1 Wednesday, 4 February 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Petkovic not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 8.59 a.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, kindly call the
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
9 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
10 the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
12 Today is Wednesday, I would like to wish a good morning to the accused,
13 to their Defence counsel, to all the representatives of the Office of the
14 Prosecutor, as well as to everybody assisting us.
15 We are about to begin the cross-examination by the other accused.
16 We were informed that Ms. Alaburic needed two hours, however, I'd like to
17 turn to the other Defence counsel. I would like to know whether they
18 intend to cross-examine the witness. I'll start with Mr. Kovacic and
19 then I'll go to Mr. Karnavas. Mr. Kovacic.
20 MR. KOVACIC: Good morning to everybody and Your Honours. We
21 will have altogether, I guess, I estimate 20 minutes at the most.
22 Mr. Praljak with two, three questions and I have two or three questions.
23 Thank you.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Coric.
25 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Good morning to everyone in the courtroom, we will use up probably all of
2 our time, and if it goes faster we'll finish earlier.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You mean 25 minutes?
4 Mr. Pusic?
5 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] As things stand now, the Pusic
6 Defence reserves the right to use their time. We don't know how the
7 examination will develop, if we don't use up time.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning,
10 Your Honours. My apologies for coming in late. Same answer as the Pusic
11 Defence team. We will be going -- we're scheduled to go last, so as of
12 this moment we are uncertain, so we do reserve our time. Thank you.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Yes, Ms. Alaburic.
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, good morning to you,
15 to everyone in the courtroom. I only wanted to say that the Petkovic
16 Defence will not have any questions to this witness regarding the
17 statement he had given to the Praljak Defence. Therefore we would ask if
18 those few minutes of our time of cross-examination could be transferred
19 to this cross-examination. And if you look at the topics I intend to
20 cover with this witness, the beginning of the binders I intended for you
21 I made an overview of the topics.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, let's be clear.
23 I don't know what the position of my colleagues is but my position is
24 well known to everybody. I've expressed it many times. For me, when
25 there are multiple accused, a cross-examination is to be carried out
1 because what is being said by the witness is unfavourable to your own
2 case and that's the purpose of the cross-examination. As the Chamber of
3 appeals reminded us, this is -- the cross-examination is not an absolute,
4 not an unlimited power. So in my opinion the cross-examination has to
5 focus on items that are unfavourable to you, basically prior statements
6 of the witness of the other Defence team. Hence my interest listening to
7 what you are about to say and the various topics that you want to
9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, what I'm going to say
10 you can cover -- you -- you can follow at the beginning of my binder
11 which is an overview of the topics I'd like to discuss with this witness,
12 and with your leave, I will briefly present these subjects, these topics.
13 First of all, I would like the witness to clarify his answer regarding
14 document 2D 1460. I'll wait for the Judges to receive my binders.
15 The Stojic Defence has spent relatively a great deal of time
16 trying to prove that the document is a forgery, which we do not dispute
17 as claim and we don't intend to deal with it, but the witness, at the end
18 of his evidence about that, said that the document had allegedly been
19 received at the Main Staff of the HVO. And I consider it my duty to ask
20 for additional answers concerning this document that the witness tried
21 very hard to prove was a forgery and was received at the Main Staff.
22 The second subject will relate to the number of employees of the
23 Defence Department. You have seen one figure about that which I believe
24 will be significant to when we compare it to the number of staff at the
25 Main Staff. And then I would also like a couple of questions of the
1 witness to provide a definitive reply to Judge Antonetti's question
2 whether in the vicinity of Bruno Stojic there had been people in uniform,
3 some generals, colonels, and other officers.
4 The third topic relates to the publishing of documents related to
5 the Defence. You were probably able to notice that the documents
6 concerning the internal organisation of the Defence Department and a
7 series of other Defence related documents had been presented to this
8 Court in the papers as they were written. That is, documents that were
9 not published in the Official Gazette. I believe that this witness, in
10 view of his experience and knowledge, can explain how this happened and
11 that his answers to these questions will be very important for us to
12 conclude about the validity of claims that something does not exist
13 because it was not published in the Official Gazette.
14 The witness further spoke about Article 30 of the Decree on Armed
15 Forces speaking of the transfer of powers of the supreme command, so I
16 will deal with that subject briefly too. I will also cover the subject
17 of change of powers of the chief of the Defence Department as opposed to
18 the Minister of Defence which are the same questions asked earlier by
19 Judge Trechsel. I believe that this witness who participated in the
20 writing of legislation and regulations is able to answer this question
21 which is important to the case.
22 The fourth topic concerns military prisons. The Petkovic Defence
23 otherwise does not intend to deal with the subject of military prisons
24 because we have not seen any Main Staff documents that would connect them
25 with the running of military prisons. However, at the end of his
1 evidence yesterday, the witness said about military prisons that
2 Mr. Bruno Stojic recognised his powers over Ljubuski and Heliodrom
3 prisons which is not a subject for the Petkovic Defence and we'll not go
4 into that. However, the witness also said the following sentence, and
5 I'll quote in English:
6 "[In English] It is known that there were other persons dealing
7 with that field."
8 [Interpretation] I believe it to be my duty to ask for additional
9 clarification from this witness and to establish whether in any way,
10 directly or indirectly, he meant to say that these persons were from the
11 Main Staff. Of course I'm interested primarily in the Chief of the
12 Main Staff.
13 The fifth subject relates to Mostar and the events of the
14 9th of May and the agreement between Petkovic and Halilovic made on the
15 12th of May, 1993. From the evidence of this witness, in my view, it
16 transpires that Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Halilovic were deciding about war
17 and peace in Mostar. That, however, is not true, because their agreement
18 was a consequence of an understanding between Boban and Izetbegovic, and
19 I believe it is my duty to prove so in these proceedings.
20 In view of the fact that this witness participated in the
21 preparation of regulations on defence, and that the previous witness told
22 us that these regulations had been prepared by copying Croatian laws, I
23 want to show the Court the difference between a Croatian law and a law of
24 Herceg-Bosna. And I suppose that in all countries in interpreting a law
25 it is very important that when you copy a provision from a certain law
1 without copying everything, we can conclude from what was left out what
2 the intent of the legislator was. In that context I would also show one
3 statement of President Tudjman about the powers of the minister of
4 defence, and I would ask the witness if similar rules applied to
6 The seventh topic would relate to the Main Staff. Since the
7 witness participated in the preparation of these regulations and spoke
8 about the Decree on Armed Forces, I would ask him to tell us what were
9 the powers of the Main Staff under the Decree on the Armed Forces. I
10 would show him the Croatian law on Defence to identify differences, and
11 then I would show him the current Croatian Law on Defence which the
12 Main Staff designed politically and legally in a quite different way.
13 And then I would ask him about the intent of the legislator to create a
14 strong or a weak Main Staff.
15 The eighth subject would be the Main Staff as an organisational
16 unit within the Ministry of Defence. The witness spoke to us about the
17 college or collegium as an informal forum within the Ministry of Defence
18 whereas we've seen transcripts that include an agenda, conclusions,
19 decisions, so I would like to clarify exactly the nature of the work of
20 this college, to clarify who reported to whom, who issued assignments to
21 whom, and who was answerable to whom within the Defence Department.
22 Further on, in view of the witness's position, professional
23 knowledge and experience, I would discuss issues that were within the
24 purview of the chief of Defence Department and his place in the chain of
25 hierarchy. And then if any time is left, I would ask a couple of
1 questions regarding investigation of criminal acts committed by members
2 of the military which follows on the questions of Judge Antonetti and the
3 witness's answer which I believe to have been incomplete.
4 This is it. I believe all of these questions are very relevant
5 and in the interest of my client to be asked, and if there is not
6 sufficient time for them, I believe they could be prejudicial to my case.
7 It is possible that the total duration of the cross-examination will fall
8 short of two hours because if the witness answers "I don't know" to
9 certain questions, I will not go on any further. So the total time would
10 not succeed two and a half hours. But if I suggest that if it goes on a
11 second longer, that it be deducted from the total time of Petkovic
12 Defence so that the duration of the trial does not exceed its allocated
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In any case, congratulations,
15 because the file is very good, the summary as well, and I hope the same
16 will go when you will prepare your summaries for your own witnesses.
17 Mr. Scott.
18 MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning each of
19 Your Honours. Judge Mindua, Judge Prandler, Judge Trechsel and all those
20 in and around the courtroom. Just one moment if I could. I appreciate
21 the preview that counsel has given us. I mean that quite sincerely.
22 However, I think I would be remiss given ongoing issues that have been
23 sometimes been raised about the manner and methodology of examination if
24 I didn't take the opportunity to point out the following.
25 Several things, one of them is that it appears virtually this
1 witness has been turned into -- or proposed to be turned into an expert
2 on, among other things, on legislation including apparently modern
3 current Croatian law. And has also been listed through the summary given
4 by counsel, I mean, on a host of matters that may or may not have been
5 covered at all or very little on direct examination by Ms. Nozica. The
6 point of that is, as we've mentioned before, it's potentially raises
7 substantially broader areas with no prior notice for the Prosecution to
8 deal with. It's a rather extensive agenda that Ms. Alaburic has laid out
9 for us all of which could raise additional topics that the Prosecution
10 then has to address. So I raise that as a general point in the matter
11 that we don't get summaries in advance from the co-accused, and I think
12 it does have -- does raise serious fairness issues, at least at times.
13 Secondly, and I'll just -- to be more specific on the issue that
14 I mentioned briefly, we'll just reserve, and I'll just note now questions
15 about the relevance of looking at modern current-day law of the Republic
16 of Croatia
17 particularly in a position to talk about the legislative intent of the
18 Croatian parliament. I just see us going further and further afield.
19 I'll leave my comments to that now but I did want to alert the Chamber to
20 those concerns. Thank you.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica.
22 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Good morning, first of all to
23 everyone in the courtroom.
24 Your Honour, I fully understand the position of every co-accused
25 and Defence counsel who is trying to gain as much time as possible or to
1 elaborate the case they want to make, regardless of whether they are
2 going to get that time or not. However, I want to make it clear to the
3 Court that the Stojic Defence shall request an extension of time for
4 redirect in each and every situation when an extension is granted for
5 cross-examination beyond the decision of the Chamber allocating us time.
6 In such cases, I will need more time for redirect, time that I don't have
7 according to the current schedule, and I will submit a request for extra
8 redirect time that will not be counted against the time of the
9 Stojic Defence. That's the only way to protect the interests of our
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I disagree completely,
12 Ms. Nozica. In the time allocated to you, there was time for the
13 examination-in-chief, but also time for redirect. This was in the
14 guide-lines. If you need time for redirect, this time will be subtracted
15 from the total amount of time allocated to you.
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you did not understand
17 me, but I'm -- I'm sorry, but you did not understand me. I envisaged
18 time for redirect within the time that other Defence teams and the
19 Prosecutor would have relative to my examination. Now I'm talking about
20 extra cross-examination time and extra redirect time. That is, if the
21 Court after my direct examination grants more time to the Prosecutor
22 other co-accused for cross-examination, then it's logical that I need
23 more time for redirect, and that's something I could not have planned
24 because I did not know that the Court may give extra time for
25 cross-examination. I know that all my redirect goes against my total
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Judges have taken note of
3 your intervention. They will ponder over those many issues.
4 We will have the witness brought in and we will give the floor
5 without further adieu to Ms. Alaburic.
6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave,
7 just to inform you that in accordance with an internal agreement,
8 General Praljak's Defence will start with cross-examination because with
9 every next witness we take turns to start first and now Mr. Kovacic is
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Coric.
12 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would, by
13 your leave, seek a five-minute break for my lead counsel if we could
14 retreat somewhere in private to discuss certain new developments that we
15 heard about.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Go ahead.
17 [The witness entered court]
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, with your leave, could I speak with
19 Mr. Prlic where he is, without going anywhere?
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, why don't you take the
22 Mr. Kovacic, you said that Mr. Praljak would have a few questions
23 to ask. In what area in particular, could you please explain?
