated to sabotage infrastructure,
24 assassinate key public figures, et cetera, and if I hark back to the
25 Territorial Defence concept, it does look a bit schizophrenic, with
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 MR. BOS
4 Q. Mr. Marijan, if I can put you back to the document. We have
5 looked at P 05232, and in conjunction with that, could I also ask you to
6 look at P 05235, which is an order from the same date, and it's an order
7 from Mr. Praljak. P 05235. It must be right after --
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It's not in our binder, for sure, Mr. Bos.
9 MR. BOS
10 but maybe then we can get a copy of that document on the overhead
11 projector. Maybe we can show it in e-court. It's Exhibit P 05235.
12 Your Honours, the document is in the e-court at the moment.
13 Q. Mr. Witness, Mr. Marijan, can you actually see it on your screen?
14 A. Your Honours, yes, I can see it.
15 Q. Now, this is an order from Mr. Praljak, and it in fact refers to
16 the order that we saw earlier, signed by Mr. Stojic. And then under item
17 2, in the English on the next page, it actually says:
18 "Assemble these forces urgently and immediately place them under
19 the command of the 1st Sector of the South-East Operational Zone which is
20 under the command of Colonel Obradovic."
21 Now, sir, doesn't this document show the close cooperation
22 between Bruno Stojic and, in this case, the HVO Main Staff on behalf --
23 in this case Mr. Praljak, in organising the troops to respond to the ABiH
24 military actions?
25 A. Your Honours, this document is a document issued by the then
1 commander of the Main Staff of the HVO which regulates the placement of
2 structures outside of the armed forces under the command of Colonel
3 Obradovic. But it does seem strange, going back to the previous
4 document, is that this does not state the addressees, the recipients.
5 Bruno Stojic usually would cite addressees. I do believe that this is
6 just an elaboration of what the Main Staff had in mind in terms of
7 subsuming all other structures under the armed forces, and these are
8 numerous and varied apart from the military.
9 Q. Could I ask you next to look at Exhibit P 05799.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. Witness, I hope
11 Mr. Praljak will not ask for me to be disqualified, but I'm trying to see
12 what all these documents mean.
13 The first document, P 5232, it was signed by Mr. Stojic, and then
14 we have another document a few days later signed by General Praljak. In
15 the latter, we notice that the municipalities of Capljina, Citluk,
16 Ljubuski -- and Ljubuski are mentioned, but in General Praljak's document
17 we don't find Prozor, whilst in Stojic's document we had Prozor.
18 The question arising here and that the Judges have to ask
19 themselves, unlike what Ms. Alaburic may think, we need to know who does
20 what. In your view, was it Mr. Praljak who had to take orders, as is
21 seen here, or was it Mr. Stojic, in his position of minister of defence?
22 Who has to do what, precisely?
23 Here we can see that Mr. Praljak is taking a military order.
24 He's issuing a military order that is normally in the purview of a
25 military commander, since we're talking about military orders. But when
1 you look at it together with the order or request by Mr. Stojic, they
2 seem to match or to converge.
3 You were on the ground, you examined all these documents. So in
4 your view, who does what?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I noticed the term
6 "Prozor" being mentioned. Maybe it is an erroneous interpretation. What
7 is referred to here are the same places. Both Mr. Stojic and Mr. Praljak
8 mention the same municipalities under threat. At that moment, they were
9 under threat, but they were not lost or had not fallen.
10 In the order of Mr. Stojic, he regulates - and in my opinion, the
11 first paragraph is the most important - defining all the structures who
12 carry weapons, including hunting weapons, who are outside the structure
13 of the armed forces, are hereby placed at the disposal of the military,
14 and that order is to be carried out by the commander of the Main Staff of
15 the HVO through his order.
16 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I do not want to testify,
17 but in the case of witness -- the Bench was familiarised with the event
18 which preceded these events discussed in this document, we just have to
19 recall those events. Thank you.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You heard what General Praljak
21 said, Witness. There were events before the 20th and the 22nd of
22 September. Does General Praljak's order fit in with all these prior
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Praljak was pretty clear.
25 Sefer Halilovic was tried for those events, but was acquitted. You know
1 about the massacres of Croatian population in the valley of Neretva
2 this may be construed as a swift, desperate man's attempt to react to the
3 situation. The fact that you are trying to mobilise hunting
4 associations, this reflects that it is the 11th hour, as it were.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, yes, Mr. Bos -- sorry.
6 So, Witness, you cannot answer the question I put, who does what; was it
7 within the purview of Mr. Stojic or that of General Praljak? You don't
8 have an answer there.
9 When you said that, I mean, it's the 11th hour, if you get down
10 to the situation when you ask hunters to take their hunting rifles, the
11 situation is of the utmost gravity, but who does what then?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My opinion is that by his document,
13 Mr. Stojic has the right to mobilise or call up all armed forces which
14 are wider than the armed forces proper, and subsequently Mr. Praljak,
15 through his order, elaborates and gives effect to this order of
16 Mr. Stojic.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Bos.
18 MR. BOS
19 Q. Sir, could I ask you to move to Exhibit P 05799.
20 Now, these documents, while you're looking at it -- this document
21 is a document dated the 11th of October, 1993, and they are minutes of an
22 extraordinary session of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, the
23 Government of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, regarding the
24 military and security situation on their territory. This document was
25 also shown to you in-chief last week.
1 Now, what I would like to point out is actually the second
2 paragraph of these minutes which reads:
3 "The officers of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
4 Armed Forces who attended this session, namely, Defence Minister Stojic,
5 General Praljak, and General Petkovic, presented a report on the military
6 and security situation on the territory of the Croatian Republic
8 Sir, first of all, does it surprise you that Mr. Stojic here is
9 being referred to as an officer of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
10 Armed Forces?
11 A. Your Honours, to be an officer in the armed forces, you have to
12 have establishment and rank. I know that Mr. Stojic is now a general,
13 but he received that rank years afterwards. I do see this as an error of
14 the minute-taker.
15 Q. Okay. But isn't it correct, sir, and that's my second point,
16 that in fact throughout the period that we've been going through, October
17 1992 all the way up to November 1993, Mr. Bruno Stojic regularly reported
18 on the military situation to the government, first of the Croatian
19 Community and that of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. Mr. Bos
21 regularly submitted. Well, if so, then the witness should be shown the
22 regularity of those submissions. This is speculation, which should not
23 stand at the beginning of their question. Mr. Bos should say, "On this
24 session," "On that session," "On that other session, these things were
25 proposed." And the witness has seen the records of all those
1 submissions, and he can answer.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, when you said
3 Mr. Stojic regularly reported on the situation to the government,
4 indicate the document, the date, and so on. Because if not, we get the
5 impression that it was something that was customary; in other words, it
6 was usual for this sort of meeting to be held. I mean, perhaps you're
7 right in what you're doing, but we need to know the date.
8 Yes, Mr. Ibrisimovic.
9 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. If the
10 witness could see the original of the document, I do believe that there
11 is an error in translation. It says "Officials," "duznovnici," [phoen]
12 and in the translation we'd have "officers." So could we take a look at
13 the original document, please, at the second paragraph? At the present
14 were officials, "duznovnici," not "officers."
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, in the original it says
16 "duznovnici," which is "officials." I can't recall what Mr. Bos said
18 MR. BOS
19 rather than officials, so that means that in fact there is an error in
20 the translation, which I regret.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It would seem it's a
22 translation error, then, and it should say "officials" and not
24 But, Mr. Bos, you said that Mr. Stojic regularly reported on the
25 situation. Do you have dates?
1 MR. BOS
2 have a couple of minutes, but I would first ask the witness, didn't he,
3 himself, mention in the report that actually Mr. Stojic did report to the
4 government .
