1 Tuesday, 3 February 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Kindly call the case, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
8 everyone in and around the courtroom.
9 This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus
10 Prlic et al.
11 Thank you, Your Honours.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
13 Today is Tuesday, 3rd of February, 2009. First of all, good
14 morning to you, Witness. Good morning to the accused, the Defence
15 counsel, all the OTP representatives, a full team today, and good morning
16 to the usher, the Registrar, and all the people assisting us.
17 We have to continue with the examination-in-chief, and I can give
18 you the floor straight away, Ms. Nozica.
19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 I would like to greet everyone in the courtroom.
21 WITNESS: SLOBODAN BOZIC [Resumed]
22 [The witness answered through interpreter]
23 Examination by Ms. Nozica: [Continued]
24 Q. Good morning, Mr. Bozic.
25 A. Good morning to everybody in the courtroom.
1 Q. Yesterday, you explained to us that you were there at the
2 HVO HZ-HB on many occasions and explained in what capacity. Did you
3 attend the sessions of the HVO HZ-HB when security circumstances and the
4 situation were discussed in the area of HZ-HB?
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. I would like to ask you to preclude warnings from others, to make
7 a break before answering, so that we have everything in the script.
8 Do you remember on how many occasions you attended those
10 A. On several occasions. There were sessions where I attended on my
11 own, and there were other occasions when other members of the college
12 attended together with Mr. Stojic.
13 Q. I would like to take a look at some documents. 1D 2423.
14 A. In which binder, please?
15 Q. The second binder that you started working from yesterday.
16 A. I found it.
17 Q. It is a session of the HVO HZ-HB, 17th of April, 1993.
18 Mr. Stojic attended this meeting. This is a session which discussed the
19 military and security situation in the area of the HZ-HB. You were not
20 present at the session, and you don't know what was discussed there?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Let's take a look at the next document, 2D 689. This is the next
23 document in the binder. It is a press release from the previous session?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. When we take a look at the text of the minutes, we can see that
1 it corresponds to the press release. Could you tell the Chamber, from
2 your memory, what was going on immediately before the 17th of April,
3 1993, which occasioned this session and this press release, from your
4 memory, please?
5 A. Reading the report, I remember this period when there was an
6 attack in the area of Central Bosnia, where Croats lived, particularly
7 the municipalities of Konjic and Jablanica. The situation there was
8 grave. Civilians were being expelled from their homes, and practically
9 this press release from the session reflects the discussion, the debate,
10 on -- taking place on that session on the 17th of April.
11 Q. Can we take a look at the next document, 2D 00847.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you attend this session, when it was discussed what were the
14 military and security situation in the area of HZ-HB? We see that
15 Mr. Stojic was not present; neither were representatives of the
16 Main Staff. Do you remember who provided the introduction and the
17 introductory information at that session?
18 A. I cannot remember who did so, neither do I recall taking the --
19 taking the floor, but it did take place two days after the previous one.
20 So it was a continuation on the same issue, on the same topic, so there
21 was no need for an introduction.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Ms. Nozica.
24 Witness, the previous session, where we had this report of 17th
25 April, were you or Mr. Stojic present at that session; do you recall?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Stojic attended the 17th of
2 April session, and reading the press release, I commented on it.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I think this was highlighted when we
5 made mention of the first session.
6 Q. Now take a look at the next document, 2D 00694. This is an
7 illustration of the events which preceded the said session. Did you find
8 the document?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Can you tell us briefly what it's all about?
11 A. It is a press release or a -- from the Command of the Operations
12 Zone Central Bosnia
13 the Department of Defence of the HVO and the Main Staff.
14 Q. It is about --
15 A. About the situation in Central Bosnia that I explained.
16 Q. This is the situation when the escorts of the commander were
18 A. Four escorts of Mr. Zivko Totic, who was the commander of the
19 HVO, were killed, and he was kidnapped and arrested on that occasion.
20 Q. You said that you sometimes attended the sessions on your own and
21 sometimes with other members of the Defence Department. Now take a look
22 at document P 05799. These are minutes of an extraordinary meeting of
23 the Government of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna on the 9th of
24 October, 1993. We see your name among those attending the meeting.
25 General Praljak and General Petkovic attended as well. Do you recall
1 this meeting and your presence there?
2 A. Yes. I can remember particularly having seen the minutes during
3 my proofing for my testimony.
4 Q. In the past -- in the first part of the document, below the
5 subject, it is seen that Mr. Stojic, Praljak and Petkovic introduced the
6 matter, but the main point was to criticise the way civilian authorities
7 worked. It was discussed also how to fund the system. Do you agree that
8 at that moment, this was one of the most important problems?
9 A. Of course, this was one of the most important problems taking
10 into account the overall situation on the ground, the needs of the
11 military, and the need for the civilian authorities to function, to
12 provide for normal life. It was a prerequisite that civilian authorities
13 worked at the top level, but as you can see from these minutes, this
14 wasn't so.
15 Q. Now let's take a look at 2D 01000. This is supposed to be next
16 in your binder.
17 A. I've found it.
18 Q. Mr. Bozic, do you recall this document, and do you recall the
19 conclusion taken by the HVO HZ-HB?
20 A. This conclusion comes from a session of the HVO HZ-HB, which
21 reached the Defence Department, whereby regular reports are requested
22 from the Defence Department and Main Staff to the government on the
23 situation in -- on the battle-field to take actions as foreseen by
24 regulation of the HVO HZ-HB.
25 Q. In respect of this document, could you explain the Bench, please,
1 how documents were registered when they would come to the Defence
3 A. This is a document where you can demonstrate how documents were
4 received and processed. In the top part of the document, we have a
5 reception stamp. A secretary would register the number and would keep
6 intake register and forward it to the head of department, Mr. Stojic.
7 Mr. Stojic, after seeing the document, which can be -- which is reflected
8 in the top right corner, indicated who is supposed to process this
9 document. You see my name, "Bobo" there, which meant that I was tasked
10 with forwarding this document to the Main Staff, because it can be seen
11 from the conclusion that the Main Staff was indicated. There were
12 certain statements written in longhand.
13 Q. Mr. Bozic, on the top we see a signature. Is it Mr. Stojic's
15 A. Yes, I said that Mr. Stojic would sign and then indicate who is
16 supposed to process the document.
17 Q. Was this the standard operating procedure at Mr. Stojic's office,
18 when this -- when a document should be forwarded to somebody, he would
20 A. Yes, the procedure was such that he would -- we would receive it,
21 he would sign it, and then indicate who should forward it.
22 Q. Now I'm going to ask you a couple of questions about sessions of
23 the HVO HZ-HB.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Ms. Nozica.
25 Witness, you have said that on this document, 2D 01000, we see
1 "Bobo," which is your name. I fail to discover it on this paper. Could
2 you indicate precisely where it is? Oh, on the top right corner by hand.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the handwritten part,
5 where the word "Petkovic" can be seen, who is it by, by Mr. Stojic or by
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I'm not -- it wasn't me. I'm
8 not sure it was Mr. Stojic, because this is not his handwriting. I think
9 that it was written by somebody from the college of Mr. Stojic
10 session of the HVO HZ-HB that we see the conclusion from.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
12 Q. So, Mr. Bozic, we are going to discuss some sessions of the HVO
13 HZ-HB and the government that you attended and where you acted as a
15 The next document I'd like to see is P 676. Correction, P 767.
16 It is minutes from the 11th session on the -- in November 1992. You
17 proposed some of the items. Let's take a look at item 4 of the agenda.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Could you explain what it was about?
20 A. It was a proposed decision on the number of seats and areas where
21 offices for defence and administrations for defence should operate. It
22 was proposed to the HVO HZ-HB.
23 Q. We can see the conclusions that the Department of Defence at 8 --
24 at 5 was the proposer of the decision?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Now let's take a look at how decisions were taken. Let's take a
2 look at document P 700.
3 A. I also found it.
4 Q. Can you explain what it is about?
5 A. This is the decision on the number of seats and areas of
6 operation of departments for defence and offices for defence. This is
7 the conclusion and the decision that we proposed at the session that we
8 saw the minutes from.
9 Q. Was this one of the documents that the Defence Department had to
10 take and implement pursuant to some basic documents, and that it was
11 tasked with proposing such decisions to be adopted by the HVO HZ-HB; is
12 that correct?
13 A. That's correct. This is an example where documents are proposed
14 by the Defence Department to be adopted at the sessions of the HVO HZ-HB.
15 Q. Let's take a look at the next document, P 00686. This is a
16 decision on the methodology of --
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Ms. Nozica, I have a little problem.
18 The session in which the decision was taken to have such --
19 something like this is dated, as far as I see, 18 November; and the
20 decision itself is dated 3 November. Are these dates incorrect or --
21 something must be wrong. Maybe this is the draft and not the decision
22 that was submitted.
23 I think you have an answer, Witness, Mr. Bozic.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I was about to assist
25 you. Practically all documents that we proposed would be submitted to
1 the Regulations Commission, and then it would be forwarded to either the
2 Finance Department or Justice Department, depending on the type of
3 document. And after such procedure, it would be submitted to the HVO,
4 and this is -- these are materials which would be printed after the
5 decisions had been taken at the session of the HVO HZ-HB. This is not
6 the decision; this is a proposal. It says here "Defence Department of
7 the HVO HZ-HB."
8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I insisted whether
9 this was a draft or proposal of a decision. If it's a proposal, then by
10 logic it should be dated before the session.
11 Q. Did you take a look, Witness, at P 00686?
12 A. Well, let's explain this further.
13 It can be said, in the introduction above the word "Decision,"
14 say: "Pursuant to Article 12, paragraph 2, the Official Gazette of the
15 HZ-HB, I propose that decision be taken." And then it states "Decision"
16 in the next row.
17 Q. We have another document on the screen, P 686. Tell me,
18 Mr. Bozic, whether this decision was taken at the 18th of November
19 session of the HVO HZ-HB on the basis of an elaborated proposal of your
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Can we take a look at the next document. The next document would
23 be P 1511. This is the 26th session of the HVO HZ-HB. You, Mr. Bozic,
24 attended that meeting, among other people?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. The date is the 18th February 1993. In item 3 and item 4 and
2 item 5, you were the proponent; but I'll leave it up to you to tell the
3 Trial Chamber.
4 A. Yes, all these enactments were proposed by the Defence
5 Department, and they were put through the channels for admission by HVO
7 Q. Next is a decision amending the decision on the number of seats
8 and areas. You submitted a proposal.
9 Can we look at P 10 --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment.
11 Witness, I did not want to intervene, but since you're here, I'd
12 like to ask you some technical questions, because when Judges will have
13 to determine some matters, they will have a host of questions to face.
14 We may as well put them now.
15 At the 26th session of the HZ-HB, well, it started at 10.00 in
16 the morning, it was on the 18th of February. We see all the
17 participants, and there was an agenda. How did it take place, in
18 practical terms? Mr. Prlic was presiding the meeting. Did he say, Well,
19 we have on the agenda the adoption of the draft minutes of the 25th
20 session. Does anyone oppose this? And if there was nobody, it was
21 adopted, and then did he say, Well, item 2, draft decree; the
22 participants to the meeting were aware of that, Are there any opposition?
23 And if there was no opposition, did he say, It was adopted, et cetera?
24 Is that the way that it happened? So based on a text, did somebody say,
25 Well, I don't agree, for this reason, for that reason, and then there was
1 a general discussion, and there would be a majority, and did Mr. Prlic
2 say then that it was adopted or not? Is that the way things happened or
3 was it different? Because you were participating, so you were better
4 placed than anybody else to tell us, because Mr. Prlic did not testify.
