1 Monday, 23 February 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Prlic not present]
5 [The accused Petkovic not present]
6 [The accused Coric not present]
7 [The witness entered court]
8 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, please call the
12 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
13 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-04-74-T,
14 the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al. Thank you, Your Honours.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Today is Monday,
16 February 23rd, 2009
17 Praljak, Mr. Petkovic. I'd like to say good afternoon to the lawyers, in
18 particular Mr. Khan who's come from very far. I'd like to also greet all
19 of the representatives of the OTP, the witness who is waiting to be sworn
21 Before we swear in the witness, I would like to give the floor to
22 the Registrar who has four IC numbers to give us.
23 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honours. Some parties have
24 submitted lists of documents to be tendered through witness Vegar Veso.
25 The list submitted by 2D shall be given Exhibit IC 926; the list
1 submitted by 3D shall be Exhibit IC 927; and the list submitted by 4D
2 shall be given Exhibit IC 928.
3 Thank you, Your Honours.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Registrar.
5 I would like to read a very brief oral decision regarding the
6 witness Kvesic. This witness is to testify on February 27th [as
7 interpreted]. The Praljak Defence has asked for 15 to 20 minutes for
8 this witness in order to be able to carry out the examination-in-chief
9 under Article 92 ter. The Chamber grants this request to carry out an
10 examination-in-chief under Article 92 ter of the rules and regulations
11 and has decided following: Stojic Defence will have one hour for the
12 examination-in-chief of this witness; the other Defence teams will have
13 an overall time of 30 minutes for the cross; and the Prosecution will
14 have one hour. Then the Praljak Defence will have 20 minutes for the
15 examination-in-chief under Article 92 ter; the other Defence teams will
16 have an overall time of 15 minutes; and the Prosecution will have 30
18 I see Mr. Scott has risen. Mr. Scott.
19 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. Good afternoon, Mr.
20 President, each of Your Honours, counsel, all those in and around the
22 Your Honour, in terms of the Prosecution's witness -- excuse me,
23 exhibit list for the witness Vegar, I'm afraid we're still finalising
24 that and we didn't quite make it before -- by 2.15. I've talked with
25 counsel for Mr. Stojic, and they've been gracious enough to indicate they
1 have no disagreement or objection. If we could file that by the end of
2 the court day, that would be appreciated. Thank you.
3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours and
4 everybody else in the courtroom. The Defence of General Praljak is
5 cognisant of the time given for the witness or that we requested earlier
6 on, but for organisational purposes and to be able to manage my time, I'd
7 like to tell the Court that we'll be finished with the witness in three
8 or four minutes because we are not going to have any additional questions
9 to his statement, so we're just going to do a formal verification of the
10 statement. Thank you.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Witness, could you
12 please stand in order to say the oath, please. Could you please declare
13 your name and first name.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Bruno Pinjuh.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your date of birth,
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 17th of September, 1958
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you already testified
19 before a Tribunal, or is it the first time?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You have never testified before
22 a Tribunal?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. What is your profession
25 or occupation?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a pensioner.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're retired. What are you
3 retired from? Were you in the army? Did you work for the
4 administration? Did you work for a private company?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] From 1978, I worked in a school as
6 a teacher, and during the war, I performed the duties that I was given,
7 and I am a military retiree.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. So you are retired from
9 the military. Would you please take the oath.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will
11 speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may be seated.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 WITNESS: BRUNO PINJUH
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let me give you some
17 information rapidly, but I'm certain that Madam Nozica has perhaps
18 already told you this. You are going to be answering the questions she's
19 going to put to you. After the examination-in-chief, the other Defence
20 counsel for the accused may ask you questions. It may also occur that
21 the four judges you see before you will ask additional questions, and the
22 Prosecutor who is seated to your right, there are two representatives of
23 the Prosecution here today, but only one of them will cross-examine you.
24 You have taken the oath, and, therefore, you are a witness before
25 the justice system. You will have no contact with anyone else, and if
1 your testimony continues tomorrow, you must spend the evening quietly in
2 your hotel room without telephoning to anyone, without sharing with
3 anyone what you have testified today. Of course, you can call your wife
4 or other members of your family to let them know that everything is okay.
5 That's all.
6 We will be having a break every hour and a half, a half an hour
7 break so that you can rest if at any point you feel comfortable, and of
8 course this could occur. It happens to the Judges, so it can also happen
9 to a witness. Just let us know, raise your hand, and we will have an
10 additional break. That's what I wanted to tell you at this point in
11 order for this hearing to take place in a constructive fashion and so
12 that we not have any particular issues.
13 Madam Nozica, I see you are ready. Go ahead.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Good
15 afternoon to everybody in the courtroom.
16 Examination by Ms. Nozica:
17 Q. Good afternoon Mr. Pinjuh.
18 A. Good afternoon, and greetings to everybody in the courtroom.
19 Q. As Judge Antonetti has just explained to you, I'm going to be
20 asking you some questions over the next two hours; that is to say, we
21 have a total of two hours for your examination, and I've already
22 mentioned a technical matter, but I'll repeat it now, and that is that we
23 have to pause, you and I, between my question and your answer so that
24 everything we say can be entered into the transcript.
25 Now, Mr. Pinjuh, I'm going to go through your CV briefly. As
1 you've already said, in 1978 you completed the pedagogical academy in
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. For the transcript, the town was Rijeka. And you became employed
5 that same year, in 1978, in Cerin, the primary school there in Citluk
6 municipality, as a teacher?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In 1992, you were a member of the 4th Company of the HVO Citluk;
9 is that right?
10 A. That is correct, yes.
11 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what period that was?
12 A. From the beginning of April until the beginning of June.
13 Q. And that same year on the 1st of June - 1992 is the year we're
14 talking about - the HVO of Citluk municipality appointed you chief of the
15 Defence Department in Citluk; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. So until the end of 1993, you performed those duties, and at the
18 beginning of 1993, you were appointed chief of the defence department of
19 Citluk in Citluk; right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you tell the Trial Chamber how you came to be appointed chief
22 and at whose proposal and who actually appointed you?
23 A. That was at the proposal of the municipal defence council and
24 municipality assembly of Citluk.
25 Q. And did the chief of the Defence Department of Mostar put your
1 name forward?
2 A. Not in 1992, no.
3 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, I'm talking about the beginning of 1993 when the head
4 of the Defence Department appointed you chief of the Defence Department
5 in Citluk, what was the procedure?
6 A. The chief of the superior administration which was superior to me
7 in Mostar put forward my name, made the proposal, and then Citluk
8 municipality approved it, and then after that I was appointed by
9 Mr. Stojic, the head of the Defence Department, and it was the head or
10 chief of the Defence Department -- defence office.
11 Q. So chief of the defence office in Citluk; right?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And you stayed in that position until July 1994 --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a technical question.
15 These issues are very complex, and we want to be perfectly clear and to
16 advance step by step. If I have understood correctly - but please do
17 correct me if I have misunderstood - Mr. Stojic appointed you to this
18 function, to this post, but he appointed you upon proposal by the
19 municipal council of Citluk. Does this mean that if the municipal
20 council of Citluk had not proposed you, Mr. Stojic would not have been
21 able to appoint you?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the head appointed me
23 at the proposal of the chief of the administration for the Defence of
24 Mostar with agreement from the municipal council of Citluk; and quite
25 possibly, I wouldn't have been appointed had the municipal council of
1 Citluk not agreed to it.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your response is the opposite
3 to what you said to the question put to you by the lawyer. You have just
4 said that Mr. Stojic appointed you upon proposal of the municipality of
5 Citluk. Could you tell us slowly, exactly how things occurred, how it
6 took place because it's extremely important. We cannot afford to make a
7 mistake. Could you please tell us again exactly how you were appointed.
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The procedure was as follows: The
9 chief of the administration of Mostar, which was the superior body to me,
10 defence administration, gave the proposal, put me forward, and the
11 municipal council agrees or does not agree, approves or does not approve,
12 and only after that does the head make the appointment.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. But if the municipal
14 council of Citluk said they didn't agree, could Mr. Stojic have appointed
15 you just the same? Are you absolutely certain?
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] We still don't seem to have the
17 answer on record in the transcript. In response to Judge Antonetti's
18 question, the answer was no. The Judge asked are you absolutely certain,
19 and the witness's answer was, yes, he is certain.