5 Q. Did you mention that, yourself, in your report, Mr. Marijan?
6 A. Your Honours, I did. This can be easily verified. Mr. Stojic
7 did submit reports. Unfortunately, I never saw the transcripts. I don't
8 know whether those sessions were recorded. But the minutes, after all,
9 are summarised, but by nature of his duties, Mr. Stojic could provide a
10 rough picture of the military security situation. And I think that the
11 details with respect to the army itself were given by officers of the
12 Main Staff who would also come to attend those meetings several times, so
13 I'm not quite clear, Mr. Bos, what precisely you are interested in. You
14 have here -- in the paragraph prior to this, there's a discussion on the
15 functioning of the civilian authorities, and that effect on the armed
16 forces, and then one may ask whether all three gentlemen, Mr. Stojic,
17 Petkovic, and Praljak, are going beyond their competencies. But at that
18 point in time, that was a key issue for survival. So the normative
19 documents were not strictly adhered to.
20 MR. BOS
21 here in hand, but I can give an example, another example.
22 Witness, could I ask you to look at 1D 02179. 1D 02179.
23 Q. So this is a record of a meeting dated the 4th of November, 1993
24 and item 1 on the agenda is: "Discussion on the current situation in the
25 Vares area," and the first line reads:
1 "The defence minister, Mr. Bruno Stojic, briefed the meeting on
2 the military and security situation in the Vares area."
3 Sir, could this be an time when Mr. Stojic would be reporting on
4 the military situation to the government?
5 A. Your Honours, that is beyond doubt. That can be from the item.
6 The entire item provides a rough picture, judging by these minutes. But
7 I don't see what is disputed here because, after all, as the head of the
8 Defence Department, he had to know what was going on on the ground, due
9 to his own duties with respect to logistics, et cetera. So in my view,
10 it wasn't a high-level professional discussion. He would show the units
11 on the map that would be beyond his competence.
12 Q. Finally, Mr. Marijan - we are now in November 1993 - I would like
13 you to look at a video-recording, and this is in Exhibit P 04238.
14 And, Your Honours, this video has been shown to the Court before,
15 when we showed a compilation of videos relating to Mostar, and this is a
16 part from a BBC
17 like to show a one-minute segment. And we'll be showing it in Sanction,
18 Your Honours.
19 Mr. Marijan, it will be subtitled in your language so you can
21 [Videotape played]
22 "Reporter: A quiet day in Mostar. A former Muslim sniper
23 position on fire, sporadic machine-gun, and mortar exchanges. The
24 cease-fire has still not taken hold. It is the end of a dreadful week.
25 "The Croatian forces, led by Defence Minister Bruno Stojic,
1 put their wounded in Mostar at 150. Muslim casualties are certainly much
2 higher. The total dead in the city could be as high 500. There are at
3 least 200 Croats missing further north, and this may be just the start of
5 "Over a map of the pitched battles, the minister says his
6 forces could clear their half of the city in five hours, and he charges
7 the Muslim commander with not wanting a cease-fire.
8 "Interpreter: He's buying time. But this is one very
9 bloody, very heavy war, and nothing can come as a surprise."
10 MR. BOS
11 Q. Mr. Marijan, this does show Mr. Bruno Stojic acting in a direct
12 military role, doesn't it?
13 A. Your Honours, I did see Mr. Stojic visiting the wounded. In my
14 view, this is also beyond doubt, and he's talking to journalists. This
15 is the first time I see an actual map. Now, whether this is indicative
16 of a military role, I don't know what to say. It can be interpreted in
17 different ways, but at least the introductory part was simply visits of
18 the wounded. It's a bit unusual for me to communicate with foreign
19 journalists. This should have been done by the Sector for Morale, even
20 though that sector hardly functioned at all, so he frequently took over
21 that role that should have been theirs.
22 Q. Does it surprise you to see Mr. Bruno Stojic in a military
23 uniform, Mr. Marijan?
24 A. Your Honours, this did not surprise me. It is a sort of
25 traditional -- people -- everyone was wearing them, even now. I remember
1 the Presidency of the SFRY who didn't have ranks, so were wearing
2 uniforms. It was funny to see them, but this -- at the time of war, it
3 was more like a folk costume. More people were wearing uniforms than
4 not. Even nowadays, some people wear them as working clothes. So I
5 don't think this is unusual. I saw Mr. Susak often in a uniform.
6 I think Mr. Izetbegovic walked around in a uniform. True enough, he was
7 the Supreme Commander, but this is not unusual. I don't think he had any
9 Q. Sir, after having seen this video and after having reviewed all
10 the exhibits that we looked at in the last hour, and also after having
11 reviewed the exhibits that were shown to you by Ms. Alaburic last week,
12 is it still your firm position that Bruno Stojic, as head of the Defence
13 Department, was nothing more than a civilian whose position in the HVO
14 was purely administrative, as you said, and that he had no role at all in
15 the command and control of the HVO forces? Are you still firm on that
17 A. Your Honours, I am still firm in that position, but I would just
18 like to add: Mr. Bos, we have seen your evidence, we have reviewed it.
19 In the case of Ms. Alaburic, it was really running through the documents
20 without any comments. So assuming that Mr. Stojic was in command, there
21 should have been many more documents. He did have the right to
22 communicate with the forces, but he used -- didn't use the proper
23 terminology. That's also a linguistic issue, whether "order" and
24 "commands" are the same thing. Most of the documents by Mr. Stojic that
25 we have seen would not have lost anything in their value if he had
1 written, instead of an "order," the word "request." So I think this also
2 shows that he was outside the structures.
3 I hope that Mr. Stojic will not hold it against me, but I think
4 the rules of conduct and the rules of communication were violated by him,
5 to a certain extent, the headings given to documents. But if you look at
6 the contents, I don't think it is in question at all. He was expected to
7 contribute to the combat readiness of the army, and I still stand by my
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the one-minute video
10 goes for a number of events; first of all, sniper shots. We can see on a
11 building there are flames. We don't know where these shots are coming
12 from. After that, we see Mr. Stojic, who was much younger at the time,
13 wearing military garb. He goes to the hospital, where there are people
14 who are wounded, but apparently the wounded people are Croats. So one
15 might think that the sniper fire is Muslim sniper fire that's injuring
16 Croats. We don't really know. But what is much more interesting is what
17 comes later. Mr. Stojic is in his office. It's a very small office. It
18 looks like a small secretary's office. It's quite tiny. There are two
19 small tables, where the press -- perhaps international press members are
20 there. There are a couple of young women in front of him, and he
21 explains the situation.
22 There are two things that I note. On the walls, we don't see any
23 maps. There's virtually nothing on the walls. And we don't see any
24 means of communication with what's happening in the field, if, in fact,
25 he was the one who was in charge of operations from the office, but he's
1 holding a document, a small document. It would seem that this is the
2 position of certain forces. We don't know whether it's Muslims or
3 Croats, and it's in blue and red. So it is a document of military
4 origin, doubtless, which gives the position of forces. Is it a document
5 that he has been given for the purposes of the press conference? There
6 are a number of questions we might ask.
7 Anyhow, you were in the field, and you went, I'm sure, to
8 commanders' offices. Do you think, according to what we see in the
9 video, Mr. Stojic is the chief of the army, or in his capacity as
10 minister of defence, does he have full authority over everybody? What is
11 the impression that you get from this video film?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- I must admit,
13 Your Honour, that you have a remarkable ability to notice things, some of
14 which I myself haven't noticed, but you have. I would repeat what I've
15 said. It is a bit unusual, let me use that term. You don't show the
16 journalists military maps. This is simply, obviously, a sketch. Unlike
17 that, there were large maps of Mostar with all the buildings indicated,
18 and then there would necessarily have been a large map with every single
19 building indicated, but we see Mr. Stojic with some kind of a sketch and
20 he was doing what the head of the Department for Information should be
21 doing, the person in charge of communication with the media. So from
22 this, I cannot draw any conclusions that he had some responsibilities
23 over the army, except that he was familiar with the situation on the
24 front-line. But this is Mostar, and that is where his headquarters were.