24 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, General Praljak would
25 like to ask the question in connection with the book that the witness
1 yesterday mentioned, he was asked about that, a book by Dr. Ismet
2 Hadziosmanovic. General Praljak would like to deal with one matter where
3 the author in a chapter describes the situation in Mostar on the
4 9th of May - this is a critical date for us - describes certain
5 locations, streets in Mostar which General Praljak knows much better than
6 I do. Therefore, this meets the criteria that he has special knowledge,
7 personal knowledge about the locations in question because they
8 demonstrate whether the attack was prepared or unprepared. I believe
9 that he is qualified for asking such questions, and after him, I would
10 ask a couple of questions and that would be it.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Kovacic, my
12 colleague here on the Bench is wondering, I've taken a look at the page
13 of that book, I indeed saw that there were references to the BiH Brigade,
14 the military action, you intend to ask questions to the witness about all
15 the military aspects of the situation on the 9th of May; is that correct?
16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. Mr. Praljak
17 intends to ask those things, starting with the description in the book,
18 3D 03101. It's chapter 14, War in Mostar. In the second paragraph of
19 that chapter, you see detailed descriptions of several location, and
20 Mr. Praljak hails from Mostar, he knows the streets and the significance
21 for the military developments. If need be, Mr. Praljak will explain
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.
24 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
25 I'm strictly adhering to the criteria allowing me to ask questions. It
1 concerns my direct involvement that would require me to speak for hours
2 with my lead counsel without yielding the results. This is the situation
3 on the 9th of May, my talks with Perisic about his aspirations to get the
4 left bank of the Neretva, in connection with the Graz agreement. I would
5 like to ask the witness about the government session that was mentioned
6 yesterday, which I attended. A specific fact and circumstances
7 surrounding that and a previous event about the college at the ministry
8 which concerns a very important topic, and that is the mobilisation,
9 tremendous problems with mobilising particularly students which would
10 help establish the facts I am direct participant. It concerns military
11 matters, and I would like to discuss also the 30th of April visit of the
12 European delegation. I took part in organising that, together with
13 Mr. Stojic.
14 Simply, I think that these topics, these issues are what I have
15 original and best knowledge about, and there's no reason for me not to
16 ask them and they do not concern anything beyond what I just described.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, the Trial Chamber
19 after it has deliberated will allow you to ask questions, but only on
20 parts of the book that directly concern you.
21 The only problem is that Mr. Coric is not back yet, and his
22 lawyer hasn't come back either. Could you please go and check if they
23 are ready?
24 MR. PLAVEC: [Interpretation] I think that there's no need,
25 Your Honours, because I'm co-counsel. We can continue with the trial
1 with your leave.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. Does it mean that
3 Mr. Coric allows the continuation of this trial without him being
4 present? Oh, here he is. Everybody is here. Good.
5 Mr. Praljak, please go ahead.
6 WITNESS: SLOBODAN BOZIC [Resumed]
7 [Witness answered through interpreter]
8 Cross-examination by Mr. Praljak:
9 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning to everybody in the courtroom.
10 Good morning, Mr. Bozic.
11 A. Good morning to everyone in the courtroom.
12 Q. You said yesterday that you knew Dr. Hadziosmanovic, that you
13 read the book, so I'm not going to dwell on that question. In your
14 binder that's 3D 03101.
15 A. I can see it.
16 Q. Please open the page 57 in the Croatian.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. It says here that on the 3rd of May, 1992, Momcilo Perisic,
19 General Perisic, established contact with the HVO of Mostar and that
20 he -- in talks with him proposed that each army comes to the banks of the
21 River Neretva, he to the left bank and we to the right side, and wait
22 calmly for the resolution of the political conflict in Yugoslavia, and he
23 says that I answered, "Okay, we will execute the balance in Nevesinje."
24 After that conversation Mostar suffered the biggest shelling and
25 destruction up to that moment. Does it state so in the book?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Does it corresponds to your experience of the time?
3 A. Yes, it does correspond to my knowledge of the time. I knew that
4 after the conversation that you had with him it was the most burning
5 issue in the area of Herzegovina
6 with Mr. Perisic who was at Mostar while I worked with the police at the
7 beginning of 1992. And while we are talking about Mr. Perisic, I can
8 tell the Bench that the then police filed criminal charges against
9 General Perisic for what he did as the commander in terms of the
10 destruction of Mostar. Unfortunately, criminal charges were the only
11 thing that remained. Mr. Perisic is answering before this court, but not
12 for charges connected with Mostar and what happened then.
13 Q. Thank you. My second question: This conversation and everything
14 else, was this after what the Prosecution calls the Graz agreement on
15 non-prevention of hostilities?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Could you please open page 97. Here, in the early morning hours
18 at around 5.00, one started a severe shooting and detonations of heavy
19 artillery. Can you see that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. He says in the third paragraph:
22 "I witnessed the war in Mostar from the spot where my apartment
23 was located. I could see heavy machine-guns of HVO fired from the
24 locality of Hum hill towards Semovac, Bulevar," et cetera.
1 And then he states:
2 "Above the high school where combatants of the 4th Corps in an
3 infantry attacked. They entered Bulevar and the small localities around
4 that. The most intensive infantry attacks of the 4th Corps were in the
5 Mosala [phoen], the former Korzo, then the streets of Cernica, across the
6 boulevard towards the health centre and the surrounding gardens. At the
7 same time when 4th Corps infantry combatants were attacking, artillery
8 fire of the HVO shelled the locations next to the road. Heavy artillery
9 weapons of HVO between 8 and 9.00," so attacks had started at around
10 5.00, "heavy artillery fired towards the temporary establishment of the
11 BH Army, the buildings of the hygienic institute, SDK and Konak. At the
12 same time, artillery fire was heard on the localities, Bijeli Brijeg, Cim
13 and Rudnik." Bijeli Brijeg, Cim and Rudnik are in the west of Mostar.
14 A. Yes, it's extreme west of Mostar.
15 Q. It came from the left bank and hitting the -- one was hitting
16 targets which were marked by previous orders of the 1st Mostar Brigade
17 commander dated the 20th of April, 1993?
18 A. It says so.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I have a problem here, you are putting this to
20 the witness, the witness has told us he was asleep on that day. Now, I
21 wonder, Witness, how can you say anything about this or anything else,
22 then, perhaps later you have heard from other persons?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, General Praljak is
24 reading excerpts from a book that I personally read. General Praljak is
25 asking me whether Bijeli Brijeg, Cim and Rudnik, whether they are located
1 in the west of Mostar and I confirm, which has nothing to do with whether
2 I was on the spot on the day or not. I know these facts, I've known
3 since before this conflict, and I know that these localities are deep in
4 the extreme west of Mostar, and this is what I'm testifying about.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you, Mr. Bozic. We could have found that
6 in the map too. Mr. Praljak, could you ask questions that can heed
7 something because this is not relevant. This is not pertinent. This
8 witness has given no information of any interest so far. I don't think
9 this question was justified.
10 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I cannot understand while a
11 question of a prominent political worker, president of the SDA, the
12 Muslim party in Mostar, who was at that position a long time, who
13 wrote -- wrote this book and where he says, I was an eye-witness to the
14 ABiH army attack, and this book is public -- publicised, and after that
15 the witness --
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm very sorry, Mr. Praljak, you are not a
17 lawyer, you cannot perhaps be blamed for this, but that's absolutely not
18 what cross-examination is about. You are just reading something of a
19 book as if that were an expert, but that's not the way facts are to be
20 presented to the Chamber. It simply -- it doesn't work that way. You
21 cannot read a book to us so that we then believe that what is in the book
22 is true. That's what you are doing. So I must ask you to revise your
23 plan and to ask questions that are proper.
24 MR. KOVACIC: With all due respect, Your Honour, but I think that
25 you reacted prematurely. Mr. Praljak was merely trying to inform the
1 witness what he is reading about, and what is the situation according to
2 the author, and then would of course follow with the question, whether
3 the witness know or heard about that, what he learn about that in
4 consequent days, et cetera, but you intervened clearly too early.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I do not accept this but I will not insist now.
6 Go on, Mr. Praljak.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: Yes, Mr. Praljak.
8 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours,
9 Your Honour Trechsel, I've presented a number of documents in this
10 courtroom to demonstrate who attacked whom on the 9th of May. I showed
11 photographs, explained when each tank arrived. This is part of a wider
12 picture. I'm going to ask the witness whether in accordance with his
13 information whether this was true or not, and this is going to be my
14 concluding question.
15 Q. Another matter, Witness, he says that around 11.00 one could hear
16 a concentrated infantry fire. He refers to Lenjin's Bulevar Street [as
17 interpreted], Liska Park
18 were camouflaged infantry breakthroughs of the 4th Corps. They were
19 roughly kept on that broader locality. After that, the author talks
20 about Vranica being attacked, et cetera. Please tell me, isn't Rondo
21 deep to the west of Bulevar and whether at Rondo Mate Boban's office was.
22 A. Rondo is deep in the west of Mostar and this is the site of
23 Mr. Boban's office.
24 Q. On the 12th, when you came to Mostar, of course everybody was
25 interested to hear what had gone on before that, your information when
1 asking about the problem, did they correspond to this very precise
2 description of Mr. Hadziosmanovic?
3 A. Yes, they correspond to the description by Mr. Hadziosmanovic.
4 Q. Thank you. You come from Siroki Brijeg. Did JNA aviation shell
5 or bomb, air-raid Siroki Brijeg?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Were there civilian casualties?
8 A. All the dead were civilians, all those killed were civilians.
9 Q. In spring 1992, did the JNA aviation bomb Siroki Brijeg?
10 A. Siroki Brijeg was bombed.
11 Q. Were there any dead civilians?
12 A. All those killed were civilians.
13 Q. Were there any killed children?
14 A. I think so.
15 Q. Thank you. Witness, let's tackle another issue. 3D 01091.
16 A. Yes, I can see it.
17 Q. Do you know that the multiparty delegation of the Republic of
19 A. Yes, I know that.
20 Q. Do you know the names of Mr. Terzic, Vera Stanic,
21 Branimir Pasecky?
22 A. Yes, I'm familiar with all the names. I don't know these people
23 personally, but I know their names from media reports. I know they are
24 MPs in the parliament of Croatia
25 Q. On the instructions or orders of Mr. Stojic, did you participate
1 in organising their talks with the UNPROFOR in Medjurgorje?
2 A. Yes, I did have contacts with representatives of the
3 Spanish Battalion to organise their visit at that time.
4 Q. From the documents you have seen here, did you see that the
5 government of the Republic of Croatia
6 UNPROFOR as well as the embassy of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina to
7 organise that visit. That is, a sovereign state was approaching another
8 sovereign state in order to organise all that?
9 A. Yes, I can see that.
10 Q. Do you know that this delegation was not able to travel to Konjic
11 in central Bosnia
12 A. Yes, I know.
13 Q. Do you know that that delegation had huge problems in East Mostar
14 when trying to return?
15 A. I don't know the details. I know there were certain problems.
16 Q. Thank you. Yesterday there was mention of P --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, I don't want to
18 take too much time, but this document may be of some importance. I have
19 just seen this document, have discovered it, and the report made by the
20 delegation of the Croatian parliament, they give conclusions and
21 everybody will see the conclusions and everybody will be able to draw
22 from these conclusions what they want to draw from them, but I realise
23 one thing. In point 4 of the last conclusion it is mentioned that there
24 were people on both sides trying to create a global conflict between the
25 Muslims and Croatian people. Can you see what is mentioned there
1 regarding these agitators?
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Which page, Your Honour?
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is the last page in the
4 English version, so it must be the last page of your -- well, of your
5 document. It's point small d in point 4.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can see that, Your Honour.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So I guess you can see I was
8 told that this is a document that we had already accepted. It has
9 been -- it is in the binder so you can see point 4(d), where it is
10 mentioned that there are agitators on both sides, on the Croatian and the
11 Muslim side.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I see that that is the opinion of
13 this commission they expressed after visiting the area. Obviously they
14 had certain indications that led them to such a conclusion.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And on your -- from your point
16 of view, the provocateurs, agitators on the Croatian side, who were they?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I can't speak about that.