5 So could you tell us how it happened?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for every session,
7 except when there were extraordinary sessions, we received background
8 material in advance with a strictly-defined agenda and the documents that
9 would be discussed. All the departments -- all the sections that
10 participated in the work of the Defence Department were required to
11 submit their documents in time, and that's why what Judge Trechsel asked
12 me happened. One document was dated the 13th, and the session was on the
13 18th, so all the documents were submitted in advance. After that, the
14 session would be scheduled, and the minutes of the previous session would
15 also be included in the background material. The session would be opened
16 by the president, Mr. Prlic, with the agenda that had been proposed in
17 the invitation. If any of the present, and we were able to see that
18 looking at some minutes, proposed amendments to the agenda, that would be
19 discussed and decided at the session itself.
20 As for the documents submitted for the session, they would be
21 discussed. There would be deliberations, the length of which would
22 depend on the document in question, and we were able to see that some
23 reports of the Defence Department or reports of the Justice Department
24 would not be adopted immediately. They would be returned.
25 After the session, conclusions would be made, and they would be
1 summarised in the minutes of that session that would be approved at the
2 next session. And when Mr. Prlic opened that next session, the first
3 point in the agenda would be the proposed minutes from the previous
4 session, and if there was an issue on which not everybody agreed,
5 amendments could be made to that minutes.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So we understand
7 now that there was a discussion.
8 Please look at item 8 on the agenda. As you can see, there is a
9 summary of item 8, and then we have conclusions that were adopted at the
10 meeting. Was it Mr. Prlic who indicated conclusions following a
11 discussion, but the conclusion being his, or was it a conclusion drawn by
12 the collective body in its entirety?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic could propose
14 conclusions, but at any rate those were conclusions of the whole body,
15 because it was a collective body.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] For example, when he said,
17 regarding the behaviour of military unit members that would have
18 contravened the rules, there should be reports and such things, is that
19 something that he decided, himself, or did everybody decide that?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The decision would be made by all
21 those present at each session.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the conclusions are drawn by
23 the collective body, not by Mr. Prlic; is that so?
24 Very well. Towards the end of the meeting - it was a long one,
25 it ended up a 1.00 a.m.
1 meeting is a long one - I presume the minutes were drafted after the
2 meeting, and they were drafted by Miroslav Djidjic. As far as you know,
3 were the minutes then sent to all the participants to the meeting?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I pointed out
5 earlier that every time the minutes would be submitted as an attachment
6 to the invitation for the next session, and every minutes would be
7 discussed at the following session of the HVO HZ-HB.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In other words, those who were
9 going to participate in the 27th session will have with them the minutes
10 or draft minutes of the 26th session?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: A technical issue.
13 On page 12, line 23, you posed a question. I heard the gentleman
14 answer because of my proximity, but it was never registered in the record
15 and there was no --
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're quite right,
17 Mr. Karnavas. Thank you for pointing it out. It would be better for his
18 answer to be recorded.
19 I asked you whether the conclusions to be found in the minutes
20 were conclusions made by Mr. Prlic or by the collective body, and you
21 answered that there were conclusions, and then please repeat your answer.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said the conclusions
23 were the conclusions of the whole collective body, and I also wanted to
24 add, in response to the previous question: Does it mean that the
25 discussion on the minutes of the 26th session was held at the 27th
1 session? I confirmed that, and I wanted to say that at the 26th session
2 we can see that there was discussion of the minutes of the 25th session.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Everything is now
4 very clear.
5 Ms. Nozica, you may proceed.
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Let us continue with these documents that you proposed at the
8 sessions of the HVO HZ-HB. So please look at P 1008. I suppose you
9 found it. Just tell us briefly what it is about.
10 A. Yes. It's one of the documents proposed by the Defence
11 Department. In this specific case, it amends the decision on the number
12 of seats and areas where departments of the administration were active,
13 so that it -- in this case, the Defence Department of Jablanica, which
14 until then belonged to the Defence Administration of Tomislavgrad, by
15 virtue of this decision is given to Mostar Administration.
16 Q. P 3796 is another decision amending the decision on the number of
17 seats and areas at the 47th session of the 29th July 1993, which you
18 attended. Speaking of these proposals, you would be present and follow
19 on the work?
20 A. Yes, precisely.
21 Q. In item 6, we see this proposal to amend the decision on the
22 number of seats and areas?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Mr. Bozic, I've not yet asked you about the functioning of the
25 military judiciary, but please look at item 8 of this session; that is,
1 deliberations on item 8, and that's on page 3 of these minutes. If you
2 could comment briefly, it says: At that proposal of the Defence
3 Department of the HVO HZ-HB, decisions on appointment were unanimously
5 And then we see certain staff in the judiciary. Can you tell the
6 Trial Chamber how the staff in the judiciary was nominated and which
7 sections of HVO HZ-HB were involved?
8 A. There were several approaches. One proponent of nominations for
9 staff in military courts and military prosecutors' offices was the
10 Defence Department, but there were other nominations coming from the
11 Justice Department and the Administration, although the decree on
12 military courts and military prosecutors' offices, the obligations to
13 nominate was given to the representative of the Defence Department.
14 However, in practice, fortunately, this was different. Why do I
15 say "fortunately"? Because I believe the Justice Department was much
16 closer to this activity, so in practice it happened as I described.
17 Q. We see, at the same session, in items 9 and 10, that there are
18 amendments to the decree on district military prosecutors' office at the
19 proposal of the Justice Department?
20 A. Yes, exactly as I said a moment ago. In practice, what happened
21 is what we see in these minutes.
22 Q. Please look at 2D 992 to round off this topic.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'd like to go back to
24 item 8, the appointment of judges and prosecutors. You were a judge and
25 a prosecutor, yourself. Let's take advantage of your experience.
1 It was July 1993, since this session was held, to be specific, on
2 the 29th of July, 1993. Some nominations are proposed for prosecutors
3 and judges in the military sector of Zepce. Eight people are going to be
4 appointed, including Mr. Tomislav Batarilo, military prosecutor.
5 Witness, in the former Yugoslavia
6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, or in Serbia
7 a member of military personnel, who conducted the investigation? Was it
8 the military police of the concerned unit, and possibly by the SIS, the
9 security service, and were the reports sent to the military prosecutor,
10 who then had to follow up on the report? Was that the way the system was
11 working overall?
12 You are a lawyer, you were a judge and a prosecutor in the past,
13 so maybe you're in a position to answer.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I was both a judge and a
15 prosecutor. I worked in the civilian judiciary in the former Yugoslavia
16 and I can say that the entire military judiciary in the former Yugoslavia
17 was organised in a special way. There were special courts, and I would
18 not like to speculate now how investigations were conducted and what
19 exactly was done. But from my experience, I can say, when I was at the
20 police in Mostar, on the 19th of September, 1991, when Ludvig Pavlovic
21 was killed and when there was shooting between members of the then army
22 and the Croatian defenders, the military prosecutor came for an interview
23 to the police. This is just my experience, but I would not go into the
24 details that you want to hear about because I worked in a different part
25 of the judiciary with civilian jurisdiction, both as a prosecutor and a
1 judge. We had jurisdiction over civilians who committed crimes.
2 If military personnel or civilians working for the army were
3 involved, then it was military courts and military prosecutors' offices
4 who were in charge.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, thank you.
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Can we now look at 2D 992?
8 A. All right.
9 Q. Could you tell us what this is about?
10 A. Again, it's a proposal from the Defence Department, addressed to
11 the HVO HZ-HB, where the decision on the organisation and the number of
12 seats and areas for defence departments is amended, and it is defined
13 what belongs to Travnik Administration and what belongs to the
14 administration in Zepce.
15 Q. Mr. Bozic, could you look at page 2 of this proposal. Let's just
16 draw everyone's attention to certain details. To the best of your
17 recollection, which of these municipalities listed here were indisputably
18 outside the coverage of the HZ-HB?
19 A. Stup - Sarajevo
20 Q. So we can confirm Teslic, Stup - Sarajevo and Usora?
21 A. It was on the border.
22 Q. Maglaj - Zavidovici?
23 A. Also, all these three belonging to the Zepce Administration were
24 outside the HZ-HB.
25 Q. I'll go back to the judiciary, 2D 00891. I'd like to ask you to
1 look at 12 staffing issues. It's on page 7, the last-but-one page. It's
2 a proposal from the Justice Department and the General Administration,
3 nominations for the judges of District Court in Mostar. Velimir Maric is
4 appointed. You were there at that session and you can confirm the
5 Justice Department also proposed personnel for the judiciary?
6 A. Yes. I've already said that in my evidence.
7 Q. Mr. Bozic, could you now look at 2D 00854. It's a session of the
8 working meeting of the 17th September 1993, which you attended.
9 Now, below the word "Conclusion," there were two conclusions,
10 both very important, so could you please comment? It says:
11 "The Justice Department and General Administration is hereby
12 tasked with proposing a new setup of the judiciary in order to establish
13 a judicial system at the CRHB level.
14 "Military Courts and the military prosecutor's office, as
15 segments of the judicial system, should be placed within the framework of
16 the Department of Justice and General Administration and relevant
17 regulations should be adopted in that respect."
18 It says that military courts and prosecutor's offices are part of
19 the judicial system. In response to Judge Antonetti's question, could
20 you explain in what way they were part of the judicial system, what
21 jurisdiction they had, and whether these changes in legislation really
22 occurred? Was the judiciary indeed organisationally placed in the
23 jurisdiction of the Justice Department?
24 A. I've touched upon that already, speaking of problems that
25 occurred in practice. I personally spoke frequently with Mr. Buntic and
1 his associates, such as Mr. Zubak, as a colleague because we had all
2 worked previously in the judiciary, we faced these same problems, and we
3 frequently discussed how the way in which the judiciary was regulated by
4 previous -- by the existing legislation was not the most adequate and how
5 it needed to be changed. The existing provisions that governed the
6 system created a certain confusion because they were not precise enough,
7 and they placed the military judiciary in conflict with the civilian; and
8 we can see that best from the regulation on military courts, where we can
9 see that courts were an element of the Supreme Court, and it depended on
10 the crime concerned, whether they were considered as the second-instance
12 The government, as the provisional executive organ of the HZ-HB,
13 was not able to resolve this, but the system was eventually changed and
14 the military courts and military prosecutor's offices fell under the law
15 on courts and the law on prosecutors' offices respectively, with one
16 idiosyncrasy, namely, military judges and military prosecutors, and then
17 government of Herceg-Bosna was proposed by the minister of justice, but
18 were assigned as a military assignment by the defence minister.
19 MR. SCOTT: I apologise for the interruption.
20 Good morning, Your Honours.
21 If we could just have some time specified on this last testimony.
22 It sounded to me as if he was talking about something that happened in
23 the future. No dates were indicated, except the document is referenced
24 to September of 1993, and then I think Mr. Bozic goes on to say at some
25 point things were changed. But we've been given no time-frame, if that
1 was in 1994, in 1995, or sometime after that.
2 Thank you.
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, it seems to me to be very
4 pertinent and important.
5 Q. You said that changes were introduced. Could you tell us when
6 those changes were introduced?
7 A. I explained how this functioned in practice. Prosecutors and
8 military judges were proposed at the Department of Defence and Justice
9 Department, depending on the situation, and the change was adduced, as
10 far as I can remember, towards the end of 1993 or the beginning of 1994.
11 But at any rate, it happened when the government of the Croatian Republic
12 of Herceg-Bosna was formed.
13 Q. I believe that this is precise enough. Mr. Bozic, let's broach
14 another subject.
15 If you can remember, where were you on the 9th of May, 1993?
16 This is the day which is very often marked as the day when the conflict
17 between the Muslims and the Croats began in Mostar. Do you recall where
18 you were?
19 A. I can remember. I was with my family at Siroki Brijeg. I was
20 home the whole day.
21 Q. Was there any calls from international organisation
22 representatives on that day to you?