20 Q. Is that right, Mr. Pinjuh? Is what I've just said correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: As we are at this, I also found this rather
23 interesting. Could you explain, Mr. Pinjuh, why it was the chief of the
24 defence administration in Mostar who proposed you?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I assume that was because I was
1 already doing work of that kind, and so he thought that I'd be up to the
2 job and be able to tackle the duties I would be assigned in future.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. That is a good, fitting answer. I
4 had something different in mind. My question went to the organisation of
5 the military administration. We have heard quite a bit about the
6 organisation of the Ministry of Defence, and now comes up administration,
7 the chief of administration Mostar, which must be something that is not
8 the Ministry of Defence. Is it part of the Ministry of Defence? Is it
9 subordinated to the Ministry of Defence? Is Citluk within an area that
10 Mostar has higher responsibility for? I hope I made it clear what my
11 concern is, and thank you for your answer.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The defence administration of
13 Mostar is a military and territorial organisation, and Citluk is within
14 the frame -- comes within the frameworks of that administration. That's
15 how it's set up.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.
18 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I understand that the
19 Judges are always interested, and that gives me pleasure, but all the
20 questions that I have on my list for this witness move in that direction
21 to explain what the administrations are, what the office is, what its
22 relationship to the Defence Department is, what the documents are which
23 bear this out, how appointments are made, what the procedure for that is,
24 and what it was like in practice. So if you will let me move ahead, I
25 think we'll get to those interesting points very soon.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Ms. Nozica, I apologise. I plead guilty.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Well, thank you for your questions,
3 Your Honour, because from the questions you ask, I can see what is
4 important, and then I'll be able to gear my questions towards that.
5 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, you performed those duties until July, the chief of
6 the office in Citluk until July 1994, and in that same month, you were
7 appointed chief of the sector for personnel in the personnel
8 administration of the Ministry of Defence of the HR H-B; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Very well. Fine. Now, you stayed in that post until the 1st of
11 January, 1998, when you retired?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Fine. Now let's go back to 1992 again to explain matters.
14 During 1992 when you were the chief of the defence office in Citluk and
15 before you were appointed to the position by the head of the Defence
16 Department, who was your superior?
17 A. The Croatian Defence Council of Citluk.
18 Q. Very well. Now, after you were appointed chief of the defence
19 office in Citluk in -- at the beginning of 1992, who was your immediate
21 A. I've already said, the Croatian Defence Council of Citluk was.
22 Q. Either I'm wrong, or it's been recorded wrongly in the
24 After you were appointed chief of the Citluk Defence Department
25 at the beginning of 1993, after that period, who was your immediate
2 A. At the beginning of 1993, my immediate superior was the chief of
3 the defence administration Mostar, and the Citluk defence office came
4 under its jurisdiction.
5 Q. I see. Could you give us the name of the person who occupied
6 that post, chief of defence administration of Mostar, because through the
7 documents, that person will no doubt be mentioned.
8 A. At that time, it was Mr. Rade Bosnjak who occupied that post.
9 Q. Bosnjak, yes. Well, we'll put right the names, but Rade Bosnjak,
10 and was that throughout 1993 that he was chief of the Mostar defence
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. Fine. Now, during 1992, that is to say from the time
14 you started working in that area, and that was the 1st of June, 1993, to
15 be exact, until July 1994, the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, how
16 many administrations for defence were there?
17 A. There was the administration for the defence of Mostar, for the
18 defence of Tomislavgrad, Travnik, and Bosanski Brod, and later on, the
19 administration for the defence of Zepce as well.
20 Q. Tell me, please, how many defence offices were there within the
21 defence administration of Mostar?
22 A. There was the Mostar defence. That was Siroki Brijeg, Grude,
23 Ljubuski, Citluk, Ravno, Stolac, Capljina, Neum, and I think in February
24 1993, Jablanica and Konjic as well.
25 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, in general terms, general terms to start off with,
1 what were the main tasks of the offices and administration of defence
2 during the time that you worked there? Can you list them, the main
3 tasks, and then we'll look at them in greater detail on the basis of the
4 documents I'm going to show you.
5 A. Well, mostly, they were tasks to see that the records for
6 recruits were kept in order, mobilisation, replenishment of units,
7 recording, recruitment, and links with units of the local administration
8 in order to facilitate our work; mobilisation preparation, that is to say
9 the terrain and so on and so forth; and other tasks for the requirements
10 of defence.
11 Q. So you said record-keeping for recruits, and then you said
12 mobilisation for recruits, replenishment of the units?
13 A. Yes to all that.
14 Q. Recruitment again?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And information and surveillance?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Or monitoring and surveillance?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So this method of work or the tasks that you did, were they
21 regulated by the rules governing the armed forces of HZ-HB?
22 A. Yes, this was precisely determined.
23 Q. All right. Now, would you take a look at my first document,
24 which is P 00289, the first document in my binder.
25 A. I don't have any binders.
1 Q. You will be given them in just a moment. Here they are. May we
2 take a look at the first binder because there are two, binder number 1
3 and binder number 2, and in one you'll find the first document, the
4 decree governing the armed forces.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, Mr. Pinjuh, this is a decree dated the 3rd of July, 1993, so
7 can we go through -- 3rd of July, 1992. Can we go through the articles
8 as they affected your area of work, and let's look at Article 7 to begin
9 with. It regulates matters of your material requirements and
10 responsibilities. So did you have tasks within this field as stipulated
12 A. Yes, we did.
13 Q. Please look at Article 9, which refers to the powers of the HVO
14 HZ-HB in the area of defence and says under 5:
15 "Enacts regulations on the application and method of carrying out
16 mobilisation of men and materiel."
17 And 6: "Decides on carrying out mobilisation."
18 In your experience, is this how mobilisation was carried out?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Please look at Article 10, which refers to the obligations of the
21 Defence Department and which says that the Defence Department carries out
22 tasks relating to points 9 and 18, items 9 and 18. Mr. Pinjuh, we have
23 seen these documents more than once, so I will not dwell on them long,
24 but under 9 it says the mobilisation and manpower levels of the armed
25 forces and then also material obligations. Is that what it says here?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. In item 18 it says: Ensuring the reinforcement and mobilisation
3 of the armed forces.
4 A. Yes, or, rather, the bringing up to manpower levels.
5 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, please now look at Article 12, and this is linked to
6 one of the questions asked by Their Honours. It says in Article 12:
7 "To carry out defence tasks ..." and in item 1, it says: "As
8 part of the Defence Department, administrations for defence and offices
9 for defence shall be established."
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So it says the decision on the numbers and headquarters and the
12 areas in which defence administrations and defence offices shall be
13 active will be passed by the HVO at the proposal of the head of defence.
14 Is that how it was, Mr. Pinjuh?
15 A. Yes, that was the procedure.
16 Q. Look at Article 13, which refers to defence administrations and
17 says that these are administrative and military territorial bodies
18 carrying out professional work relating to the armed forces under the
19 guidance of the head of defence; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And are these tasks enumerated here under numbers 1 to 11?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Under numbers 1 and 2, is this mainly referring to tasks which
24 both administrations and offices dealt with most often in 1992 and 1993?
25 A. Yes, almost all the time.
1 Q. Article 14 of this decree refers to defence offices which shall
2 be constituent parts of the defence administration and shall in
3 particular perform the following tasks: Keep records of military
4 conscripts, keep the records of materiel and equipment, and introduce
5 conscription for defence needs. I'm cutting this short because everyone
6 can see the text. Are these the main tasks that the offices for defence
7 dealt with? I'm asking you this for you to confirm because you are the
8 chief of one such office.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Please now look at Article 33. This refers to raising up to
11 manpower level the armed forces. We have already established that this
12 was one of the main tasks that both the defence offices and defence
13 administrations dealt with; is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In Article 33, the procedure for raising the manpower levels is
16 described, and in Article 35, we see that units and institutions are --
17 have their manpower levels raised according to the military assignments
18 and the priorities, and this is done by the offices for defence?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now we'll move on to other kinds of tasks, which you said also
21 took up quite a lot of your time in 1992 and 1993, and that is
22 mobilisation. Mr. Pinjuh, tell me, how long was mobilisation of the
23 armed forces carried out in 1992 and 1993 while you were working on this?
24 A. Well, in my experience, starting from the 10th of July, 1992
25 when it was declared, it went on until the end of the war, so
1 mobilisation was carried on on a permanent basis, and it was never fully
3 Q. All right. Article 36 says that mobilisation can be general or
4 partial in scope?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Article 37 says that mobilisation shall be ordered by the
7 president of the HZ-HB. That's how it was, Mr. Pinjuh?
8 A. Yes, it was.
9 Q. Article 38 says the following:
10 "The preparation and implementation of the mobilisation of the
11 armed forces shall be the responsibility of: 1, the head of the Defence
12 Department of the HVO for preparing and implementing the mobilisation of
13 the armed forces and the commanders of staffs, units, and institutions of
14 the armed forces for preparing and implementing the mobilisation of the
15 staffs, units, and institutions under their control and command."