18 It's their opinion that they formed from the context they had while they
19 toured places on the grounds. It's the opinion of a body that went on a
20 field mission, and I don't know who they spoke to at the time. I would
21 be speculating if I said anything whether anything of the kind existed.
22 Obviously they must have had some information that led them to believe
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.
25 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]
1 Q. In this document, P 04756, dated 2nd September 1993, you don't
2 need to look at it in the binder, I'll just ask you this, we can call up
3 this document, actually. At that meeting there was a problem concerning
4 students. Do you remember, Mr. Bozic?
5 A. Yes, I remember. It was one of the frequently discussed topics
6 at our meetings.
7 Q. On page 4, let me read. General Matic, who was present, said he
8 believed that all students should be included in military units because
9 if the country is at war then schools and universities stop to work. And
10 it says that you, Mr. Lucic and Mr. Bagaric, chief of health and SIS,
11 said that you believed students should be allowed to go on with their
12 studies because there is a shortage of qualified personnel and if they
13 need to get involved they can get involved later. However, Chief Stojic
14 says that he believes the opinion of the Main Staff of the HVO should
15 prevail, and he says that all students should be included in HVO military
16 units. Do you remember this?
17 A. Yes, I remember that Mr. Lucic, Mr. Bagaric and I held that view,
18 and I appreciate that perhaps our assessment was not adequate. I'm not a
19 soldier. I have no military training, no military knowledge. I was
20 thinking purely as a civilian.
21 Q. Mr. Bozic, we don't need that. Let us move on to the government.
22 Our time is limited. So the document is P 05799. It's a government
23 session that we looked at yesterday, and in paragraph 4, the government
24 adopts the conclusion that all students are conscripts regardless of the
25 place where they pursue their studies. Do you remember the very vehement
1 debate I had with one member of the cabinet, Mr. Ivan Saric, late Ivan
2 Saric. Do you remember this clash?
3 A. Look, I can't remember the details, but I remember there were
4 fiery debates on the issue.
5 Q. We are not hiding anything. Do you remember that I actually
6 seized Mr. Saric by the neck at one point?
7 A. Yes, actually that was impressive.
8 Q. I want to ask you this so that the Judges get the picture. This
9 was not a walk along the Champs-Elysees. Debates went so far in acrimony
10 that I had a physical set-to with one member of the government who was
11 advocating that students should be left out of the war and their lives
13 A. Yes, that's true.
14 Q. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Bozic.
15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I
16 don't think I broke any rules.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Kovacic.
18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Just a few short questions.
19 Cross-examination by Mr. Kovacic:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, regarding this book by Dr. Ismet
21 Hadziosmanovic, you said you have read the book?
22 A. Yes, I have.
23 Q. Did you have occasion to speak with the author after the book was
25 A. Yes, I still have a pretty good relationship to date with
1 Mr. Hadziosmanovic.
2 Q. Would I then be right in thinking that you believe the book was
3 fair and objective?
4 A. I think it's one of the best written books about the events in
6 included in the book which I must admit until reading the book I never
7 knew existed.
8 Q. Thank you very much. Just one more question. Could you please
9 look up one document, 1D 01987. From page 1 you will see it's a report,
10 a diary, in fact, of Ilija Filipovic.
11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, some of the pages
12 are already in evidence. I'll ask about only one of them.
13 Q. Could you please turn to page 10, Witness. There's an entry for
14 2nd May 1992. There are four items. I'm interested in this one. EC and
15 UN at 1230 send a message that General Perisic is ready to talk with the
16 command of the HVO and General Praljak and seek direct contact with our
17 general. The Main Staff is informed. Is this a note about the
18 invitation made by Perisic, the same invitation that Dr. Hadziosmanovic
19 wrote about?
20 A. Yes, this is a confirmation of what was written in the book of
21 Dr. Hadziosmanovic about the wish of General Perisic to have contact with
22 General Praljak.
23 Q. Just another entry, 3rd May 1992
24 UNPROFOR the conditions set by General Praljak for talks with
25 General Perisic." Do you conclude from this that this meeting between
1 Perisic and Praljak occurred precisely as Dr. Hadziosmanovic wrote in his
3 A. Yes, it's a confirmation.
4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you I don't have any further
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mrs. Alaburic.
7 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours. Thank you very
9 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Bozic, good morning.
11 A. Good morning.
12 Q. I have a few questions for you. To begin with, I want to say the
13 following. None of my questions will be trick questions. They will be
14 based on documents that you are mostly familiar with. I will ask you to
15 clarify some of your previous answers and I will ask you to provide
16 explanations to the Court, because you have a law degree, you occupied
17 the position of assistant chief of Defence Department, and you
18 participated in the drafting of certain regulations concerning defence.
19 It is in the interest of the Petkovic Defence to have every
20 detail clarified as much as possible because since you all wore military
21 uniforms, and this is a constant charge made against the accused, every
22 time a crime was committed by someone in uniform the Main Staff is
23 somehow responsible. That's why we want to make everything perfectly
24 clear. Every fact de jure and de facto.
25 You have a set of documents in the sequence in which I will be
1 asking questions.
2 A. Can I ask something? Tell me, is this a separate batch for the
3 end or for the beginning?
4 Q. I'll let you know when we finish with the main binder. It may
5 not be necessary at all.
6 My first question will be about document 2D 01460. You spoke
7 about it in extenso yesterday and you said it was a forgery. I'm
8 interested only in one segment of your answer that is on record yesterday
9 on page 91 of yesterday's transcript. In view of this incoming stamp of
10 the Main
11 received at the Main Staff of the HVO. I therefore wish to have it
12 perfectly clear, where do documents come in if they are addressed to you
13 or sent to you by packet radio?
14 A. First of all, not a single document was ever sent to me by packet
15 radio, including this one, which I said yesterday. And in all that time,
16 as far as I know, this packet communication and these packet documents
17 were delivered through a service at the Main Staff. I don't think the
18 Main Staff received them as such. But I wish to repeat, not a single
19 document including this one was ever received by me. And I explained the
20 reasons yesterday.
21 Q. Mr. Bozic, I'm not trying to prove that you received this
22 document. I'm not interested in that at all. That's not the point of my
23 question. All I want to clarify is this incoming stamp of the
24 Main Staff. Did I understand your answer correctly that anything sent by
25 packet radio to Mostar would be received at a certain service at the
1 Main Staff, would bear the stamp of the Main Staff and then would be
2 distributed to the addressees? Is that how it operated?
3 A. Yes, for the most part until later some changes were made.
4 Q. All right. I had four documents ready to prove this, but since
5 you've already confirmed, I'll move on to the next subject.
6 Yesterday Mr. President, Judge Antonetti asked you a question
7 about the number of staff at the Defence Department and you could not
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Witness, it seems that the
10 Defence of General Petkovic indicated that the documents received by the
11 Main Staff are forged documents. This is the thesis. We can understand
12 their position because when we look at the document we see that after the
13 end of the hostilities, Muslim houses were burned, and mosques were
14 destroyed, applying orders coming from commanders. Well, of course this
15 document can be -- is very clear. But if this document is forged, the
16 stamp can also be forged. What do you think?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I agree with you, Your Honour. In
18 the statement that the both the document is forged and the stamp may be
19 forged. Yesterday, Your Honours, I explained the details and you needn't
20 be a special expert to get that. By comparing this version with that
21 published in the newspapers, you can spot important differences in the
22 number, the contents and everything else. But I'm not the proper person
23 to determine whether this is a forgery or not.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, this document had
25 been signed by Marko Rozic. If Marko Rozic is till alive maybe the
1 Defence could have asked him, "These are documents that seem to have been
2 signed by you, did you send them," and maybe he could have told you, "No,
3 this is a forged document, I never sent it." If he is alive. Maybe he
4 is dead, I don't know.
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think I was not
6 precise enough in my question and this is why it was not understood as it
7 should have been. Bruno Stojic's Defence yesterday spent half an hour to
8 prove that this document is a forgery. The witness said that the
9 document was never received by him and he also testified that Mr. Rozic
10 told him personally that he never sent that document. If you ask me for
11 my opinion, I believe that the witness was quite trustworthy in that and
12 that the Stojic Defence managed to prove that this is a forgery. We will
13 deal with it, the rubber stamp of the Main Staff, but Mr. Witness would
14 like to say something.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Bozic, do you confirm that
16 Mr. Rozic told you that he never sent this document?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I said yesterday that
18 when this document was published in the newspapers, soon afterwards I
19 spoke to Mr. Rozic who said, I know why you are calling me and I'm
20 telling you that both documents, not just this one, but the other one
21 that were published are forgeries. I never signed this. Marko Rozic is
22 alive and let me explain an important detail to you, Your Honours.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead. Yes. Go ahead,
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Marko Rozic is alive. I spoke to
1 him a month ago maybe. He confirmed the whole thing and he told me
2 another detail unbeknownst to me prior to that date, and he said that in
3 the Naletilic-Martinovic case he verified his signature at the municipal
4 court at Siroki Brijeg, and that his signature was presented in the
5 Naletilic-Martinovic case, and a witness testified about his signature
6 and testified that that was not his signature.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'd like to have
8 recorded in the transcript that it seems that these documents were in the
9 possession of the Office of the Prosecutor because they were archived in
11 means that if it is a forgery, somebody set up a whole operation so that
12 those documents be archived for the Prosecution to find them at some
13 stage. That's all we can say about this document. I'm not the
14 Prosecutor. It is up to the Prosecutor to determine what to do to
15 clarify things further.
16 Ms. Alaburic.
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, for your
18 additional clarifications.
19 Q. Mr. Bozic, His Honour Judge Antonetti asked you about the number
20 of employees at the Department of Defence, and since we saw yesterday a
21 document registering this number, could you please in the second set of
22 the documents take a look at 2D 150. This is an overview of the ethnic
23 structure of HVO members.
24 A. I can see it.
25 Q. It says here that in June 1993, in the Department of Defence
1 there were 247 employees. Does this correspond to your memory?
2 A. I cannot tell you about figures because I don't have a mind, a
3 memory for figures, but this is an official document, so ...
4 Q. Thank you. What about the figure of 65 for the Main Staff?
5 A. If it's recorded in the document, then this is so.
6 Q. His Honour Judge Antonetti also asked you whether close to
7 Bruno Stojic there were military officers, whether he maintained contacts
8 with him, et cetera. Now, please tell us in the building housing the
9 Department of Defence towards the end of 1992 and mid-July 1993, what
10 other departments or services were using the same building?
11 A. Well, in that -- answer [as interpreted] -- on the ground floor
12 there was the Main Staff. On the first floor we had the department with
13 its sectors and services, several sectors. Logistics from the
14 manufacturing and procurement sector was mainly housed in the Grude, but
15 this was how it looked like.
16 Q. I would like to correct the transcript. In line 4 instead of the
17 word "answer" the word "building" should be written.
18 How many floors were there?
19 A. Ground floor and two floors.
20 Q. On the ground floor we had the Main Staff. On the first --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. On the first floor we had Mr. Stojic with his closest associates?
23 A. Not just closest associates. Personnel administration was there.
24 IPD and some other clerks were also on the first floor. I can't remember
25 all the details.
1 Q. On the second floor, SIS and military police administration were
3 A. I think so and a part of the health or medical corps sector was
4 also there.
5 Q. His Honour Judge Antonetti asked you a question about the
6 existence of a direct telephone line which Mr. Stojic could use to speak
7 to General Petkovic. The Bench know this building because we visited it
8 in Mostar. Could you tell us whether it was possible for Mr. Stojic to
9 shout for Mr. Petkovic and for General Petkovic to hear on the ground
10 floor that Mr. Stojic was calling for him?
11 A. I'd like to repeat my answer to His Honour Judge Antonetti's
12 question. The idea I had was of having red telephones and you press just
13 one button and you have direct access. Your question about whether one
14 could shout for another person, well, yes, if you are in the same
15 building shouting for somebody who is 25 or 40 steps downstairs, then you
16 can communicate by shouting, depending on the situation.
17 Q. Could you tell us from your memory whether communications between
18 leading people in that building, whether they were daily, whether they
19 drank coffee together every morning, whether they had their lunch at the
20 same place at a canteen in the same building?