23 A. Not only that day. In the early morning hours, I received a call
24 from the Spanish Brigade, and since I saw that the person that I
25 contacted with was a protected witness in this -- in these proceedings,
1 tell me whether I should mention his name.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] We're in the hands of the Bench.
3 You are not going to talk about his testimony, but about names. I don't
4 believe that there should be a problem. I'll be very mindful whenever we
5 encounter a document under seal, to specify so.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The name of that person should
7 not be mentioned if this is a protected witness. He can just say that he
8 was called by somebody, without mentioning the name, or we can move into
9 private session.
10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, be it as you wish. We
11 can go into private session. I have no objection to that.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into private
13 session, then.
14 [Private session]
11 Pages 36263-36273 redacted. Private session.
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
17 I just wish to stress that we will have a set of questions
18 regarding the position of Mr. Bozic and the UNPROFOR commission, what his
19 powers were, with whom he was in touch, and we will try to deal with it
20 in its entirety.
21 Q. Now I will go back to the consequences and everything that
22 happened after the 9th of May. Could you look at 1D 1666, the following
23 document, the 38th session of the HVO, the 17th May 1993, and you
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You received a brief at this session on the activities of the
2 Office for Refugees and Displaced Persons. In your Croatian version,
3 it's the penultimate paragraph. Could you briefly explain this?
4 A. This about activities of the Office for Displaced Persons, the
5 displaced civilians in Mostar after the beginning of this conflict, and
6 the specific steps that the office was taking to accommodate refugees.
7 And it also has to do, in a way, with that agreement signed by
8 Generals Petkovic and Halilovic because one of the provisions of that
9 agreement was to release all the civilians, because we know from other
10 documents that there was a great number of detained civilians in
11 Jablanica, Konjic, et cetera.
13 were relocated for security reasons - that's the information given by the
14 Office for Refugees and Displaced Persons - and, second, that elderly
15 persons, women and children, have already been returned to their homes,
16 and that a certain number of these persons, at their own request, was
17 sent to the left bank of the Neretva River
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I'm just looking if your answer is in the record.
20 What was the first time you heard that certain persons were taken
21 away from their homes on the 9th May 1993
22 A. I told you. At this agreement -- in this agreement, signed
23 between Petkovic and Halilovic, I remember that one provision was about
24 releasing all civilians on all sides, meaning the Muslim side and the
25 Croatian side.
1 Q. We saw that there was mention of release. Was that regulated in
2 the agreement of the 12th of May as well and did it really happen?
3 A. I don't remember that it really happened, and I can't tell you
4 exactly when, but I remember I was at the Defence Department when I
5 received the Turkish, Croatian, Bosnia-Herzegovinian delegation that came
6 around the 12th of May; but after their departure and exchange of
7 civilians happened, the transfer of civilians from one to the other side,
8 and I know that for personal reasons.
9 I have a personal reason to remember that because my relative,
10 his wife and his baby were kept detained on the east side, because they
11 had lived on the boulevard, and they were released in those first
12 exchanges of civilians after the 20th. I can't tell you the exact date.
13 After the 20th May.
14 Q. Could we now, before the break, look at 2D 01321. It's a web
15 page called "Family Circle," signed by Mr. Darinko Tadic, and I'll only
16 ask you if he, on the 17th of May, 1993, was the chairman of the
17 Office for Refugees, when this press release was given.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Is it the first time you're seeing this document?
20 A. No. I saw it in proofing.
21 Q. I'll ask you just for a brief comment. We have something
22 repeated from that session, the last paragraph on page 1, which begins
23 with the words:
24 "The forces of the army attacked in the early-morning hours of
25 9th May, the right bank of Mostar ..." Read this whole paragraph. Is it
1 consistent with what Mr. Tadic said at that session of the HZ-HB?
2 A. Yes, mostly it's consistent with the conclusions of that session
3 of the HVO HZ-HB. I personally was surprised when I saw some of this
4 information, and specific names, and what everyone did. I was surprised
5 at his appearance at that session and what he came out with, and I was
6 most surprised by the fact that he said that he had received
7 congratulations from your investigators for his courage and good deeds.
8 And if something like this was put by him on the web page, this is the
9 best display of what he actually did on the ground.
10 Q. Can I now ask for P 3560.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. You attended this session of the 19th of July, 1993. Could you
13 look at point 7, and deliberations on point 7 in these minutes. Do you
14 remember that this request way made by HVO municipalities, Capljina, for
15 the accommodation of people who were detained and isolated, with the aim
16 of improving the conditions? Do you remember this request was presented
17 at that session of the HZ-HB?
18 A. Yes. I looked at these minutes, and then I remembered some more
19 details about this discussion.
20 Q. Mr. Bozic, in the conclusions at the bottom, it says that
21 prisoners of war should be given conditions of detention in keeping with
23 standard, the president of the Justice Department and
24 General Administration shall, in coordination with the Defence Department
25 and the Department of Internal Affairs, identify new locations and
1 transfer the prisoners of war. Their holding in new locations will be
2 the responsibility of the Defence Department. Was a new location ever
3 found, in keeping with this conclusion?
4 A. Not that I know.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, was everything -- anything actually
6 done, trying to find one?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I believe attempts were made to
8 find a new place, but I said as far as I know, it didn't happen because
9 if a new location had been found, then the Defence Department would have
10 had new responsibilities.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You just believe this, as you said. What does
12 that mean, you just believe it?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I believe that if a
14 new location had been found, and I'm not saying they didn't look for it,
15 if it had been found, then the Defence Department would have had things
16 to do in that respect.
17 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Let me just conclude.
18 Q. Did you ever hear that the Defence Department was charged with
19 running a new location? You knew that -- you should have known that in
20 your position. Did you ever receive such information?
21 A. No, never.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. It's time to have a
23 20-minute break.
24 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Novica.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Mr. Bozic, please take a look at the next document, P 00292. It
4 should be the next document in your binder.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. This is a decree on the conduct towards the persons detained
7 following the conflict in the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Dated 3rd of July. You were at the Defence Department when this
10 decree was adopted. Did you have occasion to see it afterwards?
11 A. The decree was adopted when I was not in the Defence Department.
12 Q. Yes.
13 A. I was not in the Defence Department, but I did see it afterwards.
14 Q. This is my question. The next document, P 452.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. It's a ruling, signed by Mr. Stojic, establishing the Central
17 Military Prison?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did you see this decision? What's your comment on it concerning
20 this decision?
21 A. First, I can say there is a contradiction between the
22 introduction and the disposition. In the preamble, it implicates the
23 decree that you mentioned, and in the disposition it discusses the
24 establishment of the Central Military Prison and the source decision it
25 was based on.
1 Q. Mr. Bozic, did you take, in any way, part, personally, or anybody
2 from the Defence Department, in finding the location for the Central
3 Military Prison?
4 A. No, particularly seeing this date on the document, this was only
5 a couple of days after I had taken a position there, so I did not take
6 place -- did not participate in finding the location.
7 Q. The next document, P 352. This is a diary of Mr. Josip Praljak.
8 Please take a look at the entry for the 1st of July, 1992. His name is
9 Josip. It discusses the works that took place as early as the
10 1st of July, 1992, the work that is being done at Heliodrom.
11 Mr. Bozic, what was your position on the 1st of July, 1992, when
12 work had already commenced on the building or the premises of the future
13 Central Military Prison?
14 A. I was still engaged in certain duties with the police at the
16 Q. Mr. Bozic, on the 1st of July, 1992, had Mr. Bruno Stojic been
17 appointed at his Defence Department?
18 A. No. I believe Mr. Stojic was appointed on the 3rd of July, 1992.
19 Q. I'm asking you this because Witness Buntic testified on the
20 10th of July, 2008, before this Court. On page 30595, line 6 of the
21 transcript, he stated that he arranged with you to determine the location
22 at Heliodrom.
23 A. This is not true. I communicated with Mr. Buntic after I came to
24 the Defence Department and afterwards when we discussed the relations
25 between military judicial organs and the overall judiciary; but I can
1 state here that I never about this with Mr. Buntic, neither could I be
2 the deciding person. And this can be demonstrated by this document
3 describing when works commenced on the establishment of the
4 Central Military Prison.
5 Q. Can we be precise in stating when the works started to adapt the
6 facilities which would later on become the Central Military Prison, were
7 you and Mr. Stojic at the Defence Department?
8 A. No, neither of us was in the Defence Department at the time.
9 Q. All right, thank you. Now, let's take a look at document P 4756.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you please explain briefly what it's all about?
12 A. It is minutes from the college meeting of the heads of the
13 Defence Department, held on the 2nd September 1993.
14 Q. I'd like to ask you about page 3 in the Croatian version and
15 page 4 in the English version. Mention is made of prisons, military
16 prisons. Debate is held at the session of the college about which
17 prisons are military prisons and what is the opinion of the members of
18 the college towards Gabela and Dretelj. Could you share with us your
19 recollections of this meeting?
20 A. I remember this meeting, and the minutes reflect expressly that
21 military prisons were those at Heliodrom and Ljubuski, and other prisons,
22 Gabela and Dretelj that are mentioned here, our conclusion was that they
23 were not military prisons and that we do not stand behind the work done
24 at both Gabela and Dretelj.
25 Q. Why, Mr. Bozic, was the conclusion taken that the organs, SIS,
1 military police and security sector should visit Gabela and Dretelj and
2 report back on their visits?
3 A. For the exact reason that what was tried to be done was assess
4 the situation there and to convert them into military prisons to get the
5 realistic assessment of what was going on at those prisons of Dretelj and
7 Q. Does it follow from the discussion with Mr. Lucic on this
9 A. Yes, from his discussion and intervention. Mr. Lucic explicitly
10 states that we must resolve this issue, in his words, I will paraphrase
11 him, because this may harm us significantly if the situation is not
12 verified, checked, and if it is not checked who stands behind those
14 Q. Can you continue your answer?
15 A. Who is doing that and what kind of measures can be taken with
16 respect to that. And the final quotation and the words of Mr. Lucic
17 are -- provide an answer to your question about the establishment of
18 those bodies who are supposed to find facts and verify certain facts.
19 Q. Mr. Bozic, do you understand that SIS, S-I-S, performed these
20 tasks and that they visited those places and reported back?
21 A. I remember that the SIS did their part, and because of the
22 severity of the situation -- severity of situation, they reported
23 directly to Mr. Boban.
24 Q. Please take a look at 2D 00926. Can you see it?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Is this the report that Mr. Lucic sends to Mr. Mate Boban?
2 A. That's the report of Mr. Lucic to Mr. Boban.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, I have a question here.
4 The decision, page 4 where we had, says clearly that there must
5 be a report filed to the head of the Defence Department. How come the
6 report then goes to Boban? And did it go directly to Boban or did it go
7 to Boban via Mr. Stojic?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just said that
9 because of certain implications and the seriousness of this whole
10 situation, Mr. Lucic, of his own volition, decided to submit this report
11 to Mr. Boban so that he is timely informed and so that measures could be
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Well, I must confess I find this extremely
14 strange. What about -- he has a boss, and that is Mr. Stojic, and he is
15 charged with doing the report for Mr. Stojic; and then he goes and sends
16 it directly to Mr. Boban and does not inform or give a copy to
17 Mr. Stojic, or did Mr. Stojic receive a copy, or don't you know?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't know whether
19 he was copied, but let me remind you of yesterday's detail about how
20 communication was maintained. If you remember, I have a document in
21 question in front of me, 2D 00150, where the head of the
22 Personnel Administration reports directly to Mr. Boban, without
23 submitting a copy to me, as his immediate superior, as it were, nor to
24 Mr. Stojic, head of the Defence Department. You may find such moves
25 difficult to understand in a normal system, but at a time when we were
1 functioning as a temporary government, we were beset by many problems
2 stemming from the war and the situation on the ground and in this whole
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it will be made clear
6 to you why Mr. Lucic is submitting this report to the president. When we
7 take a look at the next document, everything will be made much clearer.