25 I don't know whether you've ever visited Mostar. It's not such a
1 big town, and everyone knew everything, more or less.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the document we see in
3 Mr. Stojic's hands, it's a sort of sketch, giving the positions, but it's
4 not a military map?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that this was really
6 something done in great haste, a rough sketch for the journalists who had
7 come to the press conference, because a military map, after all, is
8 something that the Main Staff has with all the forces indicated, and at
9 least the brigades I have visited, these maps would cover entire walls.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, have you been to the
11 office of the -- have you -- were you in his office, did you go to his
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] During the war, I did go to the
14 office of the commander of the brigade and the Main Staff, too, in
15 1994-1995, when the HVO was at Kupres together with the ABiH, but this is
16 something the journalists could not see.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In a brigade commander's
18 office, what would you be struck by? What is there that shows that
19 you're in the office of a military chief, what do you see?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first thing, in my view, the
21 room of the commander of my brigade, it was a guards brigade, was quite
22 large, and the first thing you see, at least what I noticed, were the
23 flags of Herceg-Bosna and the banners of the brigade, then the coat of
24 arms of Croatia
25 period of peacetime at the time, so there would be a sketch of the
1 brigade, but we went -- if we went into the field, we used a room for the
2 operations centre, and the detailed situation on the ground would be
3 indicated; that is, how we were deployed as well as the neighbouring
4 units, so where they were deployed, on a broader area.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
6 MR. BOS
7 another topic now, Your Honours.
8 Q. Mr. Marijan, so leave the binder aside for the moment. I'd like
9 to move now to the topic of the -- of the military detention camps.
10 Isn't it correct, Mr. Marijan, that the responsibility of the HVO --
11 Defence Department for the HVO military detention camps is limited to
12 four paragraphs in your report, and in fact it's paragraph 70 and 71
13 which deal with the conditions of detention of prison camps, and
14 paragraphs 119 and 120 of your report dealing with the establishment of
15 Heliodrom? Isn't it true that those are the only four reports --
16 paragraphs in your report about the military detention camps?
17 A. I think that is so, Your Honours. I refer to Heliodrom, as it is
18 the only detention camp for which I found the decision by Mr. Stojic
19 establishing it.
20 Q. And is it correct, sir, that the HVO Defence Department held
21 de jure responsibility for the treatment of prisoners of war and military
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I object, Your Honour. I object to
24 this question. Mr. Bos needs to lay the ground for this question. After
25 the expert report, which explicitly says what the responsibility of the
1 Defence Department was in paragraphs 119 and 120, this question stems
2 from nothing that Mr. Bos has said so far or that has been written in the
4 MR. BOS
5 Mr. Marijan, himself, last week, when he was being cross-examined by
6 Ms. Alaburic, actually agreed to this, and I'll read out that part of the
7 transcript. It's on page 49 of the 21 January transcripts, where the
8 question is:
9 "I have to repeat my question. You mentioned employee
10 relationships. My question is: Under that term, do you imply the
11 authority of the head of the Defence Department over prisoners of war,
12 military prisons, military detention centres? Just give me a yes-or-no
13 answer. We don't have much time to get into explanations. Just yes or
14 no, please."
15 And your answer is:
16 "Yes, that should be the closest."
17 But, sir, so -- but in -- anyway, let's -- we will also look and
18 lay the foundation, and I'll ask you -- we'll go step by step, and I'll
19 ask you first to look at Exhibit P 00292.
20 Sir, I take it you have seen this document before.
21 A. That is right, Mr. Prosecutor, I have seen this document.
22 Q. Now, it says here, under Article 2:
23 "The head of the Justice and Administration Department, in
24 cooperation with the head of the Defence Department and the head of the
25 Department of Interior, shall designate the locations where prisoners
1 shall be kept, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned
2 Convention in Article 1 of this Decree."
3 And then Article 3, which is the one I would like to put emphasis
5 "The Defence Department shall be in charge of the facilities
6 stipulated in Article 2 of the decree."
7 Sir, isn't it correct that on the basis of this Article 3,
8 Mr. Bruno Stojic established the Central Military Prison of Heliodrom on
9 3rd of September, 1992?
10 A. Your Honours, this is correct, but the interpretation I heard was
11 "in December." Well, in effect, the --
12 Q. September, 3rd of September.
13 A. -- the decree was signed on the 3rd of September.
14 Q. Well, let's have a look at that decree, which is Exhibit P 00452.
15 Is this, in fact, a decision in which Mr. Bruno Stojic
16 established the Central Military Prison of Heliodrom and where, he, in
17 fact, makes references to Article 2 of the decree that we just looked at?
18 A. That's correct, Your Honours. I did write something about that
19 in my report. There are certain differences from Article 2, because
20 ultimately the explanation does not fit in with the preamble, because it
21 transpires that the district and military prisons in Mostar were
22 separated, and in the process the Interior -- Department for the Interior
23 did not take part in this procedure, because -- the purview of those, of
24 the Ministry of the -- Department of Justice and the Interior and
25 Defence, but there's no doubt as to whether Mr. Stojic did establish this
1 military prison.
2 Q. And do you know whether any other military prisons were
3 established in Herceg-Bosna in 1992 and 1993?
4 A. Such a central military prison, in 1992, if I understood the
5 question correctly, was the only such. They later on changed the label
6 or the name, particularly during the conflict with the Army of BiH and
7 during the Croatian-Muslim conflicts. There were several other such
8 prisons cropping up.
9 Q. Right. Have you come across the names of prisons like Ljubuski,
10 Dretelj, Gabela; have those names -- have you seen them before in
12 A. Prisons were not of my particular interest, but I did see
13 documents making reference to those prisons or having a connection with
14 those prisons.
15 Q. And, sir, is it correct that Mr. Bruno Stojic held
16 responsibility military -- for those military prisons in the same way as
17 he held responsibility for Heliodrom?
18 A. Your Honours, it is not easy for me to answer this question. I
19 note that he established this one, and I believe that each prison has its
20 unfortunately own not very illustrious story. I believe that we should
21 take each of those prisons separately, and I believe that Mr. Prosecutor
22 will come to that very soon, step by step, in terms of who is providing
23 guards duty, the treatment of inmates, et cetera, et cetera.
24 Q. Well, sir, let me ask you to look at Exhibit P 02679.
25 Sir, this is a decision from Mr. Jadranko Prlic, dated the 8th of
1 June, 1993
2 a county prison being settle up in Gabela. Now, have you seen this
3 document before, Mr. Marijan?
4 A. Your Honours, I think I did see it.
5 Q. And, sir, would it be correct that if an order here is issued by
6 the president of the HVO government, setting up a county military prison,
7 that Mr. Bruno Stojic, as a member of the government, would then become
8 responsible for this prison?
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. If I
10 may, well, such worded question is very difficult to grasp. One
11 establishes and the other person makes somebody else responsible. Why
12 not Department for Justice or Department for Care for Refugees? I do
13 believe that my learned colleague is overstepping the bordering of the
14 cross-examination. If somebody else is establishing, how can
15 Mr. Bruno Stojic be responsible for it? We should be laying foundations
16 for connections with Mr. Prlic.
17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I have another problem of
18 process nature. We have an expert witness, not a fact witness. He
19 produced his expert report in which he mentions one prison in four
20 paragraphs. One concerns healthcare in prisons, the Department for
21 Health is involved there, and the other three deal with the Heliodrom
22 establishment. We came through the witness testimony to the organisation
23 of prisons, we made mention of the guards and the internal structure of
24 those prisons. What I believe the Prosecution must do is to lay the
25 grounds. He should not be fishing for the name of a prison, Gabela,
1 Dretelj, in the documents. We should hear whether the expert witness
2 dealt with the prisons in preparing his expert report. The
3 cross-examination went outside the boundaries of examination-in-chief.
4 We were not given an opportunity to cross-examine on that. We should put
5 an end to it. Let us hear whether the expert witness analysed this and
6 whether he was examined in examination-in-chief about that.