16 Is that how it was, Mr. Pinjuh?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, could we now look at the next document, simply to see
19 whether this was prescribed in another decree, as well, and that is
20 00588. This is the decree on the armed forces of the Croatian Community
21 of Herceg-Bosna. The document is P - I don't see it in this transcript -
22 P 00588. Yes, I see it now. So this is the decree on the armed forces
23 of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, and it is dated from October,
24 the 17th of October, 1992. Have you found it, sir?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Very briefly, let's look at Article 7, which is identical to the
2 previous decree that we have seen; is that correct?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Article 9, it's also identical?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And Article 10, it's identical; is it not?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Except that it's no longer item 18 but item 17 because in the
9 previous decree, the numbers were a little different?
10 A. Yes, and there's another difference, as well, in the numbers.
11 Q. Articles 12, 13, and 14, do they also prescribe the same as the
12 previous decree?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, let's look at Article 33, which deals with raising the units
15 up to manpower level. That's Article 33, 34, and 35. Do they regulate
16 this area in the same way as before?
17 A. Yes. As far as I can see, the provisions are the same.
18 Q. There is one change, which is in Article 34.
19 A. Yes. 34.
20 Q. To be quite precise, it's in paragraph 2, which says that:
21 "Commanders of brigades and high-ranking officers shall be
22 appointed ..." and so on, and Article 35, which refers to defence offices
23 remains the same. Article 36 remains the same. You'll have to confirm
24 because I'm not allowed to testify.
25 A. Yes, yes. Please excuse me.
1 Q. In Article 37 --
2 A. It remains the same.
3 Q. Is there anything added in paragraph 2, so we don't have to go
4 back, Mr. Pinjuh, where it says that the president of the HZ-HB shall
5 order the mobilisation of the armed forces, whereas now a new paragraph
6 has been added which says mobilisation of the armed forces shall be
7 organised in accordance with the plan of mobilisation dynamics and
8 carried out in accordance with plans for the mobilisation of the armed
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. In Article 38, there is again something new. Have you noticed
12 it? It's in the last paragraph of Article 38.
13 A. It has to do with the regulations?
14 Q. Yes. And these shall be issued by the head of the Defence
15 Department. Regulations on preparation and execution of mobilisation of
16 the armed forces shall be issued by the head of the Defence Department.
17 All right. So we have seen how things were according to the decree on
18 the armed forces. Mr. Pinjuh, when did the defence administrations begin
19 to be active on the territory HZ-HB?
20 A. In late 1992 and early 1993.
21 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, do you know what document regulated the method of
22 selection of the chiefs of the defence administration and the other
23 operatives and other employees of the offices and administrations?
24 A. Well, there was a decision on the internal organisation of the
25 Defence Department.
1 Q. Very well. Can we now look at Document 2D 00567. This is the
2 decision on the internal organisation of the Defence Department, and it's
3 dated the 17th of October, 1992. Please take a look at item 8. We've
4 already said that the administrations and offices were active within the
5 scope of the Defence Department, and here we shall see who was in charge
6 of these administrations and offices and how the people were appointed.
7 It says here that the chief of the administration shall be in
8 charge, and he shall be responsibile to the head of the Defence
10 A. Is that how it was.
11 Q. And it says here chiefs of Defence Departments are appointed by
12 the HVO of the HZ-HB at the proposal of the head of the Defence
13 Department. Is that how it was, Mr. Pinjuh, or was there another chain
14 here in -- another link in the chain in practice?
15 A. To the best of my knowledge, the municipality where the Defence
16 Department had its seat participated with its approval.
17 Q. It further says assistant chiefs in the defence administration
18 shall be appointed by the head of the Defence Department.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All other operatives and employees in the defence administration
21 shall be assigned by the chief of the administration with the approval of
22 the head of the Defence Department or a person authorised by him.
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. And now, we'll move on to defence offices which are mentioned in
25 item 9. It says here that chiefs of the defence office manages the work
1 of the defence office, and he is responsible for his work directly to the
2 chief of the defence administration.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And through the chief of the defence administration to the head
5 and deputy head of the Defence Department.
6 A. Yes, that's correct.
7 Q. And we are now coming to the question of His Honour Judge
8 Antonetti. It says here the chief of the defence administration --
9 defence office shall be appointed by the chief of the defence
10 administration, or, rather, he shall be appointed by the head of the
11 Defence Department with the approval of the municipality.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And then it says here all other operatives and employees and the
14 defence officer are appointed by the chief of the defence office of the
15 approval of the Defence Department. You did that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Or a person authorised by him and with the opinion of the chief
18 of the competent defence administration; is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. So the opinion of the head of the defence administration was
21 sought. So Mr. Pinjuh, the procedures were as described here with the
22 addition made by you in the case of the selection of the chief of defence
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Could you now please take a look at the next document. We won't
1 dwell on it, but let's look at it. It's P 02477. It's the decision on
2 the internal organisation of the Defence Department of the 20th of May,
3 1993. Mr. Pinjuh, we have -- or, rather, you have looked at this
4 decision, and as regards the manner of selection of officers in -- or,
5 rather, employees in both the offices and administrations for defence,
6 there were no changes here in relation to the previous documents?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Let's take a look at 2D 1199, please. 2D 1199. Yes. It's
9 correct in the transcript. Mr. Pinjuh, you have before you a document
10 signed by the head of the Defence Department, and it's a proposal for the
11 appointment of the head of the defence administration for Mostar, who was
12 your superior; is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Let's take it step by step.
15 A. All right.
16 Q. So this proposal is addressed to the Croatian Community of
17 Herceg-Bosna, Croatian Defence Council?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And it says that it is based on -- it's issued pursuant to
20 provision to the provisions of item 7 of the resolution, and it says that
21 it proposes that Mr. Rade Bosnjak from Mostar be appointed the head of
22 the defence administration who had served up until then as the head of
23 the HVO municipal headquarters in Mostar.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And it says:
1 "I also inform you that we have received a positive opinion from
2 the Croatian Defence Council from Mostar municipality regarding this
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, you know that this is the procedure through which Mr.
6 Bosnjak was appointed?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, let's look at 2D 1225. You have seen many such decisions.
9 They are all identical, and because of the shortage of time, I have
10 selected only two to illustrate to the Court whether this was the model
11 used for all appointments.
12 A. Yes, that was the procedure.
13 Q. Here we have a document signed again by the head of the Defence
14 Department, and it's dated the -- it's January 1993, and he is issuing a
15 decision in the office for defence in Odzak municipality. Slavko Bago is
16 appointed head of the defence office in Odzak, and in the statement of
17 reasons, it says:
18 "At the suggestion of the head of the defence administration of
19 Bosanski Brod and with the previous consent of the Croatian Defence
20 Council of Odzak municipality, the head of the Defence Department has
21 decided as previously stated in this decision ..." and we even have here
22 a legal remedy described.
23 A. Yes, that was the procedure.
24 Q. And were you appointed according to that same procedure?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Unfortunately, we couldn't find your letter of appointment, but
2 it would have been the same as this; right?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Now, we have an agreement here, an agreement signed by
5 Mr. Stojic, we saw in which cases he gave his agreement. That is
6 document 2D 1206.
7 A. Yes. Whereby Mr. Abdulah Kasim Primeca, born in 1963, be
8 appointed a higher clerk in the Defence Department.
9 Q. So this is for the appointment of these individuals, and all that
10 was necessary there was an agreement and consent by the head; is that
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. All right. Fine. Now, we've looked at the legal frameworks and
14 the way in which appointments were made, the procedure thereof. Can you
15 explain to the Court how the internal setup, what the internal setup was
16 of the defence administration and office?
17 A. There was a decision and rules of procedure within the frameworks
18 of the offices for defence within HZ-HB, and it regulated all these
20 Q. Can we take a look at document P 00988 now, please. Have you
21 found it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you explain to the Court what kind of decision this is, who
24 brought in this decision, and was it one of the documents you mentioned?
25 A. It was the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, the Croatian
1 Defence Council from 1993 that passed this decision. I can't see the
3 Q. That's fine. But as it says in the preamble, it's the HVO HZ-HB
4 who is making this decision; is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can we look at a decision that you mentioned -- or rather, this
7 is the document you mentioned. Now let's look at P 1553 next, please.