21 A. Whether we had coffee every morning, I couldn't say. Yes, there
22 was daily communication, it was possible. We did not have a canteen in
23 our building. After awhile we used a part of one room, and I said that
24 periodically we would have college meetings attended by all assistants of
25 Mr. Stojic, then representatives of the Main Staff, Chief of the
1 Main Staff, or somebody to stand in for him. These were informal but
2 regular ways of communicating.
3 Q. When you speak of possibility of daily communication, it seems to
4 me that in Croatian I understood you to say that there was daily
6 A. It was possible for maintain daily communication, thank god. If
7 you are in one building you could communicate with another person who was
8 also in that building.
9 Q. And the possibility of communication was used, you did
10 communicate every day?
11 A. Yes, thank god, depending on the situation. From situation to
13 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Bozic, please explain to us a curiosity for
14 some people. When Mr. Prlic's Defence produced certain documents, those
15 documents, as a rule, published in an official journal in the
16 Narodni List or the municipal Official Gazette, and the Defence
17 documents, particularly the decisions on internal structure, were not
18 shown here as published in the Official Gazette. Could you explain the
19 difference between the so-called civilian documents and the documents
20 which pertain to the Defence Department?
21 A. I just said that I was not a military person. I'm not a military
22 lawyer or a military expert, but it would seem logical to me that if
23 certain documents bore indications of certain level of confidentiality,
24 as such, they could not have been published in any official journals. I
25 know from my lawyer's practice that in the former Yugoslavia such
1 documents were usually not published in Official Gazettes, and in the --
2 if they bore that level of confidentiality.
3 Q. Thank you very much for this answer. Now, as a person who took
4 part in drafting defence regulations, could you please tell us whether in
5 1993 regulations were changed or amended, those governing the powers of
6 the head of Defence Department in defence work area?
7 A. What do you specifically mean?
8 Q. Well, the Decree on Armed Forces, as far as we know in this
9 courtroom, the last amendment was in October 1992. It is not known to us
10 whether that regulation or decree was changed or amended in 1993, and it
11 seems that re-organisations and the determination of new powers or
12 authorities started with the new team in the Defence Department which
13 took over towards the end of 1993. This is what I wanted to discuss with
15 A. Yes, you are right. That you for your explanation. The changes
16 that we could deem to be fundamental and determined in another way the
17 powers of the minister and re-organisation of the not -- the then
18 ministry, no longer Defence Department, was -- this all took place in
19 October 1993 when the government of the Croatian Republic
20 Herceg-Bosnia was established.
21 Q. Let's not engender confusion. It is not contentious, I presume,
22 that from August 1993 when the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna
23 proclaimed that the HVO functioned at a government and departments worked
24 as ministries, and this is how they started labelling themselves. But in
25 essence, their powers or competencies were not changed compared to the
1 powers that they had as temporary bodies for certain activities?
2 A. Yes, I agree with you, but the change itself in the formal
3 labelling stayed the same, but the government functioned pursuant to the
4 statutory decision on the structure of temporary authorities. What I'm
5 now discussing is completely different system in the way it's
6 functioning, but you are right in stating that this relates to a period
7 where formally the HVO HZ-HB started to be labelled as government, but
8 what I'm discussing is the way things were functioning.
9 Q. Fine. The fourth topic I wanted us to discuss concerns your
10 answer about military prisons. I don't want to dwell on this with you
11 except in a case that your answer could prompt me to continue with that.
12 On the basis of the minutes of the college of Department
13 Defence, dated 2nd of September, this is a document shown by Mr. Praljak
14 recently. In the minutes it says that Mr. Stojic conceded that he had
15 authority over Heliodrom and Ljubuski. You remember your answer now?
16 A. Yes, I remember. But it's not as you put it, Mr. Stojic did not
17 say that they conceded authority over those two prisons, but saying that
18 the department recognised only two of those, Heliodrom and Ljubuski.
19 Q. Thank you very much for your clarification. I apologise for
20 misinterpreting your answer. There was no intention.
21 A. Please, given that this is my third day of testifying, it would
22 be -- it is easy for you to communicate with me and you to me because we
23 are lawyer. Please do not really force me to go to what my words of two
24 or three days ago. Thank you.
25 Q. Unfortunately, I will have to ask you. This sentence prompted me
1 to deal with military prisons in the first place. Talking about Dretelj,
2 Gabela and other war prisoners' detention centre, you issued a statement
3 on page 47, lines 20 to 22, I will quote in the English language:
4 "[In English] It was known that there were other persons dealing
5 with that field."
6 [Interpretation] And unfortunately, Mr. Bozic, the presumption is
7 valid that if it is not determined that a certain organ is competent for
8 something then the blame is apportioned to the military. So generally it
9 is presumed that if a certain issue is within the remit of a certain
10 body, then the military will be responsible for it, and following that
11 logic, in terms of traditional chain of command, the Main Staff will be
12 responsible ultimately. My question is, when uttering this sentence
13 whether did you directly or indirectly mean the Main Staff of the HVO?
14 A. No. Neither directly nor indirectly.
15 Q. Thank you. Then I will skip the rest of my questions concerning
16 prisoners -- prisons.
17 My next topic talks about the 9th of May, 1993, and the situation
18 and the war in Mostar. You spoke about the Petkovic-Halilovic agreement
19 which was concluded on the 12th of May, 1993. If I understood you
20 correctly, you were present during the negotiations. Is that so?
21 A. That's correct.
22 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Mr. Bozic, I apologise for interrupting
23 you. But I wanted to get up, Your Honour, while we were changing topics.
24 Counsel just indicated that she was going on to another topic so I was
25 waiting for that time. I just have to generally comment and object to
1 several -- a number of times this morning already, and I've not objected
2 up until now, that Ms. Alaburic, who I have great respect and friendship
3 for, nonetheless leads her questions with a number of -- essentially
4 stating a position leading into it and she just did it at page 33:
5 "Unfortunately, Mr. Bozic, the presumption is valid that it is
6 not determined that a certain organ is Defence competent, that the blame
7 is apportioned to the military," blah, blah, blah.
8 Those are not questions and the proper method of examination is
9 to put questions to the witness, and I would object to having a
10 presentation of position preceding each question before the question is
11 put to the witness. Thank you.
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to ask
13 my learned friend Mr. Scott, when quoting my words not to use the words
14 "blah, blah, blah," because I'm making efforts to pronounce my words
15 correctly. If I stand corrected for misinterpreting somebody's words
16 then I'll apologise, just as I did to Mr. Bozic.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not ask for your apologies, I
18 just wanted to be cooperative.
19 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Yes, of course. I apologise readily whenever I'm in the wrong.
21 So if I understood you correctly, you were there while the
22 negotiations Petkovic, Halilovic, were ongoing which resulted in the
23 agreement dated 12th of May.
24 A. Yes, I was there together with General Petkovic.
25 Q. Fine. And since the question now is whether Petkovic and
1 Halilovic -- on the current page I would like to correct in line 17, it's
2 not 20th of May, but 12th of May. May this be corrected.
3 The question arises whether Petkovic and Halilovic decided on war
4 and peace in Mostar. I'd like you to look at the fifth chapter of the
5 documents before you and look at 4D 456, and 4D 457.
6 A. Can you help me. You said fifth section?
7 Q. Yes, they are divided by cardboard dividers. You will see
8 number 5 on one divider.
9 A. Can you repeat the number?
10 Q. 4D 456, and 4D 457. These are orders by Mate Boban and
11 Alija Izetbegovic dated 10th May 1993
12 A. Thank you, I've found them.
13 Q. Look at these documents, please, Mr. Bozic. Tell me, did you
14 know that Mr. Mate Boban and Mr. Izetbegovic had ordered a cessation of
15 fire to their own units, to their own respective units, and that they had
16 authorised General Petkovic and Mr. Halilovic to make an agreement and
17 specify the details of the agreement between Boban and Izetbegovic?
18 A. We can see from the order that Mr. Boban is issuing this order to
19 HVO units to stop all military activities against the BH Army, and the
20 same order was given by Izetbegovic, whereas the chief of the HVO Main
21 Staff Major-General Milivoj Petkovic and chief of the BH Army Main Staff
22 General Halilovic, it says shall meet immediately in order to determine
23 details connected with the implementation.
24 Q. Mr. Bozic, did you know about these orders then, on the 10th of
25 May, or perhaps a few days later?
1 A. To be perfectly honest, I was not aware of them then. I learned
2 about them later. I hadn't been invited to that meeting but it was clear
3 to me that General Petkovic could not have signed that order without a
4 proper instruction to that effect, without an order basically.
5 Q. For the record, I have to ask you this for the record, do you
6 mean that General Petkovic had to have been authorised to make that
7 agreement with General Halilovic?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In this courtroom we analysed a number of agreements and orders
10 and we could see that every time there existed political decisions on
11 cease-fire, on how to start or continue cooperation, and after that
12 military commanders materialised in their own agreements the political
14 Now, this sequence of events in which a political decision
15 precedes specific military agreements, is it -- that consistent with what
16 you remember from the years when you worked?
17 A. Yes, I agree absolutely. And after the war I read many books and
18 got hold of many documents that confirmed to me precisely what you just
20 Q. You told us yesterday, Mr. Bozic, if I understood that correctly,
21 that the Croatian side was cooperative in negotiations with warring
22 sides, that you were cooperative in your communications with the
23 international community. Now, this quality of cooperativeness, can it
24 also be ascribed to General Petkovic in those occasions when you
25 personally attended his talks with Halilovic or anyone else?
1 A. Yes, I can absolutely confirm that. In the talks in which I
2 participated, you could see that high-ranking officers of the UNPROFOR
3 had great appreciation and respect for General Petkovic.
4 Q. Now, I'll ask you one question that Judge Antonetti had asked you
5 before. I'm really sorry I am repeating questions, but I believe they
6 are relevant and you can give us an answer.
7 Judge Antonetti asked a previous witness how come that the HVO
8 had not disarmed the Muslims after the conflict of the 9th of May, 1993.
9 I'll ask you a couple of further questions to get to an answer. Now,
10 regardless of who started the conflict of the 9th of May, can you tell
11 us, Mr. Bozic, did Muslims who were in the HVO fight against the HVO in
12 that conflict?
13 A. You mean the 9th of May?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. No. At that time I believe Muslim members of the HVO were
16 present, and as we could see in the documents we looked at in the course
17 of the previous days, it happened after the 30th of June when Muslim
18 members of the HVO betrayed their comrades and crossed to the HBA [as
19 interpreted] side, and we saw that document dated 16 April 1993. Many
20 things become clear from that document, and this event we can see had
21 been planned.
22 Q. I don't think your answer was recorded precisely. Can you just
23 clarify one part of the question. Did Muslim soldiers in the HVO
24 participate then, on the 9th of May, in combat against the HVO on the
25 BH side?
1 A. You mean those who were then in the HVO? There were Muslim
2 members in the HVO.
3 Q. Did they participate in the fighting?
4 A. And they participated in fighting the ABH and that's why I said
5 all this changed on the 30th of June. That's what I know.
6 Q. So they participated in the fighting against the army of BH?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In the documents we could see here, after this conflict in Mostar
9 a relatively large number of Muslims left the ranks of the HVO; correct?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you, high-ranking officials in the Main Staff and elsewhere,
12 consider that the remaining Muslims in the HVO were loyal to their army?
13 A. I don't want to pretend that I was standing aside from all that
14 or that I made any decisions myself, but I know it was a general position
15 commonly held that all the remaining Muslims were loyal members of the
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I think it's
18 time for the break.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll have a 20-minute break.
20 --- Recess taken at 10.31 a.m.
21 --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before giving the floor to
23 Ms. Alaburic, you had asked for two hours and the Chamber had taken no
24 decision, waiting to see how the beginning of cross-examination would go.
25 The Chamber has decided that you have been efficient and rather quick and
1 therefore you have made quite a lot of progress as compared to your
2 work-plan. And the Chamber has also noted that the cross-examination's
3 purpose should be to highlight, if need be, contradictory points as
4 compared to the examination-in-chief, and the Chamber, therefore,
5 believes that given the time you have asked for in -- according to
6 Article 10 of the regulation, we can give you 1 hour and 30 minutes.
7 Since you already almost used 30 minutes, you have one hour left. So we
8 can decide that because we have noticed that the witness, having legal
9 background, understands the question very quickly and can answer very
10 quickly and this helps us move forward faster, so you have one hour for
11 remaining documents. So the floor is yours now.