7 MR. BOS
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, do respond, and then we'll
9 have the break.
10 MR. BOS
11 military prison," I just established the foundation that Mr. Bruno Stojic
12 was responsible for military prisons, and here we have Mr. Jadranko Prlic
13 setting up a county military prison. So it seems to me a very logical
14 conclusion to then draw that Mr. Bruno Stojic would be responsible for
15 this military prison.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: A very small and short question to relieve
17 Mr. Karnavas.
18 You're always speaking of a decision of Mr. Prlic. You're sure
19 it's not a decision of the HVO?
20 MR. BOS
21 I think I did point that out. It says here: "President of the
22 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, Mr. Jadranko Prlic."
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And it says that "at a meeting, the Croatian
24 Defence Council reached the following decision." So I put it to you,
25 this is a decision of the HVO, not of Mr. Prlic.
1 MR. BOS
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay, thank you.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We are going to have a
4 20-minute break. I think you have one hour and two minutes left,
5 Mr. Bos. The Judges will endeavour not to ask questions so that we can
6 finish the hearing normally.
7 --- Recess taken at 5.38 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 6.00 p.m.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The court is back in session.
10 MR. BOS
11 Q. Mr. Marijan, isn't it correct that the HVO Military Police
12 Administration was given a role in the day-to-day operations of the
13 military prison of Heliodrom?
14 A. Your Honours, Military Police Administration provided security
15 for the military prison of Heliodrom. I think there was a stamp -- a
16 numbered stamp. Interestingly, they never put in the letterhead "The
17 Military Police Administration" on the documents.
18 Q. Let's look at Exhibit P 00514. P 00514. These are instructions
19 from the chief of the military police, Mr. Valentin Coric, for the
20 operation of the Central Military Prison of the HVO in Mostar. It's
21 dated September 1992. Have you seen this document, and does it confirm
22 that, in fact, the military police was responsible for the operation of
23 the Heliodrom?
24 A. Your Honours, I've seen this instruction, and it confirms that
25 the military police was in charge of providing security.
1 Q. Sir, do you know whether the military police was also in charge
2 of security for similar camps like Ljubuski, Dretelj, and Gabela? Have
3 you seen documents relating to that?
4 A. Your Honour, the topic of my analysis was the Defence Department,
5 so I did not deal with prisons, in particular. I should see document by
7 Q. Let's just look at two exhibits which are --
8 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I
9 apologise. We've come to the crux of the matter, whether the -- the
10 witness is now being -- asked to provide new expertise. If he is doing
11 so, which was not the topic of the expert report that we received, then
12 Mr. Coric's Defence demands cross-examination on that new expertise,
13 because now the Prosecutor is soliciting new expertise. He's soliciting
14 opinions on documents which were not the subject matter of his report,
15 and we do not have time for cross-examination.
16 Recently, the witness said that he did not deal with prisons, and
17 I had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness because that was not
18 the subject matter of his expert report.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, please stick to the
20 expert report.
21 MR. BOS
22 Q. I'll ask you then, Mr. Marijan, could you go to your expert
23 report, and I'll ask you to look at paragraph 120 of your report. And
24 I'm going to read out the sentence that I'm, in particular, interested
25 in, which reads as follows:
1 "On 14 August 1993, Stanko Bozic, director of the Central
2 Military Remand Prison, whom Stojic had not appointed to that position,
3 requested that had Stojic used his authority to ensure food for 2.100
4 prisoners in the Central Military Remand Prison."
5 And there's a reference here to Exhibit P 04186. And,
6 Mr. Marijan, I'm curious why you --
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Your Honour, I
8 apologise. I would ask the learned friend to either read the subsequent
9 sentence before answering or for Mr. Bos to read the subsequent sentence,
10 because sentences without their context could mislead us in our
11 conclusions, and the following sentence explains the crux of the expert
12 opinion of this expert witness, and it explains the circumstances leading
13 to the detainees being in that detention prison.
14 MR. BOS
15 this report, and I really don't see the need to add, you know, additional
16 text for the context. I mean, I take it that everyone has read the
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes, we have seen and
19 read this report, but the next sentence explains that the persons, the
20 subject of the question of Mr. Bos, are housed outside the facility which
21 Mr. Stojic established. So Mr. Bos should first ask where they were
22 housed, pursuant to whose decision, and how the accommodation of those
23 persons in those facilities, which were not established pursuant to
24 Mr. Stojic's decision describing the Central Military Prison, and who
25 could be responsible for those. For that reason and not for the purpose
1 of interfering with my learned friends, the sentence I'm referring to
2 refers to persons outside the Central Military Prison facilities and
3 explains who took the decision for that to be so.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue, Mr. Bos.
5 MR. BOS
6 Q. Mr. Marijan, what I'm interested in is the sentence where you
8 " ... whom the head Stojic had not appointed to that position."
9 And you're referring to Mr. Stanko Bozic and you're claiming that
10 Mr. Stojic hadn't appointed that position. Now, let me ask you, why did
11 you mention that in your report, that Mr. Stojic hadn't appointed this
12 decision? What was the purpose of that? It seems to imply that by
13 mentioning this sentence, that Mr. Stojic didn't have any responsibility
14 over Mr. Bozic. Is that you meant to say?
15 A. Your Honours, by this sentence, I wanted to say exactly that.
16 Pursuant to the 3rd of September decision, apart from the decision on
17 establishing the prison, there is also a regulation or provision on the
18 appointment. I -- to the best of my knowledge, that person was not that
19 appointed person. I never saw a decision appointing Mr. Bozic by
20 Mr. Stojic to be -- to head that facility.
21 Q. Do you know who actually appointed Mr. Bozic?
22 A. I can't recall seeing a document appointing him.
23 Q. Let me ask you to move to Exhibit P 00352.
24 Now, sir, this document is a diary from Mr. Josip Praljak, and
25 I think you have been referring to this document as well in your reports.
1 Is it correct that you have seen this document before?
2 A. Your Honours, I read parts of this journal.
3 Q. Could I ask you to go to page number 20 of the English version.
4 It's the entry of 20 December 1992
5 So on the entry of 20 December 1992
6 "Working meeting with Chief Valentin Coric ..."
7 And then I'll read out the second indent:
8 "Chief Valentin thanked Mile Pusic for his work and introduced
9 the new warden appointed by his written order."
10 And at the end of that entry it says:
11 "Mr. Stanko Bozic, the new warden, met everyone in the prison and
12 said his arrival would change nothing in the prison, and, 'I would like
13 to have good cooperation with everyone.'"
14 20 December 1992
15 what I just read out, that it was Mr. Valentin Coric who actually
16 appointed Mr. Stanko Bozic?
17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. My learned
18 friend misread. If we're reading the Croatian text - it's on the
19 screen - it nowhere says that Mr. Coric appointed anybody. It was
20 appointed by a written order, but it is not stated whom appointed whom.
21 It is illegible, and it's in very poor shape.
22 Also, Mr. Bos said that Mr. Coric called the meeting to order,
23 but in the document, the document reads Warden Mile Pusic called the
24 meeting to order. This is a private diary in longhand, and can we have
25 the text read correctly? Maybe the witness can read it out in Croatian,
1 the contentious paragraph, for everybody to see whether everything is in
2 order. The document says:
3 "Valentin thanked Mile Pusic ..."
4 MR. BOS
5 this part of the diary.
6 Q. Mr. Marijan, could you read out the part where it starts -- well,
7 in English, it says, "Chief Valentin thanked Mile Pusic ..."
8 A. "Chief Valentin thanked Mile Pusic for his work and introduced
9 the new warden appointed by a written order ...," and I cannot read
10 further. The text is unintelligible. There are two other words that I
11 can't make it out. "He paid attention to the work ...," and then
12 illegible: "... prison, particularly the work of policemen, shift
13 commanders ..."
14 Q. You can stop there. It -- it's -- what's important is that
15 sentence where there, you know, where he says written order or -- but it
16 doesn't say "his" but it's -- it appears from what you're reading out
17 that it doesn't.