8 A. It is regulations on the internal organisation of the defence
9 offices and administrations on the territory of the Croatian Community of
10 Herceg-Bosna, and it is passed by the head of the Defence Department, Mr.
11 Bruno Stojic.
12 Q. All right. Fine. Now, Mr. Pinjuh, let's look at Article 3 of
13 these regulations briefly where it says that a united internal -- that
14 there's a united internal organisation for all the defence offices and
15 united systemisation, that is to say, who occupies what post and so on;
16 is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, look at Article 4, please. And it says that a uniformed
19 sector for the defence offices are prescribed for the municipalities
20 depending on the number and seats, and we have the work post set out for
21 people working in those offices; is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And this brings us to the question of regulating the headquarters
24 of the administrations and offices and who passed this decision, what the
25 administrations -- defence administrations are, and what the offices are.
1 A. The HVO HZ-HB makes the decision as to the number of people
2 working in the general area and the number of offices or administrations.
3 Q. Let's now look at P 00700. It is a proposal for decision on the
4 number of seats for the -- and headquarters for the defence offices and
5 so on. Is this proposed by the head of the department to the HVO HZ-HB;
7 A. Yes. And as far as I remember, there were two more, two other
8 amendments to the proposal.
9 Q. For the transcript, I'd like to emphasise that all these
10 decisions are ones that we showed to witness Slobodan Bozic, so there's
11 no need for us to go through them all again. But just look at the next
12 document, which is P 00767, and it is the minutes from the 11th session
13 of the Croatian Defence Council dated the 18th of November, 1992, and
14 under point 4 we see that there was a discussion of this proposal and
15 that it was adopted after a debate; is that right?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Now, Mr. Pinjuh, you said that there were two other amendments.
18 Can you confirm what these amendments were, if you remember, and can you
19 confirm whether the same procedure was applied for those amendments?
20 A. I remember that in February in the defence administration of
21 Mostar, Konjic and Jablanica were attached, and in the second amendment
22 it was the formation of the 5th administration for the defence of Zepce
23 with all the attendant defence offices, and the procedure was the same
24 once again.
25 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, Mr. Pinjuh, as the chief of the
1 defence office, did you compile any reports, and if so, what kind of
2 reports were they, and who did you send them to? Who were they addressed
4 A. Yes, we did compile six monthly and annual reports, and we sent
5 them to the defence administration, which was in my case the Mostar
6 administration, and then they would send them on to the head and deputy
7 of the Defence Department. As far as I know, they were also used in
8 reports written for the government sessions of the Croatian Defence
10 Q. Did you compile any other periodical reports, for example, except
11 for these half-yearly and yearly reports?
12 A. Yes, if the administration required and if the circumstances and
13 situation required it as well.
14 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, let's look at document P 4699, which
15 is a report on the work of the Croatian Defence Council for the period
16 from January to June 1993.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And in that report, take a look at page 5, please, of the
19 Croatian version, and it is page 3 of the English. And it talks about
20 the Mostar administration area, which is the area to which your office
21 belonged, and we can see that from the first sentence there. I'm just
22 going to point out certain sections, and we'll comment later, and I think
23 this is important. Let's see if that was the case.
24 "In its work ..." and that's the second sentence of paragraph 1.
25 "In its work, it paid special attention to the recruitment,
1 reinforcement, and mobilisation of reservists."
2 Now, Mr. Pinjuh, they are the basic tasks that you yourself
3 mentioned at the beginning of your testimony here this afternoon; is that
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. It goes on to say:
7 "This administration will have final and exact date on the 19th
8 of July, 1993, by which time mobilisation is to be completed in all the
9 municipalities except Mostar. In the next period, its activities will be
10 directed at the municipality of Mostar
11 well known reasons."
12 Now, Mr. Pinjuh, tell us, please, can you remember what those
13 well known reasons were which had a bearing on the fact that in this
14 Mostar administration report those reasons are mentioned?
15 A. Well, I remember that on the 30th of June, 1993, members of the
16 Croatian Defence Council who were Muslims by ethnicity disarmed their
17 combatants, Croats, from the HVO and that in actual fact this was a
18 declaration of war on the Croatian Defence Council in the area. And that
19 is why the reports -- the order of the reports was disrupted, and that's
20 why there wasn't better information in Mostar at the time. There was a
21 general disruption.
22 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, did these events influence the further work towards
23 mobilisation in the area, especially when it came to the area under the
24 Mostar defence administration?
25 A. Well, yes, certainly, because in 1991 when the aggression by the
1 Serb army started in the territory of the HZ-HB, units were established
2 on the basis of volunteers, and both Croats and other ethnicities manned
3 those units. However, after this particular event, it wasn't realistic
4 to expect the Muslims to respond to the call-up for the HVO units, and
5 that's why it disrupted the situation in Mostar.
6 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, we'll come back to those issues, but I'll move on and
7 look at the report some more. It says here that the Home Guards question
8 was resolved in the shortest possible time. Now, we'll talk about Home
9 Guards later on, but were you involved in this work?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Fine. It says on the basis of the decision to train recruits,
12 and your name is mentioned, and it says how many recruits responded and
13 what training courses were organised. So were you involved in that work
14 too, Mr. Pinjuh?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. All right. Fine. Look at page 7, please, of the Croatian
17 version, and that is page 5 in the English. Once again, paragraph 3 on
18 page 5. Page 5 in the English, please. Have you found page 7?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. There's an observation made here. For the efficient work of the
21 administrations and defence offices, there must be a proper record of
22 personnel and materiel and technical equipment, and the chiefs come
23 across -- of the departments come across various difficulties in their
24 work in collecting information about recruits who were mobilised in
25 different ways without the knowledge of and recording by the office of
1 people who are registered as recruits.
2 A. Yes, that's what the situation was.
3 Q. What was it? Where was the problem? Where did the problem lie?
4 What was the problem here because this relates to the problems that the
5 defence office was encountering.
6 A. To a great extent, the fact that people went into the units and
7 left units without any record of that being kept, that was a problem.
8 People tried to avoid the call-up. They would give false addresses and
9 things like that, so it was very difficult to keep abreast of the
10 situation and keep a proper and timely record of the recruits.
11 Q. So that was a continuous problem, was it, of the office in 1992
12 and 1993?
13 A. Yes, throughout 1993.
14 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, we still have time before the break, and I think that
15 we can try and go into another very important area. And I'm going to
16 question you about the Home Guards and Home Guard units and how that was
17 resolved, and I think that through my questions, we'll be able to answer
18 the question of how the manpower levels were brought up to scratch.
19 Now, in the 1993 report, we saw that the manpower levels were
20 replenished in the briefest space of time. Can you explain to the Court
21 how this issue was resolved in actual fact?
22 A. Well, the president of the HZ-HB, Mr. Boban, passed a decision on
23 the establishment of the Home Guards and their units, and on the basis of
24 that decision, the defence office and the Main Staff through their own
25 chains of command acted upon that, and specifically when we were
1 concerned, the defence office would precisely define -- we were given
2 precise assignments in that whole process and procedure, and that's why
3 we were able to get through it fairly quickly.
4 Q. Let's look at the first document from this series, and then we'll
5 continue discussing how this was done technically. It was P 00680.
6 Document P 00680. Have you found it?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. This is a decision on the establishment of the Home Guards passed
9 by Mate Boban, president of the HZ-HB, on the 3rd of November, 1992;
11 A. Yes, right.
12 Q. Now, tell us two things: What were the tasks of these Home Guard
13 units, and who were the members of those Home Guard units? Who became a
14 member of the Home Guards?
15 A. The members of the Home Guard units were supposed to be military
16 recruits who didn't -- which -- who did not have their wartime schedule,
17 wartime assignment, which meant that they were mostly elderly persons,
18 and their task was to guard important features, roads, and so on and
19 everything that was important to ensure the normal -- normal life in the
21 Q. Now, let's look at some of these articles under this decision,
22 or, rather, we are going to comment them later on, but let's read some
23 out. Article 5, it says:
24 "Units and headquarters of the Home Guard shall be subordinated
25 to the commands of operational zones" -- "operative zones and to the
1 General Staff" -- to the Main Staff in the chain of command."
2 Then Article 6 says: "Upon this decision coming into force,
3 those eligible for military service who have not been assigned their
4 wartime stations shall be transferred to the units of the Home Guards."
5 Is that it?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And Article 7 says:
8 "The head of the Defence Department shall have the authority to
9 prescribe regulations and draw up mobilisation plans for the Home Guard."
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All right. Fine. Now, let's look at the next document following
12 this decision, and it is P 1424.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I'd like to come back
14 to the Domobrani, the Home Guards. We've heard other witness, many
15 witnesses. In fact, we've spent thousands of hours in this case, so now
16 we have more precise knowledge of certain events. We know that several
17 prisons were guarded by individuals who came under this category. They
18 were older, and, therefore, they were asked to do that task. I see that
19 under Article 5, it states that these individuals were commanded by the
20 operational zone and the Main Staff.