8 Q. Please take a look at the next document, P 5133?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Here Mr. Lucic addresses the military prison of Dretelj and
11 Gabela to Mr. Tomo Sakota?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. He requests that operatives of the SIS enter the prison without
14 hindrance. First of all, obviously for them to enter those prisons,
15 first they had to -- oh, sorry, I didn't see Mr. Scott rise to his feet.
16 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I apologise for the interruption. I
17 was waiting, Your Honour, because I didn't want to stand prematurely
18 because I didn't know what document counsel would go to next. Since she
19 has gone on, that's why I rise now.
20 We don't appear to have the actual report. We have a cover page,
21 and there's been reference to a report that went directly to Mr. Boban,
22 but actually we don't have the report. We have a cover letter. And I
23 wonder if counsel intends at some point to provide the Chamber with the
24 actual report.
25 Also, I would note for clarification's sake that the subject of
1 Mr. Lucic's cover letter says:
2 "We deem that it was necessary to inform you about the situation
3 at military investigative prisons at this territory."
4 Now, if it was Mr. Lucic's position, I'm not sure -- if it was
5 Mr. Stojic's position that only Heliodrom and Ljubuski were military
6 investigative prisons, then I don't know that that's what this so-called
7 report that we haven't seen is limited to them or something else, but we
8 really have nothing. We have a cover letter and absolutely no other
9 information or the reports. I wonder if counsel is going to provide us
10 with that.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Prosecution has
12 two of the two reports. They are exhibits, reports from the two prisons,
13 and the Prosecution does have them. The other two are not in our
14 possession. I did not see it fit to show those two for my Defence. And
15 the other two, the Prosecution has as exhibits. For the purposes of my
16 examination-in-chief, if it's necessary to --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, you're asking
18 questions to the witness, and you're trying, of course, to show some
19 elements that are favourable to your own case. There is, in particular,
20 one document by Mr. Lucic sent to Mr. Boban, dated 22nd September 1993,
21 in which Mr. Lucic informs Mr. Boban of the situation in the military
22 prisons of the Operational Zone South-East. He says that there are four
23 attached documents, 0241-1344, 1347, 1351, 1359. You're saying the
24 Prosecutor has two documents, but the other two are missing. Now, good,
25 the Prosecutor has two, but the Trial Chamber will ponder over those
1 documents. How do you expect us to draw any conclusion if we don't have
2 the documents we need? This is the problem here.
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] The Defence does not have those two
4 documents either. I cannot offer the Bench --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You don't have those documents,
6 yourself. How come you did not turn to the authorities who may have such
7 documents, indicating that in your case, there are those two documents
8 missing, can they be found in the military archives or other archives?
9 Then I guess the authorities would have said, Yes, we tried to locate
10 them and we couldn't find them.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] We looked. We looked for any
12 documents that could be of help to the Defence in all archives. All
13 Defence teams did. I don't know, maybe other Defence teams were more
14 successful. We did not find these two documents. And as for the
15 documentation of the SIS, the bulk of this document was put on the
16 Prosecution list. They're available there. So it's impossible,
17 practically, to find an SIS document that the Prosecution has not found
18 in the SIS archives and put on their list.
19 But, please, if you allow me to finish this subject, it will be
20 clear, both to the Prosecution and the Trial Chamber, why Mr. Lucic is
21 submitting these reports to the president. I believe it's only fair to
22 let me finish and then to put questions if any remain.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Scott.
24 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 I do share your concerns, Mr. President, with the unavailability
1 of at least some of these documents.
2 My second point is really more mundane, I suppose. While I think
3 I carry a rather large amount of information on this case in my head, I
4 hope the Chamber will understand that I don't have memory of every
5 document. If counsel might assist us in telling us which two she says
6 the Prosecution has, and maybe if she can give us an exhibit number or
7 reference, that would be helpful not only to the Prosecution but perhaps
8 the Chamber as well.
9 Thank you.
10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes. I forgot to say that. I would
11 have done it in the break, but thanks to my colleagues, I received the
12 two numbers. It's P 5222 and P 5225. It seemed logical to me that in
13 view of the questions the Prosecution asked over the five days of their
14 examination, they should have prepared these two documents too.
15 But may I continue now?
16 MR. SCOTT: I just want to say I'm grateful to counsel for the
17 information. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue, Ms. Nozica.
19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Bozic, we see that document, P 5133, Mr. Tomo Sakota is
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. We've said that Mr. Lucic, assistant to the chief, needed his
24 approval to enter the prison. Does this transpire from the document?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Mr. Bozic, do you know who at the time was Mr. Tomo Sakota?
2 A. I knew him personally. I say "I knew him," because he died, and
3 I know that he was appointed by Mr. Boban to be coordinator of the
4 prison, that is, these isolation centres.
5 Q. Can we now look at P 07341.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just one question. Mr. Bozic, to whom did
7 Mr. Sakota report?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. Boban was his
9 superior. Mr. Boban appointed him to that function.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Now, can you look at P 7341, in response to Judge Trechsel's
13 question, to see to whom Sakota reported? Have you read this report?
14 A. Yes. I saw it for the first time during my proofing session. I
15 knew Mr. Sakota was the coordinator appointed by Mr. Boban. I saw
16 certain details of his work from this document and what he did in that
17 period from the 22nd July 1993, which is very important, until the
18 25th of December, 1993; and he submitted his report both to the president
19 and to the other persons indicated at the bottom of the document.
20 Q. Mr. Bozic, now let's go back to the document written by Mr. Lucic
21 to the president, where he made those four points.
22 At the session of the college on the 2nd of September, 1993
23 you know that Mr. Sakota was appointed coordinator for detainees and
24 prisoners of war in the territory of Herceg-Bosna?
25 A. We knew there was some implications and Mr. Sakota had certain
1 responsibilities, and all sorts of information came to us from the
2 ground. And then Mr. Sakota said Heliodrom and Ljubuski were
3 specifically military prisons, whereas all the other prisons that wanted
4 to convert to military prisons, the HVO had no jurisdiction over them.
5 And it was known that there were other persons dealing with that field.
6 Q. Let's move now to a different subject. P 00880. It's minutes
7 from a session of the college. Like Judge Antonetti asked, we can see
8 what kind of subjects were discussed. We can see that from here, from
9 this document, and I'm interested in item 3 because of the Dretelj
10 barracks. Can you find the discussion on this issue? It says:
11 "Current issues. Request the military police to take over the
12 barracks in Dretelj."
13 And it says the college rejected the request, and the decision
14 was taken unanimously. Can you tell us what this all was about, what the
15 military police had requested, and whether the college had indeed
16 rejected this or there's something wrong with the minutes?
17 A. It's very important to note that this was happening on the 9th
18 December 1992. The military police wanted to get use of the barracks,
19 and it's a mistake in the transcript that the college rejected this
20 request. It approved the request and allowed the military police to use
21 the premises of one of the units in the Dretelj barracks that formerly
22 belonged to the JNA.
23 Q. In the last paragraph, you give a proposal to the assistants of
24 the chief of the Defence Department. It was a stage when reports for
25 1992 were being made?
1 A. Yes, and I've already mentioned that a couple of times. I
2 explained the procedure of proposing, drafting and sending reports to the
3 HVO HZ-HB.
4 Q. Now let us look at P 893.
5 A. Yes. That's a document that practically follows from the
6 previous conclusion of the college of the Defence Department, from which
7 we can see which premises are given to the 4th Company of the 3rd
8 Battalion of the Military Police.
9 Q. Mr. Bozic, can you look at the document that follows, 2D 518?
10 A. Yes, I can see it.
11 Q. It's a report on construction works completed. We see that they
12 were in the Dretelj barracks. Can you look at the date when this invoice
13 was submitted, so the works of adaptation had to be performed before?
14 A. The 8th of March, 1993.
15 Q. So the implication is -- seems to be that this barracks was
16 allocated for the accommodation of prisoners of war. Did the Defence
17 Department also take decisions to adapt other barracks in the territory
18 of HZ-HB?
19 A. Yes, they did.
20 Q. Can we now look at the two second -- two following minutes,
21 2D 1443?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Look at the next page. Is there mention of the adaptation of the
24 Grabovina [Realtime transcript read in error, "Gabela"] barracks on the
25 session of the 24th November 1992?
1 A. Yes, I said earlier other barracks were adapted.
2 Q. Look at 2D 1444. Similarly, there is a reference to the same
3 barracks at the meeting of the 1st of December. Under "Current Issues,"
4 a report is provided on the adaptation of the barracks, Capljina.
5 A. Yes, it follows from the previous session of the college.
6 Q. Mr. Bozic --
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me. This race simply does not work. I'm
8 sorry, Ms. Nozica. Look again at the record. Page 49, line 14 and 15:
9 "Is that mention of the adaption of the Gabela barracks on -- "
10 How is anybody make any sense out of this? We are rushed from
11 one document to the next. We have hardly the time to look at it. It is
12 a bit of an imposition, I'm sorry.
13 MR. KHAN: Well, Your Honour, this LiveNote, of course, is not
14 the final record. Your Honour, I do take your point. However, it's
15 patently clear, in my respectful submission, the LiveNote transcript is
16 simply an aid in the course of the proceedings itself. Of course, the
17 transcript itself is finalised. It is read over at the end of
18 proceedings, and these type of errors, like "Gabela," are picked up in
19 the final transcript. So, Your Honour, I wouldn't -- there are some
20 fundamental mistakes where efficiency does lend itself to intervention
21 and disrupting counsel, but typographical errors of this nature really
22 will be picked up in the normal course of events by those that are
23 charged with ensuring a proper transcript.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Adaption on what, if I make take you back to
25 that line 15? Adaption of what? I'm sorry, but I have the feeling that
1 you are running down a bobsled track in a bob full speed, 130 km per
2 hour, and we are trying to follow, but it is a terrible stress. We are
3 stressing through these documents, and we do not absorb much. And
4 I think what you want to do is you want to communicate to us, and then
5 you must not take, as a line, your bobsleigh and your racing experience
6 and your racing preparation; but you must think of us and proceed in a
7 way where you can reasonably expect the Judges to follow. And that, I am
8 really sorry to say, and I know that some of my colleagues feel the same
9 way, does not really work; and we are rushed through this, and in the end
10 we don't know anything. That's what happens. That's psychology. We are
11 just human beings.
12 And, excuse me, I'm saying this in your interest, because you
13 want to communicate, and we want you to communicate. We want to follow
14 what you want to try to tell us. But unfortunately it simply doesn't
15 succeed in this speedy way.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] First of all, in the line 15, the
17 reference is to the barracks of Grabovina. I did receive interpretation
18 in my earphones, but -- is it working now? Yes.
19 Second, I fully understand your frustration with my speed, but
20 please try to understand my frustration. I have before me a witness of
21 exceptional importance, with whom the Prosecutor has talked for many long
22 hours; and I am supposed to use the limited time given by this Chamber,
23 shorter than I had asked for. I have a few hours to at least touch upon
24 all the subjects that are important to the Stojic Defence. I could have
25 asked for ten hours with this witness, but then I would have been able to
1 do nothing else in my Defence because I would have had other witnesses
2 only for a very short time.
3 I understand your frustration, but I beg you to understand mine.
4 I will try -- I'll do my best to slow down, especially with important
5 issues, and all of them are important; but in view of the time that I
6 have today and the topics that I have to cover, I have a terrible anxiety
7 that I am not going to make it.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, I share the
9 feelings expressed by my colleagues. You're going to finish on the issue
10 of prisons, and you'll see later on I am going to take -- to ask a
11 question that's going to take two minutes, and it's going to encompass
12 the whole problem. In a matter of two minutes, I'm going to summarise
13 three or four hours of efforts. So please finish, and then I'll put my
14 question. Not even two minutes, at that.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If you just allow me, I want to react to what
16 you told me and to assure you that I absolutely understand your plight.