18 Now, could I ask you now --
19 JUDGE PRANDLER: There is not the translation. I'm sorry,
20 Mr. Bos. The last sentence of what you have said, there was no
21 translation and no English text was given.
22 MR. BOS
23 out, it remains unclear by whom the written order was issued.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have to be very careful at
25 all times when it comes to translations. You have to keep a tight watch,
1 because we work in three languages. So sometimes, you know, you hear
2 something that is not right.
3 I'm looking at the English translation. It says "his order,"
4 which leads one to believe that he was appointed by Mr. Coric. But as
5 read by the witness off the B/C/S text, it is "a," "an" or "a written
6 order," which is not necessarily issued by Mr. Coric.
7 Yes, Mr. Coric.
8 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wanted to
9 intervene concerning one word.
10 If you take a better look at the Croatian version, somebody said
11 "appointed," but the letter E can be made out, so this is "appointment,"
12 and not "appointed," which confirms your thesis that it is unknown who
13 appointed. It was interpreted "appointed," as a verb, but in the
14 Croatian you can make out the letter E and another letter which should
15 spell "imenovanje," which is "appointment."
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Bos.
17 MR. BOS
18 Q. Sir, could I ask you to move, in the same document, to the 22nd
19 of March, 1993 entry, which is on page 25 of the English version.
20 And in order not to get confused again, maybe you can read out
21 the entry starting on 22 March 1993
22 0930 hours ..." Could you please read that out?
23 A. "At 9.30, Stanko Bozic came to me, to the prison office. After a
24 short conversation, Bozic told me that he had come back to work in the
25 prison again, that it was a mistake to leave, and that he was with Chief
1 Valentin Coric, who told me he can work in the prison again.
2 "I immediately called the chief, Vale. He confirmed this orally
3 and told me to let him do the job he used to do as warden and just to
4 continue doing it as if he had not stopped.
5 "I informed him about what had happened during his absence and
6 took over responsibility for the prison and life in it.
7 "I wrote a report on that arrival and take-over and sent it to
8 the head, Bruno Stojic, and Chief Valentin Coric."
9 Q. Sir, doesn't this entry imply that, in fact, Valentin Coric
10 appointed Mr. -- at least, you know, had authority over Mr. Stanko Bozic
11 and that he, in fact, appointed him as warden of Heliodrom?
12 A. Your Honours, this is a bit-confused passage. Some things are
13 missing. I wouldn't dare clearly state that this was so.
14 Q. Well, we see at the end that, also in your report, it was sent to
15 Mr. Bruno Stojic about the arrival of Mr. Bozic. Would you agree that
16 Mr. Valentin Coric did his work at the Detention Unit as a direct
17 subordinate of Mr. Bruno Stojic?
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. I -- we
19 have such confused translation or interpretation. Could my learned
20 colleague repeat the question, because I could not make out the gist of
21 his question in the interpretation that I heard.
22 MR. BOS
23 Q. If you look at the 22nd March entry at 1993, the last sentence,
24 it says that:
25 "I," and which is Mr. Josip Praljak, "wrote a report on his
1 arrival and take-over and sent it to the head, Bruno Stojic, and Chief
2 Valentin Coric."
3 And then my subsequent question was: Sir, isn't it correct that
4 Mr. Coric did his work at the detention unit as a direct subordinate of
5 Mr. Bruno Stojic?
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Praljak.
7 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since there
8 are two Praljaks, it is always necessary to specify Josip or Slobodan
10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we should
11 split this question into two. I don't know how Mr. Bos concluded that
12 Mr. Coric worked at the detention centre. It is completely unknown to
13 me. And then ask under whom -- whose authority. This is completely
14 unintelligible. We have sentences which are unintelligible in Croatian,
15 let alone in English, and he's showing them to the witness out of
17 We had a witness - he's not a protected witness - who testified
18 here, who authored this document, and this should have been asked of him.
19 Now we're trying to get to the bottom of this, what the poet wanted to
20 say, and the poet is back in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he's not here, and
21 we're now trying to analyse his opus with a man who has no knowledge of
22 the facts of the matter.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, the question is who
24 appointed Josip Praljak warden of the prison; was it Mr. Coric or
25 somebody else? We're not going to spend the entire evening on this, so
1 put the question to him, and the expert witness will give us his opinion.
2 MR. BOS
3 Mr. Stanko Bozic, and I'll put my last question -- I'll ask my question
4 in general terms.
5 Q. We've established that Mr. Valentin Coric was responsible for the
6 operation of the Heliodrom. We've established that with the document.
7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know
8 when we established that. The witness has said repeatedly that the
9 military police was responsible for the security. I don't know who
10 established this. We haven't yet established that here in the courtroom.
11 Thank you.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Bos, you're saying
13 that it was established that he was responsible for the operation of the
14 Heliodrom. What do you base your conclusions on?
15 MR. BOS
16 Q. We've established that the military police was responsible for
17 the security of the Heliodrom; would you agree with me on that, sir?
18 A. Yes. Yes, Mr. Bos, the military police was in charge of the
19 security of the Heliodrom.
20 Q. Is it correct, sir, that Mr. Valentin Coric was head of the
21 military police?
22 A. Your Honour, that is correct, but the prison is not part of the
23 structure of the military police.
24 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the
25 Prosecutor to make a distinction between the Heliodrom centre, with all
1 its contents, and the Heliodrom prison. So when he's asking the witness
2 a question, to state clearly who provided the security for the Heliodrom
3 centre and who for the prison. These are two different things.
4 MR. BOS
5 Q. Would you agree with me that for the security of the Heliodrom
6 military prison, the military police, of whom Mr. Valentin Coric was the
7 head, was responsible for the security of that military prison?
8 A. Yes, I agree.
9 Q. And would you also agree with me, Mr. Marijan, that
10 Mr. Valentin Coric was a direct subordinate of Mr. Bruno Stojic in the
11 structure of the HVO Defence Department?
12 A. Yes, he was subordinate to Mr. Stojic.
13 Q. Let's have a look at another exhibit, which is P 00665.
14 This is an order from Mr. Bruno Stojic, dated the 28th October
15 1992, and it orders that all prisoners of war held by the HVO be
16 unconditionally released from HVO military investigation prisons. And I
17 would like to focus your attention to the last sentence of that
18 paragraph, which reads:
19 "I hereby place Mr. Valentin Coric, head of the HVO Military
20 Police Administration, in charge of carrying out this order."
21 Sir, doesn't this show what we just established, that
22 Mr. Bruno Stojic had authority over Mr. Valentin Coric when it comes to
23 the security of the HVO Central Military Prison, and in fact it refers
24 here to --
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, which military prison?
1 Which military prison, Your Honours? Which military prisons? On the
2 28th of October, 1992, Mr. Bos is making generalisations. This is a
3 specific issue. Which prison existed at the time? He hasn't laid the
4 foundations for this question as to which prison.
5 MR. BOS
6 investigation prisons," so it's all investigation military prisons that
7 existed at the time.
8 Q. Wouldn't you agree with me, Mr. Marijan?
9 A. From the text, one can make that conclusion.
10 Further down, there's specific mention of Mostar, Livno and
11 Tomislavgrad, so this was on the basis of an agreement. I think there's
12 a series of documents regarding the release. This was agreed upon at the
13 beginning of October. These were just prisoners of war. As far as I
14 remember, they were Serbs.
15 Q. Let's leave this document aside and let's move back to your
16 report, paragraph 120, which we had before. I would like to ask you a
17 question about your reference to the 2.100 prisoners that were being --
18 to which you are referring to in your report.
19 Sir, in your understanding, did -- these 2.100 prisoners that you
20 referred to, were these people civilians, prisoners of war, or military
22 A. I didn't quite understand the question. I heard another number
23 in the headphones, but you're probably referring to the number 2.100.