21 In your opinion, a Domobrani who is assigned to guarding a
22 prison, what line of command does he come under?
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In my opinion, their unit which
24 sent them there, the unit they belong to, and above that unit should be
25 the operative zone or higher up.
1 MS. NOZICA:
2 Q. I asked to you look at document P 1424. It wasn't recorded in
3 the transcript. It's an order, as you explained, and it says that the
4 head of the Defence Department issued one such order -- a decision,
5 rather, and the second one was issued by the chief of the Main Staff. So
6 is this the decision issued by the -- by the head of the Defence
8 A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
9 Q. Well, here we can see an explanation as to why these units are
10 being established, and under 3 it says here that companies, battalions,
11 and regiments were established; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And this document was delivered to the Defence Department in
14 Mostar, Tomislavgrad, Travnik and Bosanski Brod. Is this what you
15 explained, that the department then sent the order down the chain?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Well, then, let's look at 01441. This is an order issued by the
18 chief of the Main Staff referring to the order issued by the head of the
19 Defence Department of the 5th of February as regards the establishment of
20 Home Guard units. Can you comment on this? What is this about?
21 A. Well, this is going down his chain of command to the operative
22 zones that he was in command of.
23 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, what was the task of the defence office, if you can
24 explain very briefly, as regards this order? What specifically did the
25 offices do pursuant to this order? What did your office do, to be
2 A. Well, in the first place, the office would carry out the call-up
3 according to the order pursuant to the plan, according to the military
4 occupational specialties or arms of service, and when a list had been
5 drawn up of those who had responded to the call-up, the list would be
6 delivered together with the files of these men to the Home Guard unit
7 which was being established.
8 Q. All right. Now, I'll ask you to look at P 1587. That is a
9 document signed by the chief of the defence administration Rade Bosnjak,
10 and it concerns the establishment of Home Guard units, and it refers both
11 to the order issued by the head of the Defence Department because as you
12 explained, this was sent to the administrations which further forwarded
13 it to the offices, and this one was delivered to the Konjic Jablanica
14 office. But what concerns us here is item 2, which explains how the
15 operative units of the HVO armed forces are brought up to manpower level
16 according to the mobilisation plan, and it says that this is to be
17 carried out in accordance with Article 78, 14, 34, 35, and 110 of the
18 aforementioned decree; the decree is the decree on the armed forces;
19 Article 17 and 80 of the rules on carrying out compulsory military
20 service; Article 9 of the decision on the internal organisation of the
21 Defence Department; and it concludes that all requests for reinforcement
22 or -- for reinforcement must be forwarded to this administration via the
23 OZ OR MOB, south-east Herzegovina
25 Mr. Pinjuh, can we first clarify the following: I'm interested
1 in this last sentence where Mr. Bosnjak says that all requests for
2 reinforcement must be forwarded through the zone of operations, and he
3 mentions the OR MOB. What does OR MOB refer to, if you know?
4 A. It's the organisational and mobilisational affairs department,
5 which was part of the zone of operations.
6 Q. And it says delivered or forwarded to this administration?
7 A. Yes. That should be the proper route and the proper procedure.
8 Q. Very well. Can you explain to Their Honours what documents were
9 necessary and had to be passed before a request for reinforcement could
10 be put in, so on what basis could reinforcement of units of the HVO be
11 carried out?
12 A. Well, first, there had to be plan of replenishment or
13 reinforcement, and this plan was based on assessments and proposal by the
14 department for establishment of the Main Staff, which forwarded it to the
15 administration for military conscripts and mobilisation, which then drew
16 up the reinforcements plan. It would send the plan back to the military
17 territorial commands and the administration for defence, and they would
18 send then excerpts from this order to the offices that had these tasks
19 within their purview.
20 Q. The administration for military conscription and mobilisation,
21 was it part of the civilian part of the Defence Department?
22 A. Yes, it was.
23 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, please tell us now who had to submit a request for
24 bringing military units up to manpower levels and to whom?
25 A. To bring up to manpower levels the military units, the requests
1 had to be submitted by the zones of operations to the administration, and
2 the administration would then forward this to the offices carrying out
3 the reinforcement, and we have seen that in the instructions issued by
4 Mr. Rade Bosnjak.
5 Q. That's the one we're looking at now?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, were there other kind of requests? For example, did
8 brigades write directly to the defence offices? Were there instances
9 where this procedure was deviated from in practice?
10 A. Yes. Yes, there were such instances. I have to say that there
11 were, yes.
12 Q. Yes, we'll deal with that later. When you were talking about the
13 proposal for the plan --
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I've tried to understand
15 exactly what your role was. As I look at the document on the screen and
16 also the document P 700, if I understand correctly - and please do tell
17 me if I misunderstood something because it's very important - at the very
18 top, you have the department of defence with Mr. Stojic. Then
19 underneath, there are four departments of the defence administration.
20 You have Mostar. You have Tomislavgrad, Travnik, and Bosanski Brod. And
21 in the department of the administration of Mostar, there are nine
22 districts: Stolac, Ravno, Capljina, Neum, Vuski [phoen], Grude, Siroki
23 Brijeg, Citluk, and Mostar. And if I've understood correctly, you were
24 the head in Citluk of the -- of that department of the administration.
25 Have I understood correctly?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I've understood correctly, you
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Very good. So you see
6 I've followed very closely.
7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
8 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, you said a little while ago that the mobilisation
9 plan was issued by the department for mobilisation of the Main Staff, and
10 then it was sent to the administration for conscripts and mobilisation,
11 and based on that they drew up a plan. So let's now look at the armed
12 forces from the Main Staff to brigade level. Who dealt with tasks
13 concerning mobilisation and reinforcement?
14 Let's look at document P 00502.
15 A. Just a moment, please.
16 Q. It's the next binder. Sorry, it's my fault for not mentioning
18 Mr. Bruno Stojic now here prescribes a temporary establishment of
19 the Main Staff. Can we look at positions 44, 46, 47, and 48, please.
20 Could you just comment on that? So 44, it says here above 44 the
21 department for organisation, personnel, and legal affairs, and then
22 there's a chief and a secretary; and 47 is an organisational officer; and
23 then there's mobilisation; and 48 is the officer for reinforcements.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Is this what you were referring to when you were mentioning the
1 proposal for the plan of reinforcement?
2 A. Yes.
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Can we please look at document 2D 927, and could you please look
5 at positions 21, 22, 23, and I will only say that this is also a document
6 dated the 10th of December, 1992, and signed by Mr. Stojic, and it's an
7 interim establishment of the command of the zone of operations.
8 As these are all abbreviations, could you please tell us who
9 these persons are in the positions I mentioned and whether they were
10 working on tasks having to do with mobilisation.
11 A. Yes. The assistant commander for organisational mobilisation and
12 personnel affairs, then there's a desk officer, a lawyer, and so on.
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Could we please look at the next
14 document. That's 2D 01370.
15 Q. This is a diagram showing the brigade establishment. You have
16 page 3 under 1 and 2, and in English, it's page 5, 1 and 2. Could you
17 please tell me on page 3, under 1 and 2, whether these -- this is the
18 organisational mobilisational department?
19 A. Yes. Officer, yes.
20 Q. Could you repeat your answer, please.
21 A. These were the assistant commander for organisation and
22 mobilisation and personnel affairs and then officer dealing with the same
24 Q. I have only two other documents to deal with in this area, and
25 then if it's time for a break, we can take a break.
1 Sir, did you have contacts in your offices for defence with the
2 members of the commands of the units which were in the area of Citluk
3 municipality as regards both mobilisation and bringing up to manpower
4 levels? Did you have to have contacts with them?
5 A. Well, we did have contacts with them, especially with the
6 officers dealing with mobilisation and personnel affairs.
7 Q. Can you tell us briefly?
8 A. Well, the officer was the person who receives the list and the
9 files of the men and handles them, and he is a very important person in
10 communication when there is an exchange of information about people
11 leaving and coming and going for different reasons.
12 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, I asked you whether there were any deviations from
13 the regular procedure as regards reinforcing the units or, rather,
14 bringing up to manpower level, and people applying not to the proper
16 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Could we now look at document 1223,
17 please. 2D 1223.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. We might say that this is an
19 example of the way things were sometimes done.
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Yes, I was waiting for my question and your answer to be recorded
22 in the transcript.
23 This is a request dated the 2nd of April, 1993, for bringing up
24 to manpower levels the battalion in Neum, and it's signed by Nedeljko
25 Obradovic. According to the practice and the instructions issued by
1 Mr. Rade Bosnjak, could the brigade commander request reinforcements of
2 men and do so by applying to the chief of the office directly?