17 Of course I do.
18 The answer really is that the solution for you cannot be speed,
19 because then you risk losing it all. It must be concentration, and
20 elimination of certain points, perhaps, and bringing home the most
21 important ones only. I think that would be my advice, but I'm not here
22 to tell you how to do your job, of course. But I can tell you what does
23 not work, because I am the object, and I can tell you when it doesn't
24 filter in with sufficient completeness.
25 I hope you do not misunderstand me and that you feel the goodwill
1 and the benevolence that guides me in telling you this.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. That is the
3 way I understood it, and I am very pleased that the Presiding Judge said
4 he would ask only a few questions at the end. And I believe he will be
5 able to do exactly that because we are managing to clarify certain things
6 here. I'm not even expecting I can shed light on everything.
7 Q. Now, Mr. Bozic, we'll go through a number of other documents that
8 I will have to go through rather quickly, but all of them are familiar to
9 the Trial Chamber and my questions will be simple. We'll start off with
10 P 4186.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. It's a report of the warden of the Military Investigative Prison
13 of the 8th of -- of the 14th of August, 1993. My question is: Have you
14 ever seen this document before?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Can you, on the basis of this report, confirm whether it had ever
17 reached the Defence Department?
18 A. I can't confirm. I told you a moment ago how incoming documents
19 were received at the Defence Department, how they were registered, how
20 they were given a reference number and a stamp and entered into the
22 Q. P 4352, the same question.
23 A. Same answer.
24 Q. The same question for the document P 5812.
25 A. The same answer.
1 Q. Just wait a minute for everything to enter the transcript. The
2 same question for P 6170.
3 A. The same answer to the previous question.
4 Q. Finally, we have document P 6859. This is a report dated
5 24th of November, 1993.
6 A. I can tell you just that Mr. Stojic was not at the Department
7 of Defence at all.
8 Q. Mr. Bozic, we have to be precise. He was no longer head of the
9 Defence Department or he wasn't there?
10 A. To be precise, he wasn't department head. I said on several
11 occasions that his duty as head of department ended on the
12 10th of November, 1993.
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I finished with the
14 subject of prisons. With your leave, I will broach another subject.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a very brief
16 question for you that is going to illustrate the whole issue of prisons
17 because we've just reviewed a series of documents on the issue of
18 prisons, military prisons versus civilian prisons. I'm going to tackle
19 the issue differently.
20 Back then, say as of May 1993, individuals were arrested, so
21 broadly speaking there were two categories of individuals; there were
22 civilians, civilian people, and there were individuals who may be
23 characterised as military because they were in HVO military units and
24 they allegedly deserted the units; they were arrested, they were Muslims,
25 and they were detained. So people are going to find themselves in
1 detention in several prisons, such as Heliodrom, Gabela, Dretelj,
2 et cetera. You are a lawyer, a high-profile lawyer. With regard to the
3 law that was then in force, if somebody was detained, was that person to
4 be detained with a detention title or document that was controlled by
5 military authority, if we had to deal with a so-called military prisoner
6 or by a civilian authority if that person was a civilian? The detained
7 person, was it supposed to be detained for a given number of days in an
8 initial investigation stage, after which detention had to be confirmed by
9 an official legal document or decision by a civilian or military
10 investigative judge?
11 So, you see, my question took two minutes exactly, but it does
12 encompass or cover the issue or problems of people we're going to find in
13 these various kinds of prisons.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, I'll
15 try to answer as briefly as possible your question.
16 When we talk about displaced civilians from the minutes of the
17 session of the HVO HZ-HB of the 19th [as interpreted] of May, it was
18 demonstrated there that the expelled persons office took stock of the
19 people who were displaced and undertook measures. As far as military
20 personnel is concerned, or captured soldiers, as far as I know, all of
21 them were registered by those who were in charge of that part of the job.
22 And given that we are in wartime - I'm talking as a lawyer - the war was
23 ongoing at the time, I don't believe that in a single case throughout the
24 ex-Yugoslavia, there were no proceedings against prisoners of war
25 instituted. What was important was what was the treatment of those
1 prisoners pursuant to international convention, because finally we saw
2 that group by group of detainees were exchanged according to the prison
3 "all for all." So as far as records are concerned of isolated civilians,
4 this was maintained. The records were kept, and this is confirmed by the
5 statement of Mr. Tadic or his report on his web page and the conclusion
6 of the government, I repeat. And as far as the other persons are
7 concerned, as far as I know, they were registered, records were kept on
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, as I understand it, you're
10 saying that military individuals, broadly speaking, were caught and kept.
11 However, as to civilians, you say that there were displaced individuals
12 who were put, for some of them, into prisons. Is that what your answer
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, I said
15 it concerned displaced civilians, pursuant to what was specified by the
16 displaced persons and refugees office and the report from Mr. Tadic,
17 which clearly states what they did, how records were kept, and what
18 measures were undertaken in releasing such persons.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay, very well.
20 Please proceed, Ms. Nozica.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel.
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] First I would like to enter a
23 correction in the transcript. Page 55, line 7, it states "19th of May."
24 Q. Which date was this session on?
25 A. The 17th. I recall seeing the minutes from the session.
1 Q. We will have to go back to the questions asked by
2 His Honour Antonetti. If you can tell us, without speculating, His
3 Honour Judge Antonetti divided the persons into two categories, civilians
4 and military personnel, and now I'm going to be more precise. Were there
5 any members of the HVO who were in prisons, military prisons because of
6 criminal offences they had committed?
7 A. Yes, there were such people, and criminal charges could be
8 brought against such persons, criminal proceedings could be initiated,
9 but as I explained --
10 Q. Yes, everything is clear. On the 2nd of September, when you
11 speak at the college meeting about military prisons, do you mean military
12 prisons containing such persons, members of the HVO who were apprehended
13 because of the criminal offences they had committed?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. The other category, members of the HVO who deserted the HVO,
16 having become traitors, et cetera, Mr. Bozic, could you tell us, without
17 speculation, whether any criminal charges were brought against such
18 persons? If you do not know, please don't answer, because we adduced
19 many evidence about criminal charges being brought against such persons.
20 Are you sure that no criminal charges were brought against such people?
21 A. It's possible. I'm not sure. I spoke about the practice that
22 was going on, taking into account the situation in the whole of
24 Q. Thank you. Now we're going back to our topic.
25 Mr. Bozic, I have only one hour left for examination-in-chief. I
1 foresaw a number of topics, but I will have to cull some of them to
2 highlight the important matters.
3 On one example of a proposal, a decision on the number of seats
4 on the area of responsibility for the offices of defence, we saw how the
5 Defence Department proposed the enactment of certain documents. Could
6 you tell the Bench, please, whether Defence Department proposed and
7 whether the HVO HZ-HB adopt a decree -- I apologise. Just a second. I'm
8 trying to skip -- a decree on temporary use of military apartments in the
9 area of HZ-HB?
10 A. Yes. I personally took part in working on that.
11 Q. Could you tell us about the procedure and whether the decree was
13 A. The procedure took longer. There were delegations at the college
14 level and the department level. We submitted it to the
15 Justice Department, the Finance Department, and finally it was adopted by
16 a session of the HVO HZ-HB.
17 Q. I will show you two documents from that part. The other will be
18 skipped. Please find 2D 00445.
19 I apologise to the Bench for skipping. I hope there will be no
20 problem in finding documents.
21 A. I found the document.
22 Q. Mr. Bozic, can you explain, please, what this document is about?
23 A. This is a communication of the Government of the
24 Municipal Council of Mostar, informing the citizens that they should
25 contact the Defence Department of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna
1 in command of Operational Zone, South-East Herzegovina regarding
2 questions concerning the issuance of documents for their residents.
3 Q. Does this document show the same marks of being duly received by
4 the Defence Department, bearing the signature of Mr. Stojic, et cetera?
5 A. Yes, this is exactly what happened. It was assigned to me, and
6 it was sent back to the person referenced here.
7 Q. Is this the document, 2D 00444?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. 2D 00444. Could you give us a brief account of your response to
10 Mr. Topic. It was seen from the previous document that he is directing
11 people to address the Defence Department to resolve their residence
13 A. We informed him that:
14 "You are mis-informing the public and, without authorisation,
15 transferring tasks which fall under your sphere of operation to the
16 Defence Department and to the HVO. I am kindly asking you to immediately
17 withdraw such announcements because serious and unforeseen consequences
18 are possible, otherwise at the moment when each agency and service has to
19 provide the maximum in order to prevail the circumstances."
20 Q. Mr. Bozic, we also have documents testifying about the way -- how
21 the Defence Department prepared regulations on the use of rubber stamps.
22 We prepare documents demonstrating what kind of enactments are adopted by
23 the Defence Department when it comes to ranks and which documents the
24 Defence Department adopts when it comes to signing enactments. With
25 respect to this group of questions, let us take a look at one document
1 which I see as very important, and that is the relation between the
2 Defence Department and the HDZ and the interference and influence of the
3 political party in the work of the Defence Department. Please take a
4 look at 2D 1363, if you can find it.
5 A. Is this in this same binder?
6 Q. I believe it could be in the fourth binder, but I apologise.
7 2D 1363.
8 Unfortunately, I have to take this course because I had
9 originally an intention to go through all the documents. Now we're
11 Have you found it, Witness? Mr. Bozic, you can take a look at
12 the screen.
13 A. Yes, this would be easier.
14 Q. It is minutes of a college of assistants of Defence Department
15 heads. The date is 23rd November 1992. What I'm interested in is on
16 page 3 of the B/C/S version.
17 A. I can't see the page.
18 Q. We're all waiting. Here you are.
19 A. I can see it.
20 Q. Can you recall and tell the Judges what were the proposals, what
21 were the durations, and what was the conclusion of the college on whether
22 an opinion of the HDZ should be sought?
23 A. Mr. Bozo Rajic, who was the assistant head, discussing personnel
24 issues and establishing of Defence Department, so that Mr. Coric, and
25 Mr. Lucic and I opposed such a proposals because we cited Article 27 of
1 the Decree on the Armed Forces of the HZ-HB, which explicitly states that
2 any political activity is prohibited. Establishment of a multi-political
3 parties, rallies, or political demonstrations in the armed forces are
4 also forbidden. Our proposal that an opinion of the HDZ should not be
5 sought was adopted, and heads of administrations should seek opinions of
6 the HVOs at the local level, HVOs acting in the capacity of temporary
8 Q. You mentioned Mr. Lucic, Coric and yourself, but I have to
9 mention Mr. Stojic.
10 A. I apologise. A conclusion was drawn by Mr. Stojic that an
11 opinion should be sought from the local HVO's, not HDZ's. I apologise.
12 I have problems with my eyesight, so it's very difficult for me to follow
13 what's on the screen.
14 Q. I'd like to highlight what was said at the college, that Mr. Head
15 [as interpreted] also thought that when appointed workers for the Defence
16 Department, the HZ-HB should observe the Decree on the Armed Forces, and
17 then the conclusion was adopted?
18 A. Should I read it out?
19 Q. No need for that. Thank you. Let's broach another subject, an
20 important subject, Mr. Bozic, and that is let us explain your
21 participation in the work of the Commission for the Cooperation with
22 UNPROFOR. This was the wording of the decision appointing you there.
23 Can you explain to the Bench what were your tasks, as a member of
24 that commission?
25 A. My tasks and duties, well, we discussed them yesterday. They
1 were to communicate with the UNPROFOR, together with the chair and two
2 other members. We had specified duties, specified in the duties
3 establishing that commission. And apart from daily contacts that were
4 maintained, our terms of reference were amended, expanded, as the number
5 of UNPROFOR members expanded in the area of HZ-HB. Not only of UNPROFOR,
6 but other international organisations.