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I wish to thank you
13 for this time in the following way. Yesterday in this courtroom
14 Judge Trechsel and our learned friend Nozica told us about their
15 frustrations and the reasons for them, and I wish to say that by this
16 decision you cured my frustration regarding the time I had at my disposal
17 for cross-examination, and I thank you very much for that.
18 Since we are proceeding at a very good pace, I don't think I'll
19 even use all the time you have given me, but we'll see.
20 Q. Mr. Bozic, I want to ask you a few questions now regarding the
21 Decree on the Armed Forces from October 1992, which is document P 588.
22 In the sixth section of my document --
23 A. Yes, I can see it.
24 Q. Until now, we, at least the Petkovic Defence, dealt mostly with
25 Article 30, which deals with the transfer of powers from the
1 supreme commander and I will ask you a few questions about that. After
2 my questions, take some time to think, if you need to. We have enough
3 time, we needn't hurry. Turn that page, please. This Article 30 has
4 four paragraphs; is that correct, Mr. Bozic?
5 A. Yes, correct.
6 Q. Now, tell me under the rules of legal interpretation that applied
7 in Herzegovina
8 mean that all the four paragraphs in this article apply to the same
9 subject, that is, the transfer of powers from the supreme commander of
10 the armed forces?
11 A. Can I just read it first. As a lawyer, in principle I would
12 interpret this in the following way: The first paragraph says --
13 Q. Mr. Bozic, I'm sorry, but I don't want you to retell me the
14 paragraphs. Just tell me if the -- if all the four paragraphs deal with
15 the same subject. If you say no, then we'll deal with what each of them
16 deals with.
17 A. Then I have to say not all the four paragraphs deal with the same
19 Q. Then tell me which paragraph does not apply to the transfer of
21 A. The first paragraph which says that these are the powers of the
22 supreme commander. The rest, the other three refer to the transfer of
24 Q. All right. Let's clarify. Paragraph 3, that I'm most interested
25 in, refers to the transfer of powers?
1 A. Yes, it does.
2 Q. Last week, Mr. Bozic, we had an expert here from the
3 Stojic Defence who said that the regulations on Defence of Herceg-Bosna
4 were mostly copied from the Republic of Croatia
5 have occasion to compare the Law on Defence of the Republic of Croatia
6 and the Law on the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna?
7 A. No, I never had occasion to make such comparisons.
8 Q. Tell me before I put my specific question, how do you understand
9 when one legislator copies a law of another country and does not copy a
10 provision in its entirety but leaves out a certain part of it. In your
11 understanding of the law, is that a relevant fact in interpreting the
13 A. First of all, I can't say whether it was copied or not because
14 yesterday in my evidence I said that I did not participate at all in the
15 adoption of the Decree on the Armed Forces that was passed in July, and
16 that I only participated in the adoption of the revision of this text
17 which was passed in October 1992.
18 Q. All right. But you did participate in that adoption of the
19 revision, you know the rules of nomotechnics?
20 A. Yes, but you have to bear in mind that there were some amendments
21 and reformulations compared to the text from July 1992.
22 Q. Let us now compare, Mr. Bozic, the Croatian law, which is
23 4D 1276, compare Article 47 dealing with the powers of the supreme
24 commander, and I will be interested in item 3 of that article. Article 3
1 "The supreme commander of the armed forces may delegate to the
2 minister of defence a number of duties of control and command of the
3 armed forces, except those concerning the use of the armed forces."
4 A. Yes, I see it.
5 Q. Now, please, compare that provision with the provision of
6 Article 3, paragraph 2 in the decree of the armed forces of Herceg-Bosna
7 and tell us where the difference lies?
8 A. It will take some time. The Court will appreciate that I'm
9 seeing these documents for the first time and you are asking me to
10 analyse. I would not like to speak as an expert because I'm just a
11 witness with some knowledge of the law, but I will do my best to compare.
12 You said Article 47, paragraph 3 of the law of the Republic of
14 decree --
15 Q. Of the decree of the armed forces of Herceg-Bosna.
16 Correction of the record, line 4 of this page, we are comparing
17 it with Article 30, paragraph 2 of the decree of Herceg-Bosna. Did you
19 A. Yes, I did. I don't want to waste more of your time because I
20 know time is more important.
21 Q. Tell me, what is the difference, briefly?
22 A. The difference is that the word "minister" is mentioned straight
23 after the words "commander". It says here that the supreme commander may
24 delegate certain tasks of leading and commanding the armed forces to the
25 chief of Defence Department, and in that this section there is no
1 reservation present in the Croatian law except those concerning the use
2 of the armed forces. In the decree of the armed forces of Herceg-Bosna
3 this proviso is not included.
4 Q. Okay, you will tell us the rest later. Now, let us clarify for
5 the Chamber, if that's necessary, under the law of the Republic of
7 as supreme commander, was not able to delegate to the defence minister
8 the use of the armed forces; correct?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And pursuant to the Decree on Armed Forces of the Herceg-Bosnia,
11 the supreme commander could transfer to the head of the Defence
12 Department powers to use the armed forces?
13 A. Since that you recently told me that this Decree on the Armed
14 Forces of the community of Herceg-Bosnia was copied from the Law on the
15 Defence of the Republic of Croatia
16 if somebody was copying, they didn't copy it well or that they had some
17 other intentions, but this is not to me to speculate.
18 Q. But please be specific and precise in answering your question.
19 We've read the Croatian legal law. Can you tell us whether pursuant to
20 the Herceg-Bosnia Decree on the Armed Forces, is there a possibility for
21 the supreme commander to transfer the powers concerning the use of the
22 armed forces to the head of the Defence Department. We are talking about
23 the possibility, we are analysing this legal provision.
24 A. As a lawyer I can expound on my answer.
25 Q. No, please tell me about this, whether he can or cannot?
1 A. As lawyers, we are not supposed to read just one provision but
2 the context and I invoke the part of the chapter which says control and
3 command of the armed forces which is governed by Article 29 of the Decree
4 on the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna.
5 Q. Mr. Bozic, I'll have to interrupt you. I believe that you are
6 trying to avoid answering my question. You are -- you may answer with
7 one simple yes or no. My question is, whether pursuant to the Decree on
8 the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosnia is there a possibility for the supreme
9 commander to transfer his powers with respect to the use of the armed
10 forces, to delegate them to the head of the Defence Department; yes or
12 A. Yes, there is a possibility, but not only the use of the armed
13 forces but everything which is stated in Article 29 of the same decree.
14 I want to be precise. If you want me as lawyer to give you my
15 interpretation, can you cannot corner me and force me to say yes or no.
16 If I'm a lawyer who is supposed to do so when it's convenient to you, and
17 on the other hand, you want me to be a lawyer analysing a text, then let
18 me answer as a lawyer. Yes, it is true what you said, but also want to
19 specify that this delegation of powers is -- refers also to all the
20 powers in Article 29.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, the Chamber and
22 the Judges will assess the legal problem that has been raised, but to
23 make sure that this is on -- in the transcript and so that everybody
24 understands, in Article 47 of the decree of the Republic of Croatia
25 was adopted, it was mentioned that the supreme commander of the armed
1 forces can delegate to the minister of defence a certain number of
2 functions, controls and commands of the armed forces, but it is added
3 except for -- except those regarding the use of armed forces.
4 So in the Croatian text if, for instance, Mr. Tudjman wanted the
5 Croatian army to attack Austria
6 can delegate. He is the one who is responsible. But in Article 30 of
7 the Herceg-Bosna text, it is stipulated that the supreme commander of the
8 armed forces can delegate a certain number of powers or tasks to the head
9 of the Defence Department. Should this decree read -- be read on the
10 basis of the article of the Republic of Croatia
11 Judge will have to assess that. This is all we can say for the time
12 being. Please go on.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for counsel, please.
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Bozic, you say that you do not know anything about the Law on
16 Defence of the Republic of Croatia
18 A. Yes, you asked me and I'm telling you that this is the first time
19 I see it and read it.
20 Q. It will be most probably easy for you to take a look at
21 Article 22, Article 23, I presume?
22 A. Madam Alaburic, Croatian law or --
23 Q. That's correct. These articles govern the powers of the
24 government and you can compare them to the authorities of the HVO, the
25 Ministry of Defence's powers. Would it take you a long time to go
1 through all these?
2 A. It would take me some time. I wish during my proofing you had
3 spoken about this with me. It would be farfetched for me to give you
4 opinions out of hand.
5 Q. Out of what you just said, the Trial Chamber may conclude that I
6 took part in the proofing for your testimony, but I would like you to
7 tell everybody in the courtroom whether I took part in the proofing or
9 A. No, no. You did not take part in the proofing, but I said had
10 you wished to do so, I would have been glad to talk to you about my
12 Q. We will have occasion to compare those two pieces of legislation
13 and we will see that the decree from Herceg-Bosna is a copied text of
14 this Croatian law. I wanted to --
15 MR. KHAN: I've tried not to interject and disturb my learned
16 friend's flow but there is a discernible proclivity, in my respectful
17 submission, in questions to infect them by statements of evidence. The
18 same issue has been raised very properly by my learned friend from the
19 Prosecution, and I would ask that my learned friend desist.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Ms. Alaburic, what do you
21 think about that?
22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, given that I worked
23 on those regulations and I think that I know them quite well, I think
24 that I stated something which is known to everybody and that anybody who
25 would take a look at these two documents could find for themselves. If
1 anybody in this courtroom thinks that I add a statement that needs
2 proving, I apologise, this was not my intention. Your Honours, you will
3 have both those documents, you will be able to compare them, to highlight
4 the differences, et cetera.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Alaburic, could you not
6 ask the witness a question and say that from your point of view, i.e.,
7 the Petkovic Defence, you could have said, Well, the interpretation
8 General Petkovic made of these documents is the following. What do you
9 think, and the witness would say, I agree or I do not agree. And that's
10 it. Otherwise we could go on for hours on this issue.
11 I've tried to guide you by saying, well, we have this text, we
12 have the other text, and regarding the legal problems the Judges will
13 have to make a decision. You nevertheless went on. Your witness, which
14 you are cross-examining, is someone who knows law as well as you do, so
15 you can move on to a main question and say, Well, if I give you this
16 interpretation of the text, would you agree with me or not, and you will
17 see what the witness says.
18 And like that we will be able to save time. Right, Mr. Khan?
19 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to
20 refresh everybody's memory in this courtroom that in the preceding weeks
21 we had an expert witness for the Defence team of Bruno Stojic. In
22 paragraph 131 of the expert report, Bruno Stojic's Defence expert witness
23 said that Herceg-Bosnia regulations were copied Croatian legislation and
24 regulations. Therefore, I believe that this is an argument which has
25 been presented by the Defence team of Mr. Stojic to the Trial Chamber.
1 Now I wanted to demonstrate that this was really so, and this is why I'm
2 showing you this Croatian piece of legislation, and I believe that it is
3 very important for interpreting a piece of legislation if you are copying
4 a provision and you do not copy it in its entirety, this demonstrates the
5 legislators intent. And this is all I wanted to say in connection with
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica.
8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would like to remind
9 you of another thing concerning the Decree on the Armed Forces
10 Mr. Marijan said and elaborated at length, the Article 178 of the Decree
11 on the Armed Forces.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. I think there has been perhaps a
13 misunderstanding. Mr. Khan's objection is not as to whether it is
14 correct what Ms. Alaburic states or not, but the fact that she discusses
15 the issue rather than asking questions. Now Ms. Nozica also starts
16 discussing the issue and this is not what we should be doing. We should
17 put questions to the witness and hear his answers with as little personal
18 comment of counsel as possible.
19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Fine. Your Honours, as far as the
20 claim of what Mr. Marijan said, I would like to remind the Bench because
21 the debate continues. It did not cease and desist after my learned
22 friend Khan's intervention. Mr. Marijan said this was a compilation of
23 two Yugoslav laws speaking about the Decree on the Armed Forces. He
24 specifically explained that and he invoked Article 178 of this decree,
25 Decree on the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna, this is what we are referring
1 to. And let me remind you that what Mr. Marijan wrote in his report
2 cannot be applied to all pieces of legislation.