3 A. No. He should have done this through the zone of operations.
4 Q. And to whom should he have applied, to the office or to the
5 administration for defence?
6 A. To the administration for defence, which would then have
7 forwarded whatever referred to the offices to the offices because there
8 are all sorts of things mentioned here, the civilian police and things to
9 do with medical examinations and so on and so forth.
10 Q. All right. Now we are dealing only with bringing up to manpower
11 levels. Let's please look at document --
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I am afraid it's time for the
13 break. 20 minutes' break.
14 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, the Court is in session.
17 There has be a slight correction to the transcript on page 2, line 4.
18 There should be 25 rather than 27. 25th of February, 2009, to be
19 perfectly accurate.
20 Ms. Nozica.
21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, I've been told that we tend to speak quickly, either
23 I in asking my questions or you in the answers, so the court reporter has
24 a problem there. So I want to ask you to slow down or, rather, to make
25 pauses between questions and answers.
1 Mr. Pinjuh, before the break, we were discussing the request
2 coming in from the first brigade of the HVO with respect to reinforcement
3 and manpower levels for the brigade, and let's just remind ourselves, you
4 were saying that that was not in conformity with procedure or practice,
5 so take a look at P 01880 next, please, which is a letter, which the head
6 of the Mostar defence administration, Mr. Rade Bosnjak, is sending to Mr.
7 Bruno Stojic the head of the Defence Department, on the 15th of April,
8 1993, in which he refers to the request we saw a moment ago under
9 number 2D 1223.
10 Now, Mr. Pinjuh, does Mr. Bosnjak indicate here that requests of
11 that kind are not in conformity with procedure? I think that we'll find
12 that on page 2, so can you give us your opinions about that?
13 A. Well, I think that the head of the defence administration here
14 has stipulated that there has been a violation of regulations in
15 violation of procedural regulations, and according to what it says here,
16 latterly, he is very strict in expressing this, and I would even say that
17 he bringing into question the need for administrations and offices to
18 exist at all if that's the way they are going to be working.
19 Q. Very well. We are going to move on to another area now, and it
20 is this: In the report for the first half of 1993, the biannual report,
21 or, rather, six-monthly report in which the administration for defence of
22 Mostar says that it has conducted certain affairs with respect to
23 recruitment. Can you tell me what these tasks were and whether you in
24 the defence office were involved in any way in this work?
25 A. Yes, we were involved. Certainly we were, and the work involved
1 introducing the new people into the records, the dates of birth. I think
2 that it was 1975, people born in 1975 and some older people who failed to
3 become soldiers so that all this was done on the basis of the regulations
4 governing civilian service and military service. So we accomplished this
5 task fairly quickly and I would say fairly well too.
6 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, you mentioned that this was done according to the
7 military services and civilian services duties. Can you look at 2D 1232
8 next, please. Are those the rules that you referred to?
9 A. Yes, that's right.
10 Q. Would you look at Article 17 to 33 and tell us whether they are
11 provisions which relate to recruits and the procedure that you spoke
13 A. Yes, those are the articles.
14 Q. Now, let's take a look at document 2D 1023 next, please, which is
15 a decision dated the 7th of June, 1993, signed by Mr. Bruno Stojic and in
16 which he says that teaching centres for training should be formed for the
17 south-east Herzegovina
18 Capljina base and the Heliodrom base; and then for north-west
20 Crvenice, Tomislavgrad municipality; and under number 2, coordination of
21 the preparation of the centre for uninterrupted taking-in of recruits for
22 appropriate working conditions and residence will be conducted by the
23 Main Staff headquarters using the operational zones and heads of training
24 centres. Now, can you explain to us why such a decision was necessary in
25 the first place when recruits were being called up and taken in and
1 trained and the courses, training courses that were to be put in place?
2 A. Well, it was necessary to ensure the right premises for
3 accommodation and also for training for the new recruits, first of all,
4 basic training and then more specialised training courses, so that when
5 they had completed all that, they could be said to have completed the
6 military service.
7 Q. Now look at 2D 1210, please. That's the next document. It is a
8 letter once again from the head of the Mostar administration,
9 Rade Bosnjak, sent on the 15th of July, 1993, to the head, Mr. Bruno
10 Stojic, and it is -- it concerns certain recruitment affairs. So could
11 you tell us whether something had to be done before the recruits were
12 sent off for training?
13 A. Certainly. And from this, we can see that not everything
14 functioned properly at all levels. However, all the recruits had to sit
15 for a medical examination, and a recruitment -- sit before a recruitment
16 commission, and I can see from this letter from Mr. Bosnjak that he
17 speaks about problems in certain health institutions with respect to
18 recruits and recruitment, probably medicines, something to do with
19 medicines and the resources necessary and everything concerning a proper
20 medical examination.
21 Q. Now, let's look at the last document in this area, which is
22 P 4091 [Realtime transcript read in error, "B"]. It's not B; it's P for
23 the transcript. 4091. Yes, that's right. Unfortunately, my time is
24 limited, so I won't be able to look at this in any great detail, but this
25 is an order for specialised training.
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. And from this, does it follow that basic training was conducted
3 for recruits before this, and then that there were specialist training
4 courses for recruits as well; is that right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. All right. Fine. Now, can you tell me, Mr. Pinjuh, who was in
7 charge of recruitment training? Did that come under the offices or the
8 administration, or who was in charge?
9 A. For training, it was the department for education and training
10 attached to the Main Staff.
11 Q. Now, Mr. Pinjuh, let's take a look at document P 7433, and I'm
12 going to ask you to explain to the Court what this is. What kind of
13 document is this?
14 A. This is an annual analysis of the performance of the Mostar
15 defence administration for 1993.
16 Q. Now, let's take a look at page 3. It's also page 3 in English.
17 And tell us, please, what in this annual analysis report does it say on
18 page 3, under defence administration tasks, et cetera?
19 A. Well, it sets out the legal grounds for establishing the
20 administrations and offices for defence.
21 Q. Will you look at page 13 in the Croatian version now, which is
22 page 9 in the English, and explain to the Court what we see on that page.
23 A. This page shows the structure of the people working there for the
24 Citluk defence office, and I was the head of the office, so the employees
1 Q. Thank you. May we look at the next page, and on the next page,
2 Mr. Pinjuh, is a review of the combat engagement for recruits in Citluk
3 municipality, and it says also in percentages in relation to the number
4 of military recruits in the military records.
5 Now, questions like this have already been raised in this
6 courtroom, and I'm going to ask you the question directly because I
7 assume you compiled this.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The first line says that the number of Croat inhabitants
10 according to the 1991 population census was the number it says here.
11 Now, why was an analysis conducted according to the number of Croat
12 inhabitants, this analysis, this particular analysis that you said was
13 done at the end of 1993? Why does it only mention Croat inhabitants?
14 A. Well, I've already said that so let me repeat, that on the 30th
15 of June, 1993, the incident that I mentioned before took place whereby
16 the members of the HVO who were Muslims captured their fellow fighters
17 from the HVO, their fellow combatants, and after that all the analyses
18 which would be different would not provide a realistic picture of the
19 people who were in the military.
20 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, regardless of the national ethnic structure of Citluk
21 municipality, we'll come to that later on, but in the area in general,
22 the area covered by the Mostar defence administration, after the 30th of
23 June, could they count on members of the -- of Muslim ethnicity as being
24 members of HVO units?
25 A. As far as I know, yes, some of them remained in HVO units until
1 the end of the war.
2 Q. That's not what I asked you, Mr. Pinjuh. I'm asking you
3 something else. Yes, some did stay on, but what I'm asking you is this:
4 In the area covered by the Mostar administration after the 30th of June,
5 could the HVO count on the Muslim members -- could Muslims be engaged in
6 HVO units?
7 A. Ah, no, not that, no. They could not.
8 Q. All right. Fine. Now, tell me, in the Citluk municipality area,
9 what was the ethnic structure in 1991 there?
10 A. Well, I'll not quite sure whether there were more than 1 to 2
11 percent of Serbs and others, perhaps a little larger percentage of
12 Muslims. It was almost an ethnically pure Croat environment.
13 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, do you know whether on the territory covered by the
14 Mostar defence administration whether there were Muslims within the HVO
15 units before the 30th of June, 1993, and after that?
16 A. Yes, I know that some of them remain there until the end.
17 Q. Let us now take a look at page 43 of this same report, which is
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a technical detail. In
20 Citluk, while we have the list of all the people who were with you, now,
21 number 5, Kruno [phoen] Stojic, is he a relative of Mr. Stojic's or not?