7 Q. Did the commission hold meetings to arrange and agree on its
9 A. I have to be frank, there were meetings. First the constituent
10 meeting which we used to discuss other things. There were individual
11 meetings. Afterwards, I personally took part in meetings with Mr. Zubak,
12 who was the chairman of that commission. In practical terms, those tasks
13 were performed through requests international community representatives
14 to arrange contacts with some of our representatives. At such meetings,
15 they would air requests towards our bodies or our departments.
16 Q. Mr. Bozic, what was your communication and with what
17 international organisations at the beginning?
18 A. The UNPROFOR, most of my contacts were with the UNPROFOR; that
19 is, with the Spanish Battalion, which was the first to arrive in the
21 Q. Mr. Bozic, your most -- in all your reports -- in all reports of
22 international organisations, you were represented as the deputy chief of
23 the Defence Department. Did you represent only the Defence Department in
24 these contacts?
25 A. When I was preparing for this testimony, I looked through many
1 documents drafted by international organisations, and in them they
2 labelled me deputy chief of the Defence Department. However, in those
3 talks, I did not represent the Defence Department, for the most part, and
4 it's important to say they didn't even know that there was this
5 commission of the HVO HZ-HB.
6 Q. You mean to say that you did not introduce yourself as a member
7 of that commission?
8 A. No, I did not introduce myself as such, and they didn't know this
9 commission existed.
10 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry to interrupt you. I would have liked
11 to ask the same question as Ms. Nozica asked; that is, that it is a bit
12 interesting, to say the least, that then, Mr. Bozic, you said that they -
13 "they" might mean the international organisations - they did not even
14 know that that was this commission, et cetera, and "I did not represent
15 the Defence Department." So how come that -- you were there and you had
16 certain contacts, you negotiated with them, you gave them information,
17 you asked for information; so I'm at a loss to understand what does it
18 mean, that you did not represent the Defence Department. Probably you
19 may explain it, answering to Ms. Nozica's question and to my question as
20 well. Thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Prandler, it's
22 obvious that I was either speaking too fast and the interpreters didn't
23 pick it up or something, but I said that in some talks I was introduced
24 as from the Defence Department, in talks when it was not possible for
25 Mr. Stojic to attend, I attended, but I also said that I did not
1 represent the Defence Department in all talks. I was a link between
2 those international bodies and other bodies, the HVO and other bodies
3 they wanted to contact, so they can talk or submit their requests.
4 Time is limited, and I could tell you a lot about that long
5 period of my work, about all sorts of subjects that I discussed with
6 representatives of international organisations and the UNPROFOR, subjects
7 that had nothing or, rather, no direct link with the Defence Department.
8 But to be precise, in some talks I did represent the Defence
9 Department. I stood in for Mr. Stojic when he was not able to receive
10 them. And in view of my responsibility, arising from the decision to
11 establish the commission, it was my responsibility to the HVO to do that
12 job, but that decision also says that that commission also works on
13 behalf of other bodies of the Croatian -- of the HVO HZ-HB.
14 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you, Mr. Bozic, for this information.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would like to add a question.
16 When you were not acting in representation of the Defence
17 Department, on whose authority were you acting then? Whom were you
18 representing? Not Mr. Bozic, I suppose.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're right, Judge Trechsel.
20 That's why I said there was a decision to establish the commission, and
21 under that decision and the clear responsibilities it defined, I had
22 authority to communicate with them. And I can give you just a few
23 examples of the type of communication it was that has nothing to do, in
24 principle, with the Defence Department.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes, please. You do not have to worry about the
1 time when Judges ask questions, because then that's in their
2 responsibility. And it assists even Ms. Nozica because we may ask a
3 question which she then does not have to ask on her time credit.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour
5 Judge Trechsel.
6 I have to go back to the beginning, briefly, my first contacts
7 with representatives of the international community. That is, the
8 European Community and the UN started in September 1991, when reservists
9 and the JNA entered the territory of Croatia
11 When I came, my first contacts were with the Spaniards, and the
12 focus was on finding them accommodation in the area of Herzegovina. And
13 since it had been decided that they wanted to stay in Medjugorje, I was
14 involved in negotiations on behalf of the Municipal Council of HVO
15 Citluk, and I know it will be modest to say; but I drafted the contract
16 between the Spaniards and the Citluk Municipality
17 so that the Spaniards could come and base themselves in Medjugorje, and
18 it was a deal of many million dollars.
19 At the same time, in autumn 1992, there were talks about
20 transferring equipment for rehabilitating power-stations in the area of
22 organisations. There were certain technical issues involved, such as
23 accommodation for them. Contacts needed to be found with certain
24 institutions, who were supposed to be available to them to make their
25 work possible in the region. And what I concluded, luckily or unluckily
1 for me, in proofing I saw many documents confirming that there was a sort
2 of inertia and indecision on the part of these international
3 organisations, whether they could consider me well informed or not, but
4 nevertheless I was the one they contacted when they wanted to find out
5 who exactly could meet their needs. My job with the Defence Department
6 had nothing to do with their requests to meet with a certain person and
7 that I needed to make that contact possible.
8 Not to use up too much of your time, those are the most
9 illustrative examples, what exactly that work involved, and that it had
10 nothing to do with my job in the Defence Department, but it had a lot to
11 do -- everything to do as a member of that commission.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Bozic, I'll ask you to look again because I think it's
15 necessary to have the confirmation of what you said, the decision to
16 establish the commission. It's the fifth document in the first binder.
17 It will be on the screen as well so you can read it. It's P 924. Could
18 you just repeat the responsibilities of that commission? It's 924 in the
20 A. I've found it.
21 Q. You underlined something in it yesterday?
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. What were the tasks of commission members? I specifically want
24 to see whether you represented only the Defence Department at those
1 A. Shall I read?
2 Q. You may.
3 A. "Set up relations, contact, and cooperation with official
4 representatives of the UNPROFOR; to represent and act on behalf of the
5 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna in its relations with the UNPROFOR,
6 adhering to the established policies, directions and principle stances of
7 the organs and bodies of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna; to
8 direct and coordinate the work of other organs and bodies from the area
9 of HZ-HB who have a need or obligation to set up relations with the
10 UNPROFOR; and to carry out other tasks and activities that emerge from
11 the established relations and cooperation with the UNPROFOR."
12 Q. Thank you. Now, tell me us very precisely, who did you inform
13 about the knowledge you gained at those meetings?
14 A. I informed the persons to whom this information was relevant.
15 Q. All right. Tell us, in what way did you communicate with the
16 UNPROFOR? But before that: From the reports presented in this
17 courtroom, we saw that there had been communications with other
18 international organisations, not only the UNPROFOR. How did that occur?
19 Because the decision to set up the commission mentions only the UNPROFOR.
20 A. It was logical. It was required by reality because other
21 organisations arrived as well, and it had to apply it to other
22 international organisations and their representatives. That was
23 confirmed by the Office for Coordination with the UNPROFOR, European
24 Observers, and other International Organisation when I was appointed in
25 1993, and I said that this commission, of which I was a member, was the
1 core for setting up that Office for Cooperation with UNPROFOR, European
2 observers, and international organisations, which was established as a
3 separate standing body of the Government of the Croatian Republic
4 Herceg-Bosna. And it was not my personal decision. Everybody knew that
5 that was the way to communicate. Other members of the commission did,
6 too, and so did the HVO HZ-HB, which was our founder.
7 Q. In what way did you communicate with the representatives of the
8 international community? Did they call you? How were the contacts set
10 A. Most of the talks were at their initiative. I was rarely the
12 Q. Did you communicate through interpreters?
13 A. Yes, always through interpreters who would accompany those
14 representatives and international organisations because at the Defence
15 Department we had no interpreters.
16 Q. Were there any problems in that communication due to
18 A. Yes, unfortunately it did happen. I don't speak English, I speak
19 only German, but I could feel those problems in situations when, after my
20 answer, a question would follow from which I understood that my answer
21 was not properly interpreted.
22 Q. Mr. Bozic, did you have occasion, when you were conducting these
23 talks, to see the reports that followed, and did they really reflect
24 faithfully the subject and contents of these talks?
25 A. There were so many reports, we would use up too much time if I
1 commented on all of them, but from the reports written by representatives
2 of the international community, I could see they put in the reports their
3 own assessments, their own evaluations and their conclusions, and in many
4 cases they did not convey what I had wanted them to convey.
5 Q. Mr. Bozic, I asked you very precisely whether at that time, when
6 those talks were undergoing, to see those reports presented to you by
7 your interlocutor.
8 A. No, no, I did not understand you correctly. I never saw them
9 before I saw them for the first time during proofing for my testimony
11 Q. Fine. With the great help of His Honour Judge Trechsel, you
12 answered certain things that I wanted to ask you, but please tell me, as
13 briefly as possible -- list for us all the international organisations
14 that you, as a member of that commission, had contact with, very briefly.
15 And this can be seen from the reports as well.
16 A. First of all, UNPROFOR most frequently, then UN observers less
17 frequently. There were talks with representatives of the European
18 communities, less frequently with the other international organisations
19 in the area.
20 Q. Could you tell us, the three members of the commission, were you
21 the only ones in the HVO HZ-HB who had the duty to communicate with
22 international organisation representatives or who maintained contacts?
23 A. No, others contacted. Displaced Persons and Refugees Office
24 maintained contacts with humanitarian organisations. In the military
25 area, there were liaison officers with the UN UNPROFOR at military
1 districts, I know for certain for Mostar, Central Bosnia. I believe the
2 same situation was in North-Western Herzegovina.
3 Q. Fine. Mr. Bozic, now I'm going to show you -- out of a whole set
4 of documents in the fourth binder, I prepared a set of documents which
5 characterise the relations between the HVO and the international
6 organisations, but initially shall I ask you about your knowledge about
7 the character of the relations between HVO and international
8 organisations? Did you try to do what was required of you and what was
9 your assessment of those relations on behalf of the HVO?
10 A. On my own behalf and the department of the HVO, and on behalf of
11 some other departments within the HVO HZ-HB, I can tell you that
12 cooperation was of the type where we showed cooperativeness and desire to
13 resolve certain problems, being mindful of the fact that in certain
14 situations, problems did occur. Efforts, however, were made to allow
15 UNPROFOR and other international organisations to perform their mandate
16 in the area of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in this specific case in the area of
17 the HZ-HB.
18 Q. Please take a look at document P 01316. Please let me know when
19 you've found it.
20 A. I found it.
21 Q. This is an order by Mr. Bruno Stojic, with possible necessary
22 checks led through all vehicles. You, Mr. Bozic, had occasion to see
23 many such documents during proofing. They are here in the binder, but
24 it's questionable whether we will be able to go through them. So you saw
25 you many of such documents. Could you tell us, what was the purpose of
1 an order such as this, and how Mr. Stojic was informed that UNPROFOR and
2 other international organisations had any problems, and tell us whether
3 it was Mr. Stojic's duty was and other official's duties was to react in
4 this way?
5 A. Well, we would receive information of this sort, that there was
6 some problems on the ground. I know that many of similar orders were
7 issued at all levels, following the desire and the efforts - as I
8 explained just a minute ago - to allow international organisations to
9 perform their duties and mandates, of course being mindful of the
10 situation on the ground and at the time.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'd like us to move into private
12 session because I want to ask you about two documents which are under
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.
15 [Private session]
11 Pages 36313-36315 redacted. Private session.
24 [Open session]
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, we were still in
1 private session. Would you like us to move back into open session?
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we can go back for a
3 moment to open session. Then I'll make a proposal, and depending on
4 that, we'll see if we need to go into private session again.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we are already in open session, for
6 the record.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perfect. Everybody is clear
8 about that now.
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The transcript is mistaken, as far as the time
10 is concerned. It is 1.46 p.m.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. It would
12 mean that we were on a break for two hours.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, that would have been very
14 serious, because we would have all been older by one hour.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: By two hours, actually, because I was mistaken
16 myself. It is 12.46.