3 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I will no longer
4 dwell on this issue. I'd just like to respond to my learned friend, lead
5 counsel of Mr. Stojic, that she misinterpreted the statement of the
6 expert witness Marijan. But let us stop there.
7 Q. Mr. Bozic, pursuant to the Decree on the Armed Forces of
8 Herceg-Bosnia, what were the powers and the competencies of the
9 Main Staff of the HVO?
10 A. Am I supposed to take a look at that part of the decree?
11 Q. Yes.
12 A. Well, could you tell me which article, I never remembered the
14 Q. I'm going to mention the numbers of articles dealing with the
15 Main Staff, but I don't believe they will be of help. Article 11 and 18.
16 You may take a look at all the other articles, and please tell me what
17 were the tasks of the General Staff pursuant to the Decree on the Armed
19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Objection, Your Honours. I would
20 like to hear from my learned friends to cite which part of
21 examination-in-chief this question is dealing with, and as far as I can
22 remember, I never asked the witness about matters of the authority of the
23 General Staff.
24 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Simply the Decree on the Armed
25 Forces was subject matter of your examination-in-chief. This witness was
1 introduced to us as an expert who took part in drafting this regulation.
2 He explained the nomotechnical problems encountered with Article 34. He
3 explained the provision of Article 30 asked by the Defence counsel for
4 Mr. Bozic which governs Supreme Command and powers of the General Staff
5 are in direct connection with that, and this is why I believe my
6 questions refer to those questions in examination-in-chief. If the Trial
7 Chamber should decide otherwise, I will not object for the time for these
8 questions to be deducted from my total time credit for the Defence of
9 General Petkovic. Pursuant to your guide-lines.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say a couple of things,
11 Your Honours?
12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Let the transcript finish.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, I think you should limit yourself to
14 answering questions because otherwise we get too far. I'm sorry, I can
15 understand that you have the feeling that you would like to say this and
16 that, but you are completely dependent on the questions that are put to
17 you. Please continue, Ms. Alaburic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was about to answer a statement,
19 Your Honours.
20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Bozic, please answer my questions.
22 What are the powers of the Main Staff pursuant to the Decree on
23 the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosnia?
24 A. Before I answer I must say that you misquoted me. I said I did
25 not work on drafting this decree. I will tell you, in Article 11 the
1 task described under Article 10, paragraph 2 of this decree. The General
2 Staff shall be founded within the Defence Department. Second paragraph,
3 the structure of the General Staff shall be prescribed by the supreme
4 commander of the armed forces who shall appoint the General Staff
6 Q. Mr. Bozic, we all know how to read the law. But tell us, please,
7 what are the powers of the General Staff pursuant to this decree? What
8 are the powers? What is it that the General Staff may do pursuant to the
9 provisions of this decree?
10 A. If it is so regulated, my opinion is that the General Staff is
11 connected with the supreme commander of the armed forces of the HZ-HB in
12 terms of structuring and the use of the armed forces of the Croatian
13 community Herceg-Bosnia.
14 Q. Mr. Bozic, please tell us pursuant to the decree. My question is
16 A. I read out from the decree.
17 Q. You did not read the powers. You said that General Staff is
18 being established, but this is not contentious, but I'm asking you about
19 the tasks of the Main Staff.
20 A. I don't know what you mean by asking that question.
21 Q. Let's see. In Article 9 it is said what are the tasks of the
22 HVO, isn't it so? In Article 10, paragraph 1, it is stated what are the
23 administrative and technical work in the field of defence and protection
24 of the Defence Department. Now I'm going to ask you what are the tasks
25 pursuant to this decree of the General Staff?
1 A. Following your question, it would seem that the decree does not
2 regulate or govern or specify the tasks of the General Staff, and this is
3 an omission and I just explained to you the way that we cannot read what
4 are the tasks of the Main Staff in the decree, but I see that through the
5 provisions of Article 11 and the decisions on the internal structure of
6 the General Staff adopted by Mr. Boban, and in that decision, the tasks
7 and the functions and the functioning of the Main Staff of the HVO were
9 Q. So can we presume, following what you said, that the decree does
10 not regulate the powers of the Main Staff; is that so?
11 A. It could be so, but I just provided a supplementary opinion on
12 the -- with respect to the decision on the internal structure of the
13 Defence Department which follows from the decree of the armed forces.
14 Q. No, no. We will come to that document but please limit your
15 answers to the decree. Is it true the decree does not govern the
16 authorities of the Main Staff?
17 A. No, it doesn't, just in the same way that it regulates for the
18 other bodies.
19 Q. If it doesn't, how are these regulated?
20 A. I said the decision on the internal structure.
21 Q. I'm asking you about the decree of the armed forces?
22 A. I don't know which articles you mean.
23 Q. Mr. Bozic, find any article in the decree that defines the
24 purview of the Main Staff, its powers.
25 A. I said that this section, the administration and the affairs of
1 the defence, the Main Staff is mentioned only in Article 11 and it's not
2 mentioned among the powers and authorisations.
3 Q. What about some other section?
4 A. Well, you help me.
5 Q. Well, you certainly read this decree in your proofing. If you
6 don't remember, tell me you don't remember and we'll go on.
7 A. I don't remember. We can move on.
8 Q. Mr. Bozic, since you worked at the Defence Department have you
9 ever come across the following legal issue, namely that regulations may
10 stipulate wide or narrow powers of the Main Staff, or rather, that the
11 political will may be to establish a strong Main Staff or alternatively a
12 weak Main Staff? Have you ever given this any thought?
13 A. No, I have not, not in that way, but you have given me food for
14 thought now. At any rate, this connection exists in this decree between
15 the Main Staff and the supreme commander. If he is that political will,
16 then we can talk about political will.
17 Q. Mr. Bozic, we are now exclusively at the level of regulations.
18 I'm asking you only about de jure and the political will that can be
19 discerned from a regulation?
20 A. I can't answer because I don't know which regulation you mean.
21 Q. Any regulation in the field of defence that would stipulate
22 issues important to the Main Staff, can we agree -- sorry. What did you
23 want to say?
24 A. You go on, I'll answer later.
25 Q. Can we say that as far as regulations adopted by the legislator
1 in Herceg-Bosna, that was the Decree on the Armed Forces, and that all
2 the other decisions were decisions of the president as an individual,
3 Mr. Mate Boban and Mr. Bruno Stojic as head of the Department of Defence?
4 A. You are right when you say that these were the documents, the
5 enactments, the Decree on the Armed Forces; and on the other hand, we
6 have decrees adopted by Mate Boban speaking of the Main Staff. And
7 speaking of Mr. Stojic, I believe the relationship between Mr. Stojic and
8 the Main Staff is precisely defined by those "bylaws," although they are
9 not really bylaws. Let me finish.
10 Q. You could have answered with a yes or no. Your answer is
11 perfectly understandable. Let's move on. What I want to say now is can
12 you answer the question about the political will to establish a strong
13 versus a weak Main Staff. Let's assume that the Croatian law on Defence
14 from 1991, as far as powers of the Main Staff are concerned, was
15 identical to the Decree on the Armed Forces of Herceg-Bosna, as we can
16 see, by comparing the relevant articles and all the other articles in
17 these two enactments. Now please look at the Law on Defence of the
18 Republic of Croatia
19 It's a document passed at the time when social democrats and
20 liberals were in power. Would you please look at Article 11. In that
21 Article 11 the powers of the Main Staff are identified in 31 items.
22 Mr. Bozic, I won't ask you anything specific about this, I'm just
23 using this as an illustration. Can you tell us, as a lawyer and an
24 assistant chief of the Defence Department, that indeed from a regulation
25 we can discern the intent of the legislator to establish a strong or a
1 weak Main Staff?
2 A. I can say that the intent of the legislator in all instances in
3 establishing any organ including the Main Staff, and I'm speaking about
4 the period 1992, 1993, in Herceg-Bosna when there was a provisional
5 authority and provisional organs, and we have to bear in mind that this
6 was an executive power and a commander of the same nature, so it's hard
7 to compare with well-regulated environments, but I agree with you that
8 all these organs are an expression of the political will expressed
9 through executive authorities.
10 And we have to look at the specific period when this was
11 happening in the community of Herceg-Bosna in the context of the
12 provisional, I repeat, provisional executive power in that area.
13 Q. Thank you for that clarification. We have all that in mind.
14 You said a moment ago, Mr. Bozic, that the position of the
15 Main Staff was actually defined by these decisions about the internal
16 organisation of the Defence Department; correct?
17 A. Yes. It's defined by the decision on fundamental organisation,
18 and later developed through the decision on internal organisation and the
19 Main Staff is regulated in a special way.
20 Q. It's not in dispute that the Main Staff is one organisational
21 units of the Defence Department?
22 A. I wouldn't call it an organisational unit because when we lawyers
23 speak, we have to be very precise. When we say that the Defence
24 Department consists of these sectors and within the Defence Department
25 there is the Main Staff, I agree with you, Main Staff, the Main Staff is
1 within the Defence Department. That's what I would agree with.
2 Q. But the Main Staff is in part of its powers directly connected to
3 the supreme commander; correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And in that sense, the position of the Main Staff was two-pronged
6 in a certain way?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. It has a relationship to the chief of the Defence Department and
9 another relationship towards the supreme commander?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Tell me, the Chief of the Main Staff was a member of the college
12 of the Defence Department?
13 A. I told you it was not a formal body with formal membership. It's
14 a body that met ad hoc, but somebody from the Main Staff participated and
15 represented the Main Staff at certain sessions of the college of the
16 Defence Department.
17 Q. The college of the head of the Defence Department was not
18 prescribed by any particular law or regulation?
19 A. You are correct, there was no particular enactment.
20 Q. Would it be correct to conclude, maybe I'm wrong, that the chief
21 of the Defence Department wanted to cooperate with the top people in
22 certain sectors and the Chief of the Main Staff so that they could
23 discuss together defence-related issues and try to find the best
24 solutions to certain problems topical at a certain time?
25 A. Yes, I explained that yesterday. I don't know how successful or
1 how clear I was, but those were meetings held from time to time to
2 discuss topics on which the opinion of the Chief of the Main Staff or
3 representatives of the Main Staff was sought. If those were specific
4 issues of interest to them, especially in preparation of documents that
5 we prepared towards the president of Herceg-Bosna and the president of
6 the HVO.
7 Q. From the documents, from the records of the college meetings, we
8 can see that you had very strict rules of work. There was an established
9 agenda, records were kept, you discussed certain topics of the agenda,
10 you adopted decisions; is that right?
11 A. You are right in part. There was an attempt to create such an
12 organisation, such a possibility to communicate, but there were meetings,
13 on the other hand, that were not really convened. Records were not kept,
14 there was no established agenda because situations sometimes required
15 some topics to be discussed ad hoc. But there were other sessions more
16 organised with records kept, with background material provided,
17 et cetera.
18 Q. Mr. Bozic, when progress reports needed to be made from, let's
19 say, a session of the HVO, was the report of the Main Staff part of the
20 report from the Defence Department?
21 A. As far as I remember, we informed all sectors of the
22 Defence Department and that part was part of the report to the Defence
23 Department, but it had special status because it was delivered to the
24 president of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna as the supreme
25 commander and the president of the HVO HZ-HB and it was not part of the
1 written report delivered to the sessions of the HVO HZ-HB, and it was not
2 discussed at such, but all members of the HVO HZ-HB had access to that
3 report of the Main Staff.
4 Q. When you needed to make programme of work, was the programme of
5 work of the Main Staff somehow included in the work programme of the
6 Defence Department?
7 A. The same applies, I believe, to the work programme of the
8 Main Staff, for the same reasons I already listed.
9 Q. In matters that are governed by the decisions on fundamental
10 internal organisation, was the Chief of the Main Staff answerable to the
11 chief of the Defence Department?
12 A. Yes, he was, but for a certain part of his powers and very
13 specifically defined issues in that field.