22 His first name is Kruno.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, they have nothing to do
24 with each other.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And number 12, Ivan Pinjuh, is
1 this person a relative of yours or not? He was in charge of
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no, he wasn't a relative or
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Nozica.
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] thank you. And thank you, Your
8 Q. Now, the gentleman mentioned under number 12 was Teklic [phoen],
9 so he was a courier, was he? Would you explain that to us briefly? What
10 did Mr. --
11 A. He took 'round the invitations, mostly, call-ups.
12 Q. I asked you to take a look at page 43, which is page 32 of the
13 English, and can you explain to the Trial Chamber what we have on that
14 page in this general analysis?
15 A. This page shows the internal structure of the defence
16 administration and defence office.
17 Q. Take a look at the next page now, please. This is a diagram of
18 the internal structure of the defence administration for Mostar. That's
19 a chart.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You would be very kind if you indicated the
21 pages in the English version because I think it's not what you've told
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I said that it was
24 page 32 and the following pages, that is to say 33, 34.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. Thank you. Now I see it.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On the next page, the question you
2 just asked me --
3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
4 Q. Just a moment, please. We need to bring it up on e-court. We
5 now have 33 on our screens of that chart. Now, move on to the next page,
6 which would be 34 of the English, and in Croatian, what is this?
7 A. This is a chart showing the internal organisation of a defence
9 Q. There's another page in English. Yes, now we have it. So this
10 is a diagram showing the internal organisation of a defence office; is
11 that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, does this analysis also mention all the difficulties
14 that the administrations and offices came across?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. As we will quickly move on to questions concerning mobilisation,
17 would you please look at page 52 in the Croatian, which is page 40 in
18 English. Have you found it?
19 A. Yes, I have.
20 Q. Just a moment. It starts with mobilisation; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Where it says what the task of mobilisation was, and then it says
23 that the special passes ensuring that measures of readiness are carried
24 out and constant mobilisation of personnel and materiel resources in
25 order to reinforce and replenish the armed forces and take other
1 effective measures for the defence of the country?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. In this analysis covering performance in 1993, does it follow
4 that mobilisation work was permanent and constant in the offices
5 administrations for defence?
6 A. Yes, correct.
7 Q. Some problems encountered in the mobilisation process are
8 mentioned here, out-of-date military records and all the other
9 difficulties mentioned here.
10 A. Yes, those were the main difficulties.
11 Q. It also mentions conscripts who had lived in Croatia before, but
12 their records were kept in our offices. Were there persons in your
13 records who were living in your area but who had volunteered to join
14 units in the Republic of Croatia
15 rather, the JNA in Croatia
16 A. Yes, there were such people.
17 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, in the course of 1993, did you draw up overviews of
18 the engagement of conscripts in the Citluk defence office, and did you
19 forward this information to the defence administration in Mostar?
20 A. Throughout 1993, we constantly carried out analyses and compiled
21 reports and forwarded them to the defence administration which to the
22 best of my knowledge then forwarded them to the Defence Department.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Could we please now look at
24 1D 1672.
25 Q. These are minutes from a meeting of the HVO of the HZ-HB dated
1 the 22nd of July, 1993. Could we please look at conclusion number 1, if
2 you can clarify, which says that the Defence Department shall for the
3 next meeting update the summary of engagement of Croatian conscripts
4 according to the recruitment structures with the number of killed and
5 wounded and update the existing information.
6 Mr. Pinjuh, briefly, these are minutes from a working meeting
7 held on the 22nd of July, 1993. Can you comment on the reasons why a
8 summary of engagement of Croats is required?
9 A. Well, it's quite obvious. We've already mentioned the 30th of
10 June, 1993, and this must be the reason why an analysis is being asked
11 for in this way.
12 Q. Do you remember doing such analyses?
13 A. Yes, I remember that we did do them.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Could we please look, then, at
15 document P 6017.
16 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, this is an analysis of the capabilities and
17 assignments of military conscripts in the Croatian Republic
18 Herceg-Bosna and dated the 22nd of October, 1993, and at the beginning,
19 security and military situation is mentioned. And I will ask you to take
20 a look at page 5 in the Croatian text, which is page 8 in English,
21 because it provides data for Citluk municipality.
22 A. Yes. This is the information I analysed and sent to the defence
24 Q. There's an interesting piece of information here in the third
25 line from the bottom in your report where it says HV and RH MUP 19. Can
1 you explain to Their Honours who these military conscripts are?
2 A. These are conscripts who were kept in the records of the HVO, or
3 our office, and who after the aggression on the Republic of Croatia
4 volunteered to join units of the Croatian army.
5 Q. Can you please look at page 8, which is page 13 in English. Here
6 we have the total at the level of the Mostar defence administration, and
7 it says that in this administration alone there were --
8 A. 1.128 military conscripts.
9 Q. Where, Mr. Pinjuh? Where were these 1.328 [as interpreted]
11 A. In the units of the Croatian army and the Ministry of the
12 Interior of Croatia
13 Q. Thank you. I think it's all right. The number is in the
15 Mr. Pinjuh, we will deal with these questions later, but as my
16 time is limited, I would now like to show you briefly several documents
17 referring to meetings held in 1993 in the administrations and offices,
18 and I will ask you whether these documents reflect the problems you came
20 Please look at document 2D 1209.
21 A. These are conclusions and proposals from a joint meeting of the
22 chiefs of the defence administrations and offices for defence in
23 northwestern Herzegovina
24 1993, in Tomislavgrad, and you can see from the issues on the agenda what
25 the problems were, and these were similar in other administrations as
2 Q. Could you please look at 2D 995.
3 A. I remember this. There was an unannounced inspection by the head
4 -- or, rather, the chief of the administration with his assistants, and
5 there was a report on the situation found in each office.
6 Q. Please look at P 6234.
7 A. These are minutes from a session of the Mostar defence
8 administration of the 29th of August [as interpreted], 1993, at which I
9 and one of my officers were present. And you can see that the meeting
10 was also attended by Mr. Bruno Stojic, the chief of the administration
11 for military -- for conscripts, Mr. Barbic [phoen] and Mr. Basinovic
12 [phoen] from the same administration.
13 Q. I don't know whether you said this or whether it's an error in
14 the transcript. When was this meeting held?
15 A. It says the 29th of October, 1993, here.
16 Q. All right. Mr. Pinjuh, we've seen several meetings here, could
17 you tell us, please, whether problems were discussed at these meetings,
18 and what were the problems faced by everyone present in 1992 and 1993?
19 A. This mostly had to do with updating military records, problems of
20 draft evasion, people moving from one unit to another on their own
21 initiative, people joining units on their own initiative, and so on.
22 Q. Very well. At the very outset, you said that the most important
23 tasks dealt with by the administrations and offices for defence were
24 inter alia mobilisation tasks. Can you explain to the Court how
25 mobilisation was carried out in the territory of the HZ-HB, and let's
1 look right away at 2D 1364. And then please explain to the Court what
2 this is about, and I will put more questions to you after that.
3 A. This is a mobilisation proclaimed on the 10th of July, 1992
4 the president of HZ-HB, Mr. Mate Boban.
5 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, according to the decree on the armed forces, was Mr.
6 Mate Boban the only person authorised to declare mobilisation?
7 A. Yes, he was.
8 Q. Can you explain to Court what you were doing in July 1992, what
9 work you were doing, and whether you were doing anything that had to do
10 with this proclamation of mobilisation?
11 A. As I said, on the 1st of June, I became the administrator of the
12 office, and this mobilisation came as a surprise to me, although we had
13 already managed to put the military records more or less in order. The
14 first thing we did was to call up conscripts aged 18 to 60. We drew up
15 lists of these men and handed them over to the existing units, which had
16 been established as volunteer units in 1991. This job never stopped.
17 Whoever failed to respond was called up again and again in an attempt to
18 get them to do their duty like everybody else.
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Ms. Nozica, I hope it's not a question
20 anticipating yours, but anyway, it's on my time, the Bench's time, so you
21 can only relax about it.
22 Mr. Pinjuh, you have told us previously - now you have alluded to
23 it again - that mobilisation was practically a permanent thing that went
24 on and on practically all the time. Now you have said that Mr. Boban was
25 the only one authorised to order mobilisation. How do we reconcile the
1 two things? I can imagine, but I would like you to tell us.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The president Mr. Boban pursuant to
3 the decree on the armed forces was the only one who had the right to
4 declare mobilisation. But mobilisation has its time-period and tasks.