24 There was some confusion. I heard a different number.
25 I must admit that I didn't study prisons, and I really don't know
1 whether these 2.100 were civilians, or soldiers, or a mixture of the two.
2 Q. Sir, is it not true that these thousands of detainees were, by
3 majority, Muslim men of military age who had been arbitrarily arrested by
4 the HVO after the ABiH attack on the Northern Barracks on the 30th of
6 MR. KHAN: Your Honour, that's a compound question, a number of
7 questions are included. Perhaps it can be broken down and the foundation
9 MR. BOS
10 Q. Sir, isn't it correct that these 2.100 men were all Muslim men of
11 military age?
12 A. Possibly.
13 Q. Well, let's just look at a document. Maybe that's easier.
14 Could I ask you to look at Exhibit P 03663. Sir, this is a
15 report from Officer Zvonko Vidovic from the Crime Prevention Department
16 of the military police, and it's reporting on a meeting in Ljubuski on
17 the 22nd of July, 1993
18 present, as we can read in the first paragraph. And I'd like -- I'll
19 read out the third and fourth paragraph of this report, and then I'll ask
20 you some questions:
21 "Consequently, all those persons who have been detained, but
22 against whom no criminal proceedings have not been initiated (or against
23 whom a criminal report has not been filed) are, according to the order of
24 the chief of the Military Police Administration, unknown to our
25 department. This refers solely to the large number of Muslims who have
1 been brought unselectively to the Central Military Remand Prison
2 buildings and who have since been forgotten. By inertia, the Crime
3 Prevention Department has conducted interviews with more than 2.000
4 people, and none of them were interesting from the standpoint of crime.
5 Therefore, the question about the domain of our activities was
6 justifiably put to the Military Police Administration Chief,
7 Mr. Valentin Coric, who issued the above order for us to begin handling
8 criminal cases.
9 "As the head of the Department for Administration and Justice was
10 charged with drawing up a report on the Central Military --"
11 THE INTERPRETER: Thank you for reading slowly.
12 MR. BOS
13 Q. " ... was charged with drawing up a report on the Central
14 Military Remand Prison, it follows that according to the decisions of the
15 institutions of this department, it's the duty of the Department of
16 Justice to appoint the Central Military Prison warden and to make all
17 decisions with regard to the detainees. As for disciplinary measures
18 against HVO soldiers, they will be resolved by those who pronounce them,
19 but we believe that among the 2.000 people who were unselectively brought
20 to the premises of the Central Military Prison, there is a fair number of
21 those who are of interest for security and who should be found and
22 processed, which is precisely the job of the Information and Security
24 Sir, have you seen this document before?
25 A. Your Honours, I'm not sure about this document, whether I've seen
1 it before or not.
2 Q. Is it correct, sir, that in the third paragraph, the Crime
3 Prevention Department conducted interviews with more than 2.000 Muslim
4 people arrested and detained at Heliodrom and concluded that none of them
5 were interesting from the standpoint of crime?
6 A. Your Honours, on the basis of this paragraph, one can make that
7 conclusion, though here there's reference to 2.000 persons, but one can
8 infer that they were Muslims and, as you have said, that none of them
9 were interesting from the point of view of crime.
10 Q. Is it not correct, sir, that as a result, the Military Crime
11 Prevention Department referred to the HVO Department of Justice to make
12 decisions with regard to these 2.000 detainees and to the SIS for the
13 possible security reasons? That's in the last paragraph of this document
14 that I read out.
15 A. I think that this is their proposal, that they are suggesting
16 that a representative of the Department for Justice deal with this
17 problem with the prison, whereas a part of those 2.000 persons, who may
18 be of interest for security reasons, that the Security Service should
19 conduct interviews with them.
20 Q. Sir, is it not correct that, in fact, the HVO authorities didn't
21 know what to do with these 2.000 Muslim men at Heliodrom, who, as it's
22 stated here, were unselectively brought to the premises?
23 A. Mr. Prosecutor, all I can say, on the basis of this, is that
24 2.000 persons were unselectively brought there. It is not clear who
25 brought them there. And I wouldn't say that the authorities of
1 Herceg-Bosna didn't know what to do with them. This is not something we
2 can infer on the basis of this text alone.
3 Q. Let's look, then, at another document, which is Exhibit P 06729.
4 Sir, this is an SIS report dated the 18th of November, 1993, on the works
5 of Gabela and Heliodrom, and the report starts on Gabela, and it says
6 "Report number 1," and then the situation of the prisoners of war, and it
7 reads as follows:
8 "There are about 300 prisoners of war in each of the said
9 facilities. There are currently 1.268 prisoners of war. All prisoners
10 of war are persons of Muslim nationality, male, and there are some of
11 them (I have not been able to establish the figure precisely) who are
12 under 18 and some who are above 60 years ..."
13 And it continues:
14 "In the brief personal context with prisoners of war, the
15 impression is that many of them have been brought to the shelter from
16 their homes, street, or work-places, while the rest have been captured
17 during the combat operations. Although there are no precise numbers for
18 these categories, the fact is that so far nothing has been done to
19 separate, provide accommodation, and apply all other criteria to these
20 two so-called categories of persons housed on the premises of the
22 And then if we then continue to the situation in Heliodrom, which
23 is on page 5 of the English version of the document under item number 2,
24 again the accommodation of prisoners of war, here it reads:
25 "In the said facilities, there are 2.600 prisoners of war who are
1 of the same category as the prisoners of war in the previous shelter, of
2 the same category; that is, real prisoners of war have not been
3 separated. Members of BH Army have not been separated from civilians who
4 have been brought (for various reasons)."
5 If we move to page number 6, in the English version it's under
6 the item, "Command and Control in the Shelter and Security System," third
8 "His main problem at the moment is the chaotic way in which
9 persons are brought to the shelter. According to him, people are brought
10 on a random basis, according to some personal criteria, while any
11 opposition to this may even result in threats with weapons to anyone who
12 would disagree."
13 Sir, doesn't this in fact show what I just read out to you, that
14 these people had been randomly arrested?
15 A. Your Honour, we can see from this that in these several camps,
16 there was a large number of people who were unselectively arrested.
17 There are obviously prisoners of war, but there are also persons, judging
18 from the first part that you read out, that are some under 18 and some
19 over 60 years of age. It isn't stated anywhere who brought them in.
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise. I'll try
21 and make this my last intervention.
22 The date is the 18th of November, 1993. Mr. Bozic tells us
23 that -- says that the greatest problem is the unselective arrest. He's
24 talking about that period of time, the 18th of November. Now, from the
25 interpretation given, it says if they were brought in now, at that time.
1 I wish to draw attention to the fact that Mr. Bruno Stojic at that time
2 was not head of the Defence Department, so this is beyond the scope of
3 what the expert has analysed in his report. This is a reference to
4 unselective bringing in of prisoners at that point of time and not at any
5 time, when Mr. Bozic was not -- when Mr. Bruno Stojic was not in charge
6 of this department.
7 MR. BOS
8 There's no way that the document reads that these people have been
9 arrested on the 18th of November. I think it's clear from the document
10 that there has been reference here to a problem that already existed even
11 before the 18th of November.
12 Q. But, sir, we'll leave this aside, and I'll ask you to go back
13 again to paragraph 120 of your report.
14 Sir, you've been referring here to this letter from Mr. Stanko
15 Bozic on the 14th of August, 1993, to Mr. Bruno Stojic, which is P 04186.
16 I'm not asking you to go to that document, but isn't it true, sir, that
17 there were at least four more letters from Bruno Stojic -- from various
18 authorities, I should say, from the Heliodrom which were addressed to
19 Bruno Stojic in 1993? Have you had -- is it correct that you have come
20 across other reports that were addressed to Mr. Bruno Stojic?
21 A. Your Honours, I have said several times I didn't go into this
22 issue, in particular. I do know that I did see some reports. I didn't
23 count them.