14 Q. All right. Mr. Bozic, now tell us, was there any issue where the
15 chief of the Defence Department was answerable to the Chief of the
16 Main Staff?
17 A. Well, in view of your previous question when I talked about that
18 relationship between the Chief of the Main Staff and the head of the
19 Defence Department referred to certain technical or professional issues,
20 and there was no document that stipulated that the head of the Defence
21 Department would be answerable to the Chief of the Main Staff.
22 Q. All right. We've dealt with the issue of documents.
23 In practice now, was there any situation where the Chief of the
24 Main Staff would call the head of the Defence Department to report to
1 A. Not that I know of.
2 Q. You said, Mr. Bozic, that the Chief of the Main Staff was
3 answerable to the head of the Defence Department in very specifically
4 defined issues?
5 A. Right.
6 Q. Let's try to define these issues because precise and exact
7 definition of these issues is of exceptional importance for a correct
8 understanding of the entire situation in Herceg-Bosna for the
9 Trial Chamber and for all of us in the courtroom.
10 Now, tell me, the establishment of military units, in section 8
11 of my binder, Mr. Bozic, you have documents for some of these issues. I
12 hope we won't have to open them, but just open section 8 to be ready.
13 A. Which number?
14 Q. Eight.
15 A. I can't see an 8.
16 Q. It's a batch of documents marked 8, the one but last section.
17 A. Where it says, "Basic organisation of the Defence Department"?
18 Q. It starts with document 586, correct. But perhaps there won't be
19 any need to look at it. Tell me, was the establishment of military units
20 within the purview of the head of the Defence Department?
21 A. We have to bear in mind one fact that you all know, Judges,
22 namely, that the military units were set up even before the Defence
24 Q. Mr. Bozic, I'm not asking for an historical overview of the
25 establishment of the HVO. I just want you to tell me whether the
1 establishment of military units, brigades, and other units was in the
2 purview, within the field of competence of the head of the Defence
4 A. Do I need to look at a document?
5 Q. First tell me if you remember.
6 A. I don't remember.
7 Q. Look at P 491. These are randomly chosen documents.
8 A. I found it.
9 Q. P 491, order by Bruno Stojic, dated 16 September 1992, relating
10 to the establishment of brigades. Now look at the next document, P 517,
11 an order by Bruno Stojic, also September 1992.
12 A. Which number?
13 Q. P 517. Establishment of brigades and the Mostar sector. Next
14 document, P 3149, an order by Bruno Stojic and Milivoje Petkovic, dated
15 3rd July 1993
16 have dozens of these documents. If your memory is refreshed, was the
17 establishment of brigades and other military units within the field of
18 competence of the head of the Defence Department?
19 A. I can't tell you exactly. You probably have in mind some
20 specific provision I can't remember, but I see here various orders signed
21 jointly by the Chief of the Main Staff and head of the Defence Department
22 so obviously in practice these things happened.
23 Q. Can I then conclude that you, in fact, don't know whether the
24 establishment of military units was within the purview of the head of the
25 Defence Department?
1 A. I can't tell you precisely because if you referred me to a
2 particular provision, it would be easier; but as I said, practice shows
3 that it happened.
4 Q. Mr. Bozic, I'm not going to show you individual provisions of the
5 decree so that you may confirm that this has been governed so by the
6 decree. We will read the decree ourselves. What we want you, as a
7 witness, deputy head of the Defence Department, to tell us whether
8 certain things were within the purview of the head of the Defence
9 Department or not.
10 Next question concerns the issues of public law and order. Was
11 maintaining public law and order part of the purview of the head of the
12 Defence Department?
13 A. Formally and legally I would say no, but having in mind the
14 realistic situation on the ground and given that there were many people
15 out in the streets wearing military uniforms, sometimes it was necessary
16 for the minister or, rather, head of the department for the interior,
17 together with the head of the Defence Department to resolve such issues
18 as may have cropped up.
19 Q. Could you tell me, if maintaining law and order that may be
20 disrupted by military personnel and the Defence Department was not in
21 charge of that, which other organ would have competence in this case?
22 A. Well, for military personnel, the Defence Department would be
23 supposed to be in charge of them, but I'm explaining you a situation
24 where civilians wore military uniforms, and as lawyers, we must say that
25 somebody is not a military personnel if they are wearing a uniform. They
1 are civilians in military clothes. But taking stock of the situation on
2 the ground at the time, I believe it was helpful for the department of
3 the interior and the Department of Defence to jointly tackle such issues.
4 Q. Fine. Could you take a look at the document corroborating what
5 you said, the fourth in this section, P 2578. This is an exhibit in
6 these proceedings. This is a joint order of the head of the Defence
7 Department, and the head of the department of the interior, dated
8 31st of May, 1993, concerning controls on exits from Mostar in connection
9 with looting of property and transfer of such property outside of Mostar.
10 Is this order an example of what you just described to us,
11 Mr. Bozic?
12 A. This is an example of what I just said and given that I had
13 worked in the police before, assuming my position in the Defence
14 Department, and since I yesterday said to the Chamber that I, although a
15 civilian, also wore a military uniform.
16 Q. Thank you. Do you recall whether the control over combat of
17 readiness over certain military units was part of the purview of the
18 Defence Department?
19 A. I do not understand your question. I'm sorry. What do you mean
20 by control over combat readiness?
21 Q. I will quote Article 17 on the decree of the armed forces:
22 "The combat readiness of the headquarter staff's institutions and
23 units of the armed forces is controlled and assessed by the Department of
24 Defence and the authorised commands and staffs of the armed forces."
25 So I'm asking you whether the control over the combat readiness
1 of certain units was within the purview of the Defence Department?
2 A. Commenting such a provision as read out loud here, the answer is
3 clear but practice shows how this was operationalised. I agree with you
4 that this provision governs the matter in this way. I have to apologise,
5 I'm not a military expert. I did my military service at a time and that
6 was it. But when discussing combat readiness and what it entails, I
7 would like to say to Their Honours that I cannot assess combat readiness,
8 whether it is equipment, materiel or whatever.
9 Q. Let's take a look at the next document, P 1418. This is a report
10 on the control of combat readiness, dated 4th of February, 1993,
11 submitted to the head of the Defence Department, chief of the
12 General Staff and the commander of the operational zone, concerning the
13 line of defence at Konjic.
14 A. I can see it.
15 Q. Take a look at the beginning of paragraph 1(a). It is stated
16 there that Defence line of the Herceg Stjepan Brigade and the
17 7th Suad Alic Brigade of the BH Army were visited. This is February
18 1993. Does this -- does it follow from this that together the HVO and
19 the BH Army are together manning the line of defence?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Does it follow from this document that this was an example of
22 controlling whether the defence line has been secured pursuant to the
23 professional regulations?
24 A. Yes, but let's take a look at the preamble of this report, which
25 says pursuant to the order of the Chief of the Main Staff, so and so
1 number, this control is being carried out.
2 Q. Yes, absolutely. I will hark back to Article 17 which say that
3 the Defence Department in cooperation with commands and staffs will do
4 so, so of course the Defence Department did form such tasks in
5 cooperation with other bodies.
6 The next question concerns the relocation and accommodation of
7 military units. Would this fall within the purview of the head of the
8 Defence Department, in your opinion?
9 A. In my opinion, yes, these would be matters of logistics
10 administration, supplies, et cetera.
12 those follow within the purview of the Defence Department?
13 A. I'm going back to the situation and the time when this unfolded
14 and I must tell you that we should be mindful that most of the people
15 that walked around in military uniforms and that the Defence Department
16 had to tackle, together with the civilian police and civilian
17 authorities, such issues.
18 Q. Thank you. Security matters dealt with by the SIS, were they
19 also matters falling within the purview of the Defence Department?
20 A. Well, the sector for security is one of the sectors within the
21 Defence Department.
22 Q. Does it mean that SIS work was part of the purview of the Defence
24 A. I can't tell you what this entails. I never analysed the
25 structure and the scope of work of other sectors apart from the sector
1 that I dealt with and that was the civilian affairs sector. If I were to
2 say anything else, it would be speculation.
3 Q. Let's follow a logic, Mr. Bozic. Did SIS perform the task within
4 its purview?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Was the SIS a sector within the Defence Department?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I'd like to correct the transcript in line 20, my question should
9 be deleted because in line 21, my question was registered and recorded
11 On the current page, line 20, I don't know how it ended up on
12 this page.
13 Mr. Bozic, you said that the SIS was a sector within the Defence
14 Department. Would it be logical that work of the SIS which is performed
15 by the -- within the Defence Department would fall within the purview of
16 the Defence Department?
17 A. Well, I said that there was an assistant head for security and
18 information and the SIS was a sector within the department of the
19 defence. This is an administration within a sector which is very
20 important to point out. If you wish to discuss this with me and your
21 goal is for me to frank, if I had known what the structure was and how it
22 was elaborated, I would have been very glad to answer those questions,
23 but I maintain that I did not know anything about the structures and the
24 relationship within the structures of other sectors. I cannot comment on
25 those. Whatever I may offer as an opinion would be speculation and I do
1 not wish to speculate in front of this Bench.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, for your
3 information, you have four minutes left.
4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
5 Q. Let's move on. Tell us, please, did military police affairs
6 within -- fall within the purview of the Defence Department?
7 A. Military police affairs were within the purview of the military
8 police administration, and I don't want to comment on what were the
9 relationship and the structure.
10 Q. I'm not asking you in terms of organisational chart. We all know
11 all of that. I'm asking you about the functioning, the functional
12 connections. I am asking you whether military police tasks were within
13 the purview of the Defence Department or some other organ of the
15 A. When I say yes, I mean that military police will regulate
16 traffic, that they would apprehend a soldier who is acting
17 inappropriately, that they would apprehend perpetrators of criminal
18 offences, and as a lawyer, I interpret their tasks to be as such.
19 Q. Fine. Were the tasks within the moral education department, were
20 they within the purview of the Defence Department?
21 A. Within the Department of Defence, there was a sector for moral
22 upbringing as a sector within the structure of the Defence Department.
23 Q. Yes, we know that, but please answer the question, whether those
24 tasks were part of the purview of the Defence Department?
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, I have to intervene.
1 The witness said, "I cannot comment on what was elsewhere in the other
2 sectors, I do not want to speculate," and he's uttered those words twice.
3 "I can comment on what I was in charge." Further questions are a waste
4 of time because the witness is obviously going to answer in the same
6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I'm very glad to hear that
7 Madam Nozica knows what is the witness is going to answer to my
8 questions, but I would like to say, however, that I'm not asking the
9 witness about anything within the administration of SIS and the
10 administration of military police. I'm talking to him about the issues
11 falling within the purview of the Defence Department which he, as the
12 deputy head of the Defence Department, should know; and if he does not
13 know anything, then the Judges will evaluate his testimony in the way
14 that they see fit.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will answer any question that you
16 may ask. You, nor Madam Nozica, neither I can say how I'm going to
17 answer until asked. I would like to say I am witness to justice as
18 Judge Antonetti said, and whatever I say I say because I knew about those
19 things because I witnessed them, because I worked on them. I do not wish
20 to speculate. Please do not bring me into a situation where although I
21 underwent proofing with Madam Nozica that she would know how I'm going to
22 answer. Ultimately, I will wish to be the witness to justice and I want
23 to maintain my identical relationship towards all the six co-accused here
24 in the courtroom.
25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. I do not doubt it Mr. Bozic. Had I doubted it, I would not have
2 spent so much time discussing these matters with you.
3 My last question, the health sector, health care for the wounded
4 and other issues of health, were they also part of the Defence
6 A. Health sector is part of the Defence Department. I confirm that
7 it was a sector within the Defence Department. I do not know how the
8 system within that sector was organised. Since this is your last
9 question, I must tell that you I was deputy head of the Defence
10 Department who had very specific duties and authorities which concerned
11 exclusively the civilian sector. Had I had other authorities and
12 knowledge, I would have answered differently.
13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours,
14 for the time you've given me.
15 Q. Thank you very much, Mr. Bozic, for your answers. I read your
16 statement to the Prosecution. I accept that you were in charge of the
17 civilian sector and this is why I did not ask any questions concerning
18 other sectors within the Defence Department?