5 As we've already mentioned, these tasks, for reasons already stated,
6 could never be carried out fully. They were never completed. That's why
7 they were carried out over a longer period of time than initially
9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. If you look at the document
10 2D 01364, you see in number 4 that President Boban orders mobilisation
11 must be finished by 18 hours July 11th, 1992. Do we have to understand
12 that this was disregarded practically? This did not work; it was not
13 finished then?
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think that according to what you
15 have said, Your Honour, our reports were sent within this dead-line, but
16 the effect of this order was not good enough so that the order was not
17 carried out fully.
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Right. That's what I gather from what you told
19 us. And later on, was Boban's order renewed, or was it just continuing
20 in its validity so that you continued to mobilise on the basis of the
21 original order?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, correct. As far as I know, we
23 implemented this order permanently.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
1 Q. I'd now like to ask you to explain to the Court why mobilisation
2 was proclaimed on the 10th of July, 1992. What happened when this
3 mobilisation call came?
4 A. I remember that it was the time with a fierce attack by the Serb
5 army against HZ-HB, especially the municipalities mentioned in this
6 particular order.
7 Q. Now, the answer you gave earlier on to me and now to Judge
8 Trechsel, that the business of mobilisation was continuous and that no
9 new mobilisation was proclaimed but you carried on working in 1992 and
10 1993 pursuant to this came proclamation for mobilisation, I'd like us now
11 to look at several other documents to see what happened next.
12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] 2D 00847 is the document I'd like us
13 to look at next.
14 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica, since we are talking
15 about the mobilisation on the basis of these documents, 2D 01374, I'd
16 like to come back to the document we examined before the break, P 00680,
17 which referred to the Home Guards. And here in that document, it states
18 under Article 7 that the head of the Department of Defence also had the
19 right to mobilise Home Guards in particular. Is this the same
20 mobilisation, and does it mean that the head of the Department of the
21 Defence had an equivalent privilege, so to speak, as President Mate Boban
22 regarding mobilisation, except that in the case of Mate Boban, it was the
23 mobilisation of the armed forces, whereas for the head of the department
24 for defence, it was the mobilisation of Home Guards? I'm not quite sure
25 how that's been translated into French.
1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise, but
2 may I be of assistance and indicated to the witness that what
3 Judge Mindua is asking you referring to Article 7 of the establishment of
4 the Home Guards, Mr. Pinjuh, you have it on e-court. On the screen in
5 front of you, you have Article 7, so that's what the Judge is asking you
7 Q. So what is stipulated in Article 7? Was that the task of
8 mobilisation, or was it something else?
9 A. No, it's not the same thing. Well, in this document we are
10 dealing with the establishment of the Home Guard units.
11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] The Home Guard was part of the
12 armed forces, the HVO; isn't that the case?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's right. However, older
14 people were in the Home Guards, as we said, and we spoke about their
15 task, so that's why this relates to the establishment of separate Home
16 Guard units.
17 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I understand
19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, what you've just been asked by the Judge, he is
21 linking up mobilisation or, rather, bringing mobilisation into connection
22 with the term used in Article 7 where it says that the head of the
23 Defence Department shall have the authority to prescribe regulations and
24 draw up mobilisation plans for the Home Guard. Does this have anything
25 to do with the very act of mobilisation? I think that's what the Judge
1 was linking up.
2 A. No.
3 Q. You've just explained that to us, haven't you?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. All right. Fine. Now, I'm going back to document 2D 00847, and
6 we are continuing our discussion about mobilisation. So in order do
7 that, let's look at the conclusions made in this document. I think that
8 it's on page 2 in both versions where it says:
9 "The Defence Department of the HZ-HB and the Main Staff of the
10 HVO shall undertake all military mobilisation measures in order to
11 provide full protection for Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina."
12 Now, my question to you is this. That was point 1 of the
13 conclusions. The first point of the conclusions on e-court, please.
14 Yes, we have 1. We are just interested in point 1.
15 Now, Mr. Pinjuh, can you explain to the Court what these measures
16 are, and were they the measures that you referred to when speaking about
17 the continuation of mobilisation, and did you receive these conclusions?
18 The document is 2D 00847. That's the document number, for the record.
19 Yes, go ahead, please. Answer that.
20 A. This deals with steps and measures that we took continuously, so
21 it's not a question of any new mobilisation. It's continuous.
22 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, did you receive through the defence administration
23 conclusions of this kind in order to continue with your work in the area
24 of mobilisation and do what you needed to do and what hadn't been done
1 A. Yes, that's right. And these were conclusions for the defence
2 office to take into consideration.
3 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, take a look at document P 2575, which are the minutes
4 from an HVO HZ-HB session and the HVO for Mostar municipality dated the
5 31st of May. The previous one was dated the 19th of April, 1993, whereas
6 this is the 31st of May, 1993. And I'm going to show you the documents
7 in chronological order so that we can see whether these affairs with
8 mobilisation were done under 1993, and under the conclusions here, if we
9 look at the conclusions - it's on page 1 of the English and Croatian - it
10 says that the Defence Department of the HVO HZ-HB shall be continued as
11 well as recruitment. So was this what you did continuously throughout
13 A. Yes. Yes, that's right.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Now, let's look at the next
15 document, which is P 2707.
16 Q. Would you like to comment and tell us what this decision is?
17 It's the 10th of June, 1993. That's the date. It's a decision. What
19 A. Once again, it says decision on carrying out mobilisation, which
20 means continuous, and in Article 1 it refers to all non-mobilised men of
21 military age, et cetera, et cetera. So that is a continuation of the
22 affairs we discussed earlier on.
23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Would you now take a look at the
24 next document, which is 2D 1485.
25 Q. And this is an order from Mr. Stojic dated the 18th of June,
1 based on the decision by the HZ-HB government and which refers to
2 additional mobilisation for military conscripts in the municipalities of
3 Mostar, Siroki Brijeg, Citluk, Grude, Ljubuski, and Posusje.
4 A. Just a minute, please. Yes, Mostar, Siroki Brijeg, Citluk,
5 Grude, Ljubuski, and Posusje.
6 Q. And since mention is made of Citluk, could you explain to us why
7 it was necessary on the 18th of June to issue an order like this, and we
8 saw the ones earlier on.
9 A. Well, quite obviously in these particular municipalities,
10 mobilisation had not been implemented properly, so they are being asked
11 to effect mobilisation additionally.
12 Q. Now, let's look at the next document, which is P 3024, and we saw
13 this document in the courtroom. We've seen it before. This is 12 days
14 after the previous order, and this one relates to just the HVO of
15 Posusje. Can you tell me why this decision was passed?
16 A. Well, because of the well known events of the 30th of June that
17 we mentioned earlier on, and Posusje municipality quite obviously did not
18 implement the previous orders as it should have done.
19 Q. I've just been told that I have 12 more minutes at my disposal,
20 and I have two areas to get through which I think are fairly important,
21 so I'd like to ask you if possible to move through the documents a little
23 Look at 2D 1233 first, please. They are documents which had to
24 do with mobilisation, and can we just have your comments.
25 A. This is another way in which those who had not responded to the
1 mobilisation call could do so.
2 Q. Here we have a document that you signed, 2D 1224.
3 A. It's the same thing here except the names of the people are
4 mentioned, names of people to responds to the call-up and the names of
5 those who were placed at the disposal of the Defence Department who had
7 Q. Can you comment, 2D 1234, the next document, please.
8 A. Once again, a public invitation sent through the media stating
9 that anybody who had failed to respond to the mobilisation call should do
10 so and report for duty.
11 Q. May we have your comments on P 3038 now, please. This is a
12 public announcement signed by Mr. Stojic and Mr. Prlic dated the 30th of
13 June, 1993, and it comes after the event that we mentioned here a number
14 of times. We have here Mr. Stojic's order, which says that all military
15 recruits in Herceg-Bosna regardless of where they are must report to the
16 defence offices, the nearest defence offices or report to their units and
17 municipalities. Is this a proclamation of mobilisation, or is it a
18 continuous implementation of the mobilisation process as you have already
19 explained to us?
20 A. It's just a continuation of the mobilisation.
21 Q. All right. So we can round up this topic of mobilisation. Tell
22 us, please, was it carried out in a satisfactory way until the end of
23 1993, and I mean mobilisation?
24 A. Well, I don't think it was, no. It could have been done in a
25 much better way, accomplished in a better way.
1 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, in the mobilisation procedure and bringing the
2 manpower level up to a full complement, were there activities of
3 unauthorized bodies trying to mobilise people in HZ-HB?
4 A. Well, I did hear about certain examples whereby the units
5 themselves mobilised people directly, and it wasn't an isolated case
7 Q. Did you hear that the HVOs in the municipalities, in individual
8 municipalities did