17 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I made a request, and I
18 would like you to decide on it immediately, because I have two more
19 important subjects to go through with this witness. It may be my
20 mistake; maybe we spent too much at the beginning on certain topics or
21 maybe we made too slow a progress.
22 I would need another 20 minutes in addition to the 25 that I have
23 to finish.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness set out the problem
25 to us. He has to be back in his country next week. I don't know what
1 the other counsel intend to do, whether they intend to use the two hours
2 and 30 minutes they were given. I'm just a bit worried for the witness,
3 because he said that he could stay on Tuesday -- Monday and Tuesday next
4 week, but no further.
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wanted to say that
6 the extra 20 minutes I'm asking for, I'm asking for them in order to be
7 able to complete this direct examination, and I am aware you will deduct
8 it from my total time. I have no problem if others are given the same
9 amount of time for cross-examination, but I would ask the witness to tell
10 us, himself, although I have heard his wishes, whether he could accept
11 this extension of 20 minutes that is an hour if we include
12 cross-examination. I'm in the hands of the witness, and I believe, as
13 will you see for yourselves, it's very important.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, it's not the
15 20 minutes that cause a problem, it's that if we give Ms. Nozica an extra
16 20 minutes, the Prosecutor will also want to have 20 minutes, so you risk
17 not being done by Tuesday and you'll have to stay on Wednesday. Can you
18 run that risk of staying over until Wednesday?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Mr. President,
20 obviously I have not been well understood. When I was thinking about the
21 length of my stay here, I said that the dead-line would be Thursday; that
22 is to say, even then I reckoned with the possibility of staying in the
23 courtroom during Wednesday. But to be quite frank, after two days spent
24 in the courtroom, I am prepared to stay here in one piece and to settle
25 my relations with the director of my company so that it would not affect
1 the future.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we're going to see
3 whether you can be given another 20 minutes, Ms. Nozica.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, you have 20 minutes, but
6 of course they have to be taken out of your overall time.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Can we move back to private session again, because I want to show
9 a document under seal.
10 [Private session]
11 Pages 36320-36321 redacted. Private session.
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back in open session.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
24 Q. I'd like to remind you, Mr. Bozic, that the previous document was
25 dated 4th of May, 1993, and I'm now showing you a report from the Staff
1 of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces of the Republic of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina, dated 26th April 1993
3 page 3 in the Croatian, below the subheading "Area of responsibility of
4 the 4th Corps." It says:
5 "HVO forces on the left bank of the Neretva are in disarray. In
6 the Radesine village sector, an HVO unit surrendered."
7 Can we see from this document that it's about the same incident
8 discussed in the previous document?
9 A. Yes, it's the same incident, and as I said, that morning I
10 received a telephone call at my home that morning from Colonel Moralez,
11 who said that ABiH members were asking for the HVO soldiers to surrender;
12 otherwise, they would take hostage the civilians from the village. And
13 we had several conversations. He kept reporting to me about the
14 situation that was increasingly alarming. He said he was afraid for
15 those civilians, that everything had to be done to save them, that they
16 would protect both civilians and soldiers if they do surrender. And at
17 the end he informed me that HVO soldiers had surrendered and that the
18 civilians need to be transported in an organised way to Mostar, after
19 which I called up our Office for Refugees and Displaced Persons, asking
20 them to organise buses and prepare a place where these people would be
21 put up. And then I went to Mostar to prepare the take-over of our
23 In view of what the colonel told me in those couple of
24 conversations, he said, namely, that they were monitoring everything that
25 was going on in the village, the torching of houses, the treatment of
1 civilians, et cetera, they were taping it all, they were filming it; and
2 he promised to give me tapes as soon as this operation was finished.
3 And, finally, when we secured the buses and when the buses set
4 out towards Radesine, we were informed that the buses were stopped and
5 that the BH Army would not allow the civilians to be transported to
6 Mostar, and the Spaniards informed me that the civilians had been put up
7 in some Croatian houses in Celebic and Ostrozac, whereas the soldiers
8 were detained in the schoolhouse in Celebici, and that they, the
9 Spaniards, were trying to guard these facilities where these people were
10 being held.
11 That afternoon, late afternoon, I visited the Spanish Battalion
12 and asked them what about the tapes they made. They told me they had not
13 been finished yet, but that night there would be a press conference. The
14 press conference was indeed held, but Croatian media were banned from it.
15 I protested against that, of course, but without any success. And the
16 Spaniards explained that it was an order from above, so that we did not
17 get the tapes. And our reporters were not able to attend the press
18 conference, and they needed to be informed of what had happened that day
19 in Radesine village. I was extremely bitter about this, and in the
20 meantime I had spoken to Mr. Stojic, told him what was going on. But
21 this was more a job of the Office for Refugees and Displaced Persons, and
22 I told Mr. Stojic I would resign from my position, to which he told me
23 that since I was working very successfully with that other group, it
24 would be a bad idea for me to leave, so I stayed.
25 And when, two days later, I visited the Spanish Battalion again,
1 they told me they had listed all the civilians and soldiers who were
2 detained, and I got hold of that list. I'll not explain all the
3 circumstances of how I did that. But when the superiors heard that I had
4 the list, they were not really thrilled.
5 Q. Mr. Bozic, two questions. You said you informed Mr. Stojic. Did
6 you inform anyone else that day during that operation you undertook?
7 A. Well, I said I informed the Office of the Refugees -- for
8 Refugees and Displaced Persons so they could organise buses and take
9 these people.
10 Q. Did you have information that there had been deaths, loss of
11 life, in that operation?
12 A. Yes, there were some soldiers who were killed. Some were
13 detained, some were kept in prison or killed in prison. And among the
14 civilians, that included children and pregnant women and babies. There
15 were some until August in Ostrozac and Celebici, in those camps.
16 Q. Can you now look at 2D 0146.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, are you going to
18 seek to admit -- to have admitted or to tender into evidence the document
19 we've just seen?
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I don't know which one you mean,
21 Your Honour. I showed two documents on this incident.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The one we have on the screen
23 right now, the 4th Corps --
24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me point out that on this
1 document regarding the 44th Jablanica Brigade, it is said that the HVO
2 launched two attacks, three Ustashas were killed; and it also says that
3 the insignia showed that they belonged to a sabotage unit from the
4 Republic of Croatia
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, all the other
6 information is information provided by the Army of Bosnia and
8 all the other information.
9 I have also to stress that on the last page, in item 1, there is
10 reference to detained Croats, and it says that some individuals entered
11 the prison where Croats were detained. They barged into the prison,
12 opened fire on detainees and civilians, killing three and wounding eight
13 seriously, and wounding more people less seriously, after which they
15 I simply believe this document is extremely important, because
16 there is recognition here also on the part of the BH Army how they
17 treated detained civilians and soldiers. I know there is other
18 information here as well, but the Court will weigh it together with
19 everything else.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.
21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Mr. Bozic, did you see document 2D 01462?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Is that the list you told us about?
25 A. Yes, that's the list where you can see also the age of all these
1 individuals, including minors, pregnant women, elderly people, and there
2 is also a list of HVO members. And I would especially like to stress
3 that in the list of the HVO personnel, where there are circles against
4 names, the Spanish Battalion explained that these were people included in
5 the list, but they were missing when they came into the prison.
6 Q. Now we really have to be careful with time, because we have one
7 longer topic left and one shorter one.
8 How would you define the relations, that is, the attitude, of the
9 international organisations towards HZ-HB, based on your experience?
10 Please try to be very concise.
11 A. I did, indeed, have talks with the representatives of various
12 organisations at various levels, representing the international
13 community, and I have my own personal experience, which is complemented
14 by many documents that I have prepared before coming to give evidence.
15 And concerning this incident in Radesine and another incident in
16 Grabovica, I would say that this case of Radesine shows how failure to
17 inform the public of what happened had a major impact on creating public
18 opinion, both domestically and internationally because it didn't happen
19 in other situations.
20 I personally believe that the fact that this incident in Radesine
21 was not publicised at that time, and that was all happening on the 25th
22 of April, 1993, before many, many other incidents that had grave
23 consequences for Croats, such as killings and expulsions; and I repeat,
24 on the other hand, other events were publicised and the domestic and
25 international public were both informed, I cannot say who decided to do
1 it that way, but obviously somebody had to make that decision.
2 I also mentioned Grabovica. When I talked to international
3 monitors and when I talked to them about Grabovica, their then chief of
4 the Mostar office, Mr. Philip Watkins tole me they were aware of the
5 case, that their team had entered Grabovica, that they had knowledge of
6 all that happened, that at the moment they entered there were no longer
7 any Croats; Muslim refugees had taken their place. He told us about the
8 fate of two boys from the village of Upper Grabovica, and he even brought
9 me the list that I already had and told me that they had done their job
10 by informing their office in Zagreb
11 wherever it was, the Office for Crimes and the Protection of Human
12 Rights; and when I asked why wasn't the public informed, why weren't the
13 media allowed to come in and see for themselves what was going on, I
14 didn't receive any answer at all.
15 And what was an additional burden when I prepared for this
16 testimony, I came across a document, and I have no memory for
5 have been different. In my eyes, no crime can be justified or even
6 balanced out by another crime, and I will conclude with something that I
7 said to Mr. Scott when we spent three very pleasant days in discussions.
8 My first contact with representatives of the international
9 community in Mostar, as I described several times in my testimony, in
10 September 1991, when the first monitors of the European Community and the
11 UN had arrived, although the UN base was then in Zagreb; they had no
12 office in Bosnia and Herzegovina yet, after they inspected the grounds I
13 told them:
14 "You've seen everything here. This is your chance to prevent a
15 war that is now possible, and everything that -- a repetition of all that
16 happened in Croatia
17 However, the international community arrived only after the
18 conflict had started. I don't want to blame the international community
19 because they had done a lot in terms of humanitarian law, humanitarian
20 aid, and stopping the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I'm just stating my
21 opinion sincerely and publicly, without apportioning any blame. It is up
22 to you, Your Honours, to make a decision.
23 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Bozic. Now, we will have to speed up,
24 if possible. This is an important topic. I'm going to show you a
25 document, P 2056, broaching another subject. Please be mindful that we
1 have some 15 minutes left.
2 A. This is the document which I saw for the first time was published
3 in a publication "Sloboda Freedom" published in East Mostar
4 February 1996.
5 Q. Please take a look at 2D 0143 -- 463. I apologise.
6 A. Yes. This is the part published in the newspaper. I have an
7 original of the newspaper in my suitcase. If Their Honours wish, I can
8 show them that newspaper.
9 Q. The right-hand side of the document -- we are talking about those
10 two documents on the right-hand side; is that right?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. You see that the first document is being published, and another
13 document is being published here?
14 A. When I saw that those documents were published, I contacted
15 Mr. Marko Rozic through Mr. Martin Zaric, and as soon as Mr. Rozic came
16 to my office, he told me, "I know why you summoned me. I saw what the
17 "Sloboda" published. My signature is falsified, forged. I never signed
18 this document and I never sent it."
19 Q. Let's take a look at P 2372.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Could you please explain the Chamber what this document is all
23 A. This the other document below the first one, which was
24 purportedly delivered to me and which demonstrates that we have two
25 different stamps on documents purportedly sent within a couple of days.
1 There is a list of persons who are in did that location, and we have
2 different letterheads on the documents.
3 Q. I called P 2372. I don't believe that this is the document.
4 A. No, this is not the document.
5 Q. You have P 2372, P 2372, to make the transcript clear about this.
6 After that, Mr. Bozic, would you like to take a look at P 2052, another
7 document from the binder?