19 A. Thank you very much, Madam Alaburic.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mrs. Alaburic.
21 Mr. Khan?
22 MR. KHAN: Just one clarification, with your leave. At page 67,
23 line 20, my learned friend Ms. Alaburic appears to have misunderstand the
24 nature of my leader's intervention. It was not anticipatory or seeking
25 to predict what the witness would say. My learned friend's objection was
1 referenced on what the witness had said in the past. It was on that
2 basis that she said that the further questions given the witness's
3 testimony that he was not confident on what was the organisation of other
4 structures was based. So I think that clarification perhaps should be
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. This is in the
7 transcript. Mr. Karnavas, anything? Or we were dealing with D4, we can
8 do D5, D6, D1, just as you want. Well, for Mr. Coric.
9 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning,
10 Your Honours. Good morning, everybody in the courtroom.
11 Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:
12 Q. [Interpretation] Before I start my cross, I would like to ask the
13 witness to be as slow as possible during the break. They asked me from
14 the interpreter's booth to make a pause after my question. You will see
15 on the screen the question entering the transcript, and I will of course,
16 after your answer, make a pause so that everything is reflected in the
17 transcript. Have you understood?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. First of all, I would like to follow-up on what Madam Alaburic
20 said towards the end of her cross-examination. I'd like to ask whether I
21 understood you correctly when you said in examination-in-chief and in
22 cross-examination today saying that your knowledge from the relevant time
23 concern work in the civilian sector of the Defence Department; is that
25 A. You are correct.
1 Q. Any extra knowledge that you may recall concern exclusively the
2 meetings that you attended; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. When you said to my learned friend Alaburic about what were the
5 tasks of the military police, as far as I could understand, you concluded
6 that on the basis of your own knowledge and following a certain logic,
7 following a lawyer's logic, without being privy to the documents of the
8 time or orders of the time concerning how the military police is
9 organised, how it's structured, the way of command of a military police.
10 Did I understand you correctly?
11 A. You understood me correctly.
12 Q. Given that there was talk today about certain documents whose
13 authenticity is being contested, and as far as I can see you had some
14 knowledge about that, I would like to show you a document, the middle
15 document, P 3220, a document in the middle of my binder, and before it's
16 going called up, I would like to ask you whether you know Mr. Coric and
17 Mr. Radovan Lavric's signatures; do you know?
18 A. I know what the signature of Mr. Coric looked like since his
19 documents reached the Defence Department when college meetings were being
20 prepared. I know Mr. Lavric because while I was chief of police in
21 Mostar, Mr. Lavric was head of the police station in Ljuboski and towards
22 the end of 1993 when the Office for Cooperation with UNPROFOR,
23 EC Monitoring Mission and other international organisations was being set
24 up, Mr. Lavric and I worked together. He was my deputy. We are still
25 friends, we meet frequently, both because of professional obligations and
1 privately, and I know how his signature looked like from the time that
2 you are referring to.
3 Q. Now, look at the document in front of you are or on the monitor.
4 Have you seen it before? Do you know anything about it and is it
5 Lavric's signature at the bottom?
6 A. I did not see this document before but I heard a comment about it
7 because I meet with Mr. Lavric who's a good friend of mine at least once
8 a month and for business even more frequently, because we both work in
9 our own companies, and I think -- in fact, I remember clearly it was in
10 the first quarter around Easter, perhaps, 2007. We found -- we met
11 somewhere in Medjurgorje at a luncheon and he told me, "You are not the
12 only one who has forgeries, there are forgeries with my own signature,"
13 and he was talking about those two days when he -- when documents
14 appeared related to the defence office in Jablanica because at that time
15 we worked together at the office in Mostar. And he told me that in talks
16 with you somebody from the Coric team mentioned a document allegedly sent
17 to Colonel Obradovic relating to prisons, and he said he had not signed
18 that document and some other details which he repeated to me recently
19 when we met, and he knew I was coming here; and he said they had no
20 communication, they from the military police, they had no communications
21 from the prisons in Gabela and Dretelj and the only connection between
22 the military in Dretelj was through the barracks, which is physically
23 separate from the prison compound, something that I wouldn't know because
24 I haven't been there myself. And I'm stating here before the Court what
25 Mr. Lavric told me. And he also told me that that was not his signature
1 and that a certain document that your team has presented bears his forged
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic, I may again be
4 disoriented or stupid or something, but I hear speaking of the signature
5 of Mr. Lavric, and I think the document is P 03220, and I don't find that
6 signature on these. There are two photocopies of B/C/S documents, and
7 perhaps you could help me find this signature.
8 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I'll explain,
9 Your Honour. We see typewritten words Valentin Coric; however, in this
10 case, some documents have been admitted in evidence and what is
11 handwritten looks like Lavric's signature, that's why we contacted
12 Mr. Lavric because on the face of it, this looks like some of his,
13 indisputably, his signatures. However, he says -- I mean, I don't know
14 what he will testify, but these signatures are very much alike, and the
15 witness has information from Mr. Lavric directly, and he told you what it
16 was because this is certainly not the signature of Mr. Coric. It looks
17 most like Lavric's signature. And Mr. Lavric was a deputy of Mr. Coric
18 at that time.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. It does not look like it was signed
20 by someone else for Mr. Coric. Normally there is then mention for
21 "rodja" [phoen] something like that, and this I do not see. That is had
22 he why I thought it purported actually to be the signature of Mr. Coric,
23 whereas Mr. Lavric is never mentioned even by name in either of these
25 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if you look
1 at the stamp more carefully, I have a better copy here if you want it, to
2 the left of letter V in Coric's name, we see that there is an illegibly
3 written Z and A. But we can see that something it written on this stamp
4 on top of the letters O S in the word Mostar.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let us try to understand. If I
6 understand correctly, the document we have here is a forged document.
7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Yes. And since I
8 received this information from Mr. Lavric, I got up every time in the
9 courtroom and repeated the same thing. This is perhaps not the time to
10 say this, this is something I should discuss with my witnesses later; but
11 there are other indications that what I'm saying is right. Namely, the
12 log-book of Heliodrom which has been admitted into evidence and this
13 document was never received there. But I repeat, I will have a witness
14 who is directly linked to that.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I understand that more clearly
16 now. This document P 3220 has probably been admitted. Okay. We'll take
17 note of that.
18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. I'd like to move on to a different subject now.
20 Mr. Bozic, how often were college meetings held at the Defence
21 Department, those informal meetings you spoke about.
22 A. That depends. I said sometimes they would be held a couple of
23 times a month, sometimes they were well prepared with the agenda and
24 background material, as I told Mrs. Alaburic; sometimes that there was no
25 agenda, depending on what the situation called for.
1 Q. At some of those college meetings, Mr. Coric attending; right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. At these college meetings, was it possible, and it would seem
4 natural to me, to ask questions of any member of the college, ask for a
5 report, put an objection to his work if there were any problems or if
6 something needed to be discussed from the area of work of each sector.
7 A. The purpose of those meetings was to exchange information and to
8 pass certain documents that would go through further procedure to see who
9 needs to do what, to distribute obligations, and under the heading
10 current issues, you could discuss any matter at all, even if there was a
11 set agenda.
12 Q. Apart from these college meetings, were there even more informal
13 or less formal meetings? Because you were in the same buildings, was it
14 possible to go at any time to anyone's office to ask a question, to talk?
15 A. Certainly. I said that to Mrs. Alaburic to her question about
16 possibilities for communication, and I can answer the same to you.
17 Q. Do you know if the department of military police issued daily,
18 weekly, monthly reports or bulletins?
19 A. I know they did issue bulletins. I don't know whether they were
20 weakly or monthly but bulletins were certainly issued.
21 Q. Do you know who are the recipients or who had access to them?
22 A. I would really be guessing if told that you. I know that I saw
23 some of them, I read some of them, but who were the recipients, I
24 couldn't say. I don't remember that. If you showed me a bulletin,
25 perhaps I would tell you something more precise.
1 Q. Was this bulletin available to anyone within the Security Sector
2 and the Defence Department?
3 A. I told you, I saw some of them, and I had occasion to read some
4 of them. I suppose others did too. I can't be sure, but I suppose so.
5 Q. You also told us that there were semi-annual and annual reports
6 that would later be included in the similar reports of the
7 Defence Department; the military police department wrote semi-annual and
8 annual reports?
9 A. Yes. These reports were part of the summary report made by the
10 Defence Department and delivered to the HVO HZ-HB for further procedure.
11 Q. Tell me, while you were working at the Defence Department, did
12 you ever see an order or an instruction addressed either to the military
13 police department or Mr. Coric personally concerning taking specific
14 action in prisons in HZ-HB?
15 A. No, no, I don't remember seeing any such order.
16 Q. Did you ever hear a verbal order of that kind?
17 A. No.
18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this
19 concludes my cross-examination. Thank you, Mr. Bozic, I have no further
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Well, before the
22 break, let us see what you have to say, Mr. Ibrisimovic, will you have
23 any questions.
24 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, perhaps during
25 the break we can consult and then give you an answer after the break.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay.
2 Mr. Karnavas.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: We would welcome a break as well for that purpose
4 of consulting with our client.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fair enough. So let's have a
6 20-minute break. We'll meet in 20 minutes.
7 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 12.51 p.m.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Ibrisimovic.
10 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.
11 Speaking of the position of the Pusic Defence and the examination of the
12 other Defence teams our position is as you stated at the beginning of the
13 session, so we have no questions of this witness.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Ibrisimovic.
15 Mr. Karnavas.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Your
17 Honours. For the sake of brevity, I won't repeat what Mr. Ibrisimovic
18 just said, but we take the same position. There will be no
19 cross-examination of this witness.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Karnavas.
21 Very well. The Office of the Prosecutor has the floor.
22 MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours, all
23 those in and around the courtroom.
24 Your Honour, I'm going to start off by asking the Court's
25 indulgence on a number of grounds. By all indications, we appear to be
1 based on past experience and on the schedule that we've been given, ahead
2 of schedule a bit. I also note that today just in the course of this
3 morning, the Prosecution has been handed several hundreds of pages of
4 documents that we've just received for the first time.
5 Second, further, Your Honour, I can tell that you based on the
6 examinations conducted by Ms. Alaburic and to so some extent by the Coric
7 Defence there's substantial overlap with some of the outlines of that
8 that we have prepared or anticipated, and we are still also in the
9 process of adding a few documents, although I have to -- Ms. Winner and
10 her team were so efficient that we could get most of the binders together
11 and distributed during the break. But all that leads me to the past,
12 Your Honour, Prosecution would ask the Chamber's indulgence to begin
13 cross-examination tomorrow morning rather than starting today for all
14 those reasons.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] No, no, I can't agree. I can't
16 agree, Mr. Scott. This is my personal opinion, but I can't agree. We
17 have time constraints. Significant ones. You have five hours at your
18 disposal. After you, Ms. Nozica will probably have some questions to ask
19 to the witness during the redirect process, then Mr. Praljak will take
20 the floor, and the witness too, he also has time constraints. As the
21 Prosecutor in this case, I'm not going to tell you what you should be
22 doing, but you should be in a position at least to start the
23 cross-examination on a certain number of issues. You have one hour left
24 today, that shouldn't be any problem with you, and then you could
25 continue tomorrow to do the rest of the cross-examination. I'm sure
1 there are things that you are ready to address now.
2 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, obviously I'm in the Chamber's
3 hands, that goes without saying. Cross-examination is not a matter of
4 taking certain questions randomly. There is a certain order that makes
5 sense and a certain order. The order in which it was prepared is the
6 part that directly --
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As you wish. Hold on, hold on.
9 We are going to confer and then we will hand over a decision. And then I
10 will let you know what the decision of the Trial Chamber is.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has
13 deliberated. It was complicated, but the Trial Chamber decides that the
14 cross-examination will start tomorrow from 9.00 a.m., and the Prosecution
15 will be invited to use as best as it could the time allotted to it.
16 We'll meet again tomorrow morning at 9.00.
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.00 p.m.
18 to be reconvened on Thursday, the 5th day of
19 February, 2009, at 9.00 a.m.