24 Q. Well, let's have a look at those reports, Mr. Marijan.
25 Could I ask you to look at P 04352.
1 This is a letter from Mr. Stanko Bozic addressed to
2 Mr. Bruno Stojic, dated the 20th of August, 1993, and it says:
3 "I'm writing to inform you of the visit of the International
4 Committee of the Red Cross to the Central Military Remand Prison and the
5 objections they made to me."
6 And then I'll move on a bit. It says:
7 "Mr. Franco pointed to the following wrongdoings and violations
8 of the Geneva Conventions: Sending detainees to work; to the quality and
9 quantity of food, they request its improvement; and, 3, the bad
10 conditions in solitary cells.
11 Regarding the violations of the Geneva Conventions, Mr. Franco
12 warned and obligated me, as a warden, to ensure that these wrongdoings
13 are not repeated in the future, or we would be reported to the
14 International Tribunal.
15 "After the Red Cross departure, we were not able to remedy these
16 wrongdoings. On the contrary, the number of wounded and killed at the
17 workplace is increasing by the day."
18 And then it concludes:
19 "Please help us to resolve this problem in this new situation so
20 we could protect the Central Military Remand Prison, the HVO Command, and
21 the interests of our whole people."
22 Sir, had you seen this letter before, Mr. Stanko Bozic's address
23 to Mr. Bruno Stojic?
24 A. It is possible, yes.
25 Q. Let's look at another letter, which is a month later, the 29th of
1 September, 1993
2 Mr. Zvonko Vidovic of the Military Crime Prevention Department, addressed
3 to Mr. Stojic personally, in which -- well, I won't read out the whole
4 letter, but it concerns the unapproved release of by Mr. Miladan
5 Halitovic [phoen], Tuta, of four Croat murderers who are kept at the
6 detention centre in Heliodrom; P 05477.
7 I'm sorry, I'm moving a bit fast, but I'm also looking at the
9 So, sir, this is a letter from Zvonko Vidovic, head of the MP
10 Crime Department, addressed to Mr. Stojic, and it concerns the unapproved
11 release by Miladan Halitovic, Tuta, of four Croat murderers who were kept
12 in detention at Heliodrom and who were released to fight in Rastani.
13 Now, what I will read out is the last -- the one-but-last
14 paragraph of this letter, which says:
15 "To use your influence and position to resolve the Central
16 Military Police -- to resolve the Heliodrom problem as soon as possible,
17 because it's now more than obvious that the HVO disciplinarian measures
18 are not followed, that people are brought and taken away without anyone
19 being told. The hierarchy and orders of superior officers are not being
20 followed, and it seems that anyone can order the release of certain
21 detainees without consulting the police or judiciary, not to mention the
22 situation with detainees of Muslim nationality."
23 Sir, have you seen this letter addressed to Mr. Stojic before?
24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I haven't kept my
1 In the original, there's references to the detainees, persons
2 detained, and they were detainees. If they were HVO members, they were
3 detained for the commission of crimes, so they were not prisoners. In
4 the original, it says "detainees." Therefore, these questions and this
5 document deals with the question of detainees; that is, members of the
6 HVO detained for crimes, rather than prisoners, and that is what is
7 stated in the Croatian original.
8 MR. BOS
9 Q. But the report is being addressed to Mr. Stojic, personally,
10 isn't it, Mr. Marijan?
11 A. Correct, the report is addressed to him, and it seems to have
12 been received by the Defence Department. The previous document did not
13 have this stamp, but this one does, the reception stamp.
14 Q. Well, let's move to the next exhibit, P 05812.
15 Again, it's a letter addressed to Mr. Bruno Stojic, this time
16 from the warden of Heliodrom, Mr. Stanko Bozic, and he's -- in fact, and
17 I'll summarise what's in the document. He's reporting a number of issues
18 that are in relation to -- in relation to Heliodrom. There's, in fact,
19 eight issues. And -- well, you can read for yourself what the problems
21 Let me just read the last line of this letter, which says:
22 "As I'm not able to solve these problems alone, I appeal to you
23 to use your influence for these problems to be solved."
24 Sir, have you seen this document before?
25 A. I'm not sure. I mainly reviewed the documents received by
1 Mr. Stojic with the reception stamp. It is possible that I did see this
2 one, but I can't guarantee it.
3 Q. Well, finally, let me look at the letter dated the 26th of
4 October, 1993, which is P 06170.
5 Sir, this is a document from the deputy warden, Mr. Josip
6 Praljak, and it's a report on the work of the Detainee Release
7 Commission, and it starts off by saying:
8 "By the order of President Bruno Stojic ...," and then it refers
9 to a number of 6 August 1993
10 1993, and a member of a commission to establish greater order in prisons,
11 and of other authorities which were decreed because of the large number
12 of detainees accommodated in three facilities; the prison building, and
13 two other facilities which were not designed for use as prisons."
14 Sir, this paragraph refers to an order by Stojic dated the 6th of
15 August. Do you recall which order this is, the order establishing the
16 Detainee Release Commission? Have you seen that order before?
17 A. I think I have, Your Honours.
18 Q. Maybe if we can just look at that document. It's P 03995.
19 So this is an order by Mr. Bruno Stojic, ordering that as of the
20 10th of August, 1993, the commission authorised by the Department of
21 Defence is to take charge of all Detention Unit and prisons in which
22 prisoners of war and military detainees are held, "... and it will be
23 composed of the following:" And then follows five names; number 1,
24 Berislav Pusic, Josip Dokic, et cetera, and number 5, Josip Praljak, the
25 one actually drafting that letter that we just looked at.
1 Have you seen this document?
2 A. I have seen this document, Your Honours.
3 Q. Now, Mr. Marijan, based on all these documents that we've been --
4 that I've been showing you, wouldn't you agree, isn't it correct that
5 Mr. Bruno Stojic not only had de jure responsibility for the military
6 detention centres, but that in effect he was also considered as the
7 de facto superior responsible person, at least by those who were running
8 the day-to-day operations in Heliodrom?
9 A. Your Honour, from these documents that have been shown to me, one
10 can see that wardens wrote those reports addressed to Mr. Stojic. And
11 regarding one or two of them, I'm quite sure that Mr. Stojic did receive
12 them, because they bear the reception stamp. And that is all that I
13 could say, in concrete terms. But as I have been saying, my interest in
14 prisons was very minimal.
15 Q. Sir, isn't it correct that the Ministry of -- the Ministry or --
16 the Department of Defence also had responsibility for the conditions of
17 the camp through its Sector of Health Services, which was led by
18 Dr. Bagaric, and isn't is it correct that paragraphs 70 and 71 of your
19 report deal with this particular responsibility?
20 A. Your Honours, what can be said with certainty is that the Health
21 Sector did endeavour to improve conditions, and I came across only such
22 documents. Now, whether this can be interpreted as their responsibility,
23 I don't know, but that members of the Health Sector did draw attention to
24 these responsibilities, that is beyond doubt.
25 Q. And isn't it true, Mr. Marijan, that in fact they drew up reports
1 on the conditions of detentions not only for the Central Military Prison
2 of Heliodrom but also for all other military detention facilities in the
3 Herceg-Bosna region?
4 A. I couldn't state that with certainty. I do know that I saw some,
5 but whether they related to all those institutions, I can't say. I
6 simply can't confirm that I saw them relating to all of them.
7 Q. All right. Let's have a look at P 06858. This is a report from
8 Dr. Ivo Curic, dated the 24th of November, 1993. And, sir, isn't it
9 correct that this report on the conditions not only of Heliodrom but a
10 number of prisoners that are -- of prisons that are -- locations that are
11 mentioned in the first column of this chart -- in fact, it lists
12 Heliodrom, Gabela, Ljubuski, Livno, Duvno, Prozor, and then it says
13 "Rakitno" and "Drbkrovici" [phoen] - sorry, it's a bit late - who both
14 don't exist anymore?
15 A. Your Honours, I did not see this document before, but it's not
16 quite clear to me. I didn't know that Livno had this type of prison.