8 A. This is another document reportedly sent to me, published in the
9 newspaper "Sloboda." I see that there are some names dated 15th of
11 Q. Fine. Let's take a look at document P 9790.
12 A. This is a document which practically -- the contents of a
13 document sent to me, purportedly, and are published in the newspaper
14 "Sloboda," the one that you previously showed, with -- containing the
15 signatures. First, if you were to compare, at first glance, those two
16 documents, you can notice the differences, starting with the person
17 purporting to send the letters, in terms of the institutions named there
18 and the contents in the text of the letter. In the one that you are
19 showing to me right now, reference is made to 94 conscripts sent in
20 Ljubuski, and in the previous one, ABiH Army is mentioned, and here we
21 have an Army, RRAR.BiH Sovici. The other document purported to be sent
22 to me bears the number 02-016/92, and this one bears the number -- a
23 different number, a number 193. Both are documents that could be sent
24 over package -- radio packet service, which cannot be hand-annotated in
25 any way. The document we are looking at, it says: "Head of the Defence
1 Department of HVO Jablanica," and the other purportedly sent to me and
2 published in the newspaper, it says: "Head of the Department of Defence
3 of the Municipality of Jablanica
4 which should be stressed, head of Department of Defence of Jablanica did
5 not exist -- that position did not exist at the time when those documents
6 were sent, the first on the 23rd of April and the other in May 1993.
7 Q. Mr. Bozic, let's take a look at some other documents which
8 corroborate what you said. 2D 1460. Please provide a brief commentary.
9 A. This is a document --
10 JUDGE PRANDLER: I really tried to restrain myself for the last
11 half an hour, but you are again doing, both of you, the same thing, like
12 machine-guns, answering to each other, and it cannot be done. And,
13 again, I would like to add my voice to that which was raised by
14 Judge Trechsel, that it is counterproductive. You have to understand
15 this. And it cannot be then duly regarded and discussed and understood,
16 so therefore please do wait after the question and then answer, and also,
17 of course, after the answer concerned.
18 Thank you.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you for your warning.
21 Q. Mr. Bozic, please take a look at this document which we
22 retrieved, and that is -- you have it before you?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you tell us what this is all about?
25 A. I can tell you that this document was purportedly received by the
1 Main Staff of the HVO.
2 Q. Do you have any difference between this document and the document
3 P 9790, which bears a reception stamp as being received by HVO? Don't
4 rush with your answer, please.
5 A. Yes, I can see it.
6 Q. What's the difference?
7 A. The difference is in plain view, in terms of the handwriting
8 about the reception of this document. I'd like to highlight to the
9 members of the Bench that this document was delivered on the
10 23rd of April at 1200 hours, but it states, on the reception stamp, that
11 it was received 38 hours later on the 24th of April, around 10.00 p.m.
12 Q. Mr. Bozic, you spoke about unfitting stamps on documents. Could
13 you tell us whether the defence office of Jablanica used the proper
14 stamps? How was this regulated at the time, pursuant to the decree on
15 the amendment on the decision on the number of seats and areas for
16 departments of defence and offices for defence? Please take a look at
17 P 1008 to corroborate that.
18 A. This is the decision that we discussed a moment ago, when the
19 government took a decision whereby the Jablanica defence office was
20 attached to the Mostar defence office.
21 Speaking about the stamps, on the first document, the stamp is
22 one which used to be used at municipal crisis staff level; and on the
23 other document the stamp is when this department or office for defence
24 used to belong to the Tomislavgrad district, which means that none of the
25 stamps were valid at the time when they were affixed to those two
2 Q. Mr. Bozic, was there any possibility for the defence office of
3 Jablanica to use the old stamp or that they failed to procure a new stamp
4 pursuant to the new structure?
5 A. It wasn't possible.
6 MR. SCOTT: I know that there's the -- we're under the
7 disadvantage of having to wait for translation before the witness can
8 answer in his own language. This is complete speculation. Unless he can
9 provide some foundation, he can give an opinion as to whether he thought
10 they should use it, whether it was legal; but whether they could use it,
11 unless he was in Jablanica at the time and knows that they could not
12 physically -- they could not physically use it, this is sheer
13 speculation. It has no evidentiary value whatsoever.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm afraid there is
15 evidence, but my learned friend can deal with this in cross-examination.
16 I focused on this issue, whether it was possible that physically those
17 new stamps did not arrive there, that old stamps were used, so I would
18 ask the witness.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] There was no possibility of using
20 old stamps, because we had standard operating procedure, whenever stamps
21 were prepared, submitted for approval and produced; and pursuant to all
22 the decisions and decrees, and we saw the amendment to the decree on the
23 number, seat and the area of defence offices, when Jablanica defence
24 office became part of the Mostar defence office, then stamps were
25 produced showing the Defence Administration of Mostar, Department of
1 Defence office in Jablanica, they were produced, and this is why I say
2 that those two stamps were not valid at the time when they were affixed
3 to those documents.
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Bozic, we'll speed up. 2D 1461. If you would please take a
6 look and explain to the Bench what this is about.
7 A. I personally wanted to verify those doubts as to the stamps and,
8 after all, my name is mentioned in a text in a very negative context,
9 particularly because this other document was published in the book by
10 Mr. Suad Cupina, and I wanted to clarify some dilemmas for myself. And I
11 checked in the print shop which produced and certified by the HVO to
12 produce stamps. I determined exactly which -- at what time which stamps
13 were produced for the Defence Department, and what I found out was
14 corroborated by the copy of the log of rubber stamps. I have a verified
15 copy in my notebook, verified by a notary public in Siroki Brijeg, which
16 testifies to the veracity and that what I have is identical to the book
17 of rubber stamps.
18 Q. Mr. Bozic, could you specify which stamps are in question which
19 you found out were not adequate? You have the document in front of you.
20 It can be zoomed in.
21 A. I'd like for it to be zoomed in.
22 Q. You can place the original in front of you. We can IC number it.
23 Could you fetch, please, your original from the suitcase to see whether
24 these are identical?
25 We're not in private session, are we? Am I right? We're not in
1 private session, no.
2 Do we have this document on ELMO?
3 A. You can't see it, but I do. The first stamp for the defence
4 office of Jablanica --
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Do Their Honours have this in front
6 of them or can they see it on the ELMO?
7 Q. Now it's okay. Please go on.
8 A. For the defence office of Jablanica, while it was part of the
9 Defence Administration of Tomislavgrad, was produced or manufactured on
10 the 18th of November, 1992. This is pursuant to the decision on the
11 number, seat, area of responsibility on administrations and offices for
12 defence which had been adopted by a session of the HVO HZ-HB.
13 Q. Fine. This is in the document, but for the benefit of the
14 transcript, this is contained in 2D 01461. The first rubber stamp on the
15 second page, dated 18th of November, 1992. Below that we have a round
16 stamp, Mr. Bozic, dated the same day. Is this the round stamp?
17 A. That's the round stamp belonging to the Defence Administration of
18 Tomislavgrad, defence office of Jablanica.
19 Q. And the other rubber stamp you wanted to refer to, it's on page 1
20 of the document, penultimate -- could we scroll down to it? Slightly to
21 the right, slightly to the right, please.
22 You can see the date now, 25th --
23 A. 25th of February, 1993. The rubber stamp was manufactured for
24 the Jablanica defence office, but of the Mostar Defence Administration,
25 adopted after the government's HVO -- I apologise, HVO HZ-HB session,
1 I think, dated 16th or 17th of February. But, anyway, there was another
2 session before that, so these documents show that at the time when those
3 stamps were manufactured and they were affixed on those two documents,
4 none of those stamps were valid.
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Usher.
6 Q. It will be my final question. Is it possible, what my learned
7 friend Mr. Scott said, that it was impossible for stamps to reach
8 Jablanica in February, after it had already been prepared and
9 manufactured as shown by this document? Is it possible for it physically
10 to fail to reach Jablanica?
11 A. No, there was no such reasons. There was absolute freedom of
12 movement between those so-called Croatian and so-called Muslim areas.
13 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. Just so my position is not
14 mis-characterised, my point was this witness, unless he says he was at
15 Jablanica in the area at the time the document was created by someone,
16 and we have a document, it was created by someone and a stamp was put on
17 it. Everyone in the courtroom can see it has a stamp. Mr. Bozic may say
18 it's not the right stamp, but it has a stamp. Now, unless he can say he
19 was present when someone put a stamp on there, I again go back to what I
20 said before. He cannot possibly tell this Chamber that the stamp wasn't
21 put on the document. But, Your Honour, that's important. It was not
22 what Ms. Nozica said. That wasn't my position. I said this witness
23 cannot possibly give evidence about what stamp was put on the document at
24 the time the document was created unless he's going to tell us that he
25 was in the room at the time. And I haven't heard that evidence.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is part of the
2 cross-examination, Mr. Scott.
3 Ms. Nozica, please move to your last question, because your time
4 is up.
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may --
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
8 Q. You have to hurry, if the Bench allows you.
9 A. I just want to supplement to what I just said, if I'm allowed.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very briefly, because we have
11 300 seconds left.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I give up, not to waste any time.
13 Thank you.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
15 Q. I see you will revisit this issue. And my final topic, very
16 briefly, although it deserves quite a lot of time because it deserves
17 quite a lot of attention: Mr. Bozic, did you have any contacts with any
18 other let's call it domestic organisation from Bosnia-Herzegovina and
19 from Croatia
20 maintained contacts most frequently.
21 A. Yes, I did have contacts. Part of what I explained, I did.
22 Sometime in -- toward the end of November, but beginning of December
23 1992, Mr. Stojic told me that I was supposed to be a liaison for an
24 operational work geared towards organising the transfer of Jews who used
25 to live in Sarajevo
1 had in their synagogue and in the Jewish municipality there or community
2 centre; and I personally contacted a member of the Jewish community in
4 buses, other vehicles, and successfully transferred Jews from Sarajevo
5 and brought them over to Croatia
6 Q. Mr. Bozic, you had occasion -- a number of passes.
7 Unfortunately, I just have one minute left. You saw those passes,
8 special passes, signed by Mr. Stojic referring to members of the Jewish
9 community of Sarajevo
10 then February 1993. Can you confirm that this is one of the activities
11 aimed at helping that community in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia
12 A. Yes, I can corroborate that, and personally I had contacts with
13 many persons from the Jewish community of Sarajevo, when convoys with
14 food were organised, and they kept organising such throughout the war in
16 Q. Let's take a look at another last document, the last in the
17 binder --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, you see what
19 happens. When you're given time, you don't know how to manage it. I
20 gave you some 20 minutes extra. I told you that you had to put one final
21 question to the witness. You were asking the witness three more
22 questions, and now you're talking about looking at another document. I
23 wanted this to be recorded in the transcript.
24 When five hours are granted to a Defence team, these are five
25 hours, not more than that, because then we're faced with that kind of
1 problem. We have 50 seconds left, so please complete the
2 examination-in-chief in the remaining 50 seconds.
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I really thought I had another
4 minute, taking a look at the clock. The last document, the last
5 question, and we will be done with it.
6 Q. This is a statement by Mr. Jakov Finci. Can you confirm that
7 you've seen this document?
8 A. Yes, I did see this, and it corroborates whatever I said
9 previously about our cooperation and assistance provided to the Jewish
10 community in Sarajevo
11 Q. The last question, Mr. Bozic: During your cooperation with them,
12 did Mr. Stojic ever ask you to do something which would be contrary to
13 your beliefs?
14 A. He never asked or requested that.
15 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Bozic. I
16 hereby conclude my examination-in-chief.
17 There is a note that the last document was not cited. It was
18 2D 00558.
19 I apologise to the Bench for contravening the instructions that I
20 was given. I wanted to just round off a group of questions by providing
21 one document.
22 Thank you.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, very briefly,
24 let's move into private session.
25 [Private session]
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.46 p.m.
10 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th of February,
11 2009, at 9.00 a.m.