17 But that it was signed by a person from the Health Sector, that is quite
19 MR. BOS
20 and I think I have 15 more minutes left, and I think it would be better
21 if I continued tomorrow those 15 minutes. One-five, 15, a quarter of an
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bos, indeed you have 15
24 minutes left. You're entitled to use them. It's your basic right. In
25 other words, the witness will be forced to stay overnight.
1 We have wasted a lot of time with objections, with the requests
2 for disqualification. I can't wait to see it on my desk, if the Alaburic
3 Defence maintains their opinion.
4 So, Ms. Nozica, do you have any redirect? Given the time you've
5 used, you don't have time.
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I do have some
7 questions for the redirect. And according to my calculation of time,
8 I think that time can be deducted from the total amount of time I have
9 envisaged for my case. I will be doing my redirect even if I find myself
10 in a situation of not being able to call my witness. I will simply fit
11 into the time allotted to me for the presentation of the Defence case for
12 Mr. Stojic. So I do have some redirect for this witness.
13 And I wish to say that I'm aware that we are ready with our next
14 witness. So immediately after the end of the 15 minutes and the
15 redirect, we can proceed with the next witness, if the Trial Chamber is
16 agreeable. So could you please give me instructions, because it is
17 important for me to know whether I will be continuing with my next
18 witness tomorrow.
19 As for the redirect, I should need at least one hour.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You want one hour for redirect.
21 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, the Trial Chamber
23 said that, in terms of evaluating the time, we include the time for
24 examination-in-chief and redirect. This was always our rule. You have
25 been given a lot of time already, and now you want one extra hour.
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I apologise, but I'm
2 afraid that I didn't get anything from the Trial Chamber. What you gave
3 me for the examination-in-chief for this witness was deducted from my
4 total time.
5 My understanding of your decision is that I affix the time for
6 the direct examination, and if I need more for the redirect, it is
7 deducted from the total amount of time allotted to me for my Defence. I
8 will not always have a redirect. This time, I will.
9 So would you please deduct the time I use for redirect from my
10 total amount of time? Because, Your Honours, it is very difficult to
11 envisage, when you start with a direct, whether you will need time for
12 the redirect. The redirect depends on the cross-examination, and I could
13 not envisage, when I brought my witness, that I would need time for the
14 redirect. So I would ask that I be allowed the time I need, and please
15 deduct that time from my total time.
16 If, in the future, we will be working differently, then I will
17 need to know that. So sometimes at my expense, I will spend less time on
18 the direct. I won't be able to ask all the questions I need, and I may
19 not need any redirect. So I think redirect should be deducted from the
20 total time for the case.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Precisely so. Redirect is only
22 authorised to the extent of the cross-examination, so when you
23 cross-examine -- for instance, "The Prosecutor showed you a document, I
24 have a question on that document," or, "I'll show another document," so
25 we agree on the extent and scope of redirect.
1 But as a rule, when you assess the time you need, you must take
2 into account the time you might need for redirect, because with the
3 system, each time you're going to take time out of your time credit, and
4 at some point you won't have any left.
5 MR. KHAN: Mr. President, if I may try to assist.
6 Of course, in an ideal world, it would be no doubt advantageous
7 if counsel could predict the future and could know, to a nicety, the
8 questions that were going to be asked by the Prosecution and by the
9 opposing -- the other parties in this courtroom. Of course, reality is
10 not like that. And as my learned leader put it, until the Defence for
11 Mr. Stojic, and it will apply to the other accused in due course, see the
12 nature and scope of cross-examination, it is exceptionally difficult to
13 predict the extent of the necessary re-examination arising out of the
14 cross-examination that is being conducted by the other parties in this
16 Your Honour, in my respectful submission, a margin of deference
17 must be given to counsel in this courtroom. That must apply to all
18 parties, the Prosecution and the counsel for the different Defence teams,
19 as to how they think it most appropriate to use the time that is being
20 bestowed upon them by the Trial Chamber to fulfill their primary task of
21 effectively and properly defending their clients.
22 Your Honours, there's no possible prejudice, in my respectful
23 submission, to this Court or to the parties if counsel in this case -- my
24 lead counsel, wishes to deduct time from the quantum that is being given
25 by the Trial Chamber, and nips and tucks are always possible in the
1 course of a trial. And if there is a miscalculation, well, that must be
2 on the head of the particular party.
3 But, Your Honours, in my submission, of course, a margin of
4 deference must be given to an experienced counsel in this courtroom.
5 Otherwise, of course, we will run into very considerable difficulties.
6 And this is a matter that applies in the present instance to Ms. Nozica
7 and the Stojic team, but it is a matter that will vex, no doubt, other
8 Defence teams in the future.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to consult on this.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] After discussing the matter,
12 the Trial Chamber grants you an hour for redirect, to be deducted from
13 your overall time.
14 Yes, Mr. Alaburic.
15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
16 In view of your observation, noted on page 94, lines 17 and 18, I
17 wish to make clear that the Defence for General Petkovic did not make the
18 request for disqualification of any Judge, nor did it intend to do that.
19 We were in a dilemma regarding a sentence spoken. And in accordance with
20 our view that it is much better to openly ask a question about it than to
21 comment about it in the corridors, I asked for an explanation of that
22 sentence, and I am quite satisfied that it was a hypothetical situation.
23 And we will be glad to continue these proceedings with the Trial Chamber
24 as it stands.
25 Thank you.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Excellent.
2 Well, 15 minutes for Mr. Bos to finish, then one hour for
3 Ms. Nozica. Then the witness will be allowed to go back home.
4 Thereafter, we shall resume, and Mr. Stringer filed a submission wanting
5 to ask to intervene because there's still this pending issue of
7 Is that right?
8 MR. STRINGER: We can raise this, Your Honour, tomorrow,
9 Your Honour, but in fact we received additional information regarding the
10 next witness over the weekend, and it's my understanding -- I will not be
11 examining the next witness, but it's my understanding that the
12 Prosecution is satisfied with the additional information that was
13 provided to us over the weekend, after we sent yet another letter, but
14 that we are going to be very, very attentive to the scope of the direct
15 examination to make sure that it does not exceed the numerous summaries
16 that have been provided.
17 Thank you.
18 MR. KHAN: Well, Your Honours, I will address this issue
19 tomorrow, with your leave. I do take objection to the Prosecution's
20 conduct of itself in relation to this matter. They have issued and
21 bandied about letters. It seems now they are complaining about the
22 number of supplements, and so it appears now we're being blamed or
23 criticised for the number of supplements and in a very sincere attempt to
24 assist the opposing party.
25 But, Your Honour, in my submission, and I will raise this
1 tomorrow, the conduct of the Prosecution has been lamentable in this
2 matter, and I will ask for ten minutes tomorrow to address this issue,
3 because we can't have so much time wasted on every single witness so that
4 the Defence is being ambushed or torpedoed to prepare summaries, when the
5 Prosecution have failed to object since March 'til January for more
6 detailed statements. They have not done that.
7 Your Honours, I will address this tomorrow, hopefully with
8 Mr. Scott in attendance.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So once the
10 witness -- this witness has left the courtroom, we shall resume, and you
11 will be given ten minutes, Mr. Khan, to convey your observations.
12 Thereafter, we'll have the witness brought in.
13 So everybody is clear about everything. Very well.
14 Witness, unfortunately, sir, you will have to stay here
15 overnight. The Judges might be blamed, in part, because they put too
16 many questions, but even so now Ms. Nozica wants another hour, so that it
17 would have been impossible for you to leave today. So very much to our
18 regret, you will have to stay. I hope this will not have a major
19 repercussion on your family or professional life. And should it be so,
20 do know that we regret it, but we couldn't do it any other way.
21 I wish you all a very good evening. As you know, we shall work
22 in the afternoon tomorrow, starting at 2.15.
23 The hearing stands adjourned.
Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.12 p.m.
25 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 27th day of
1 January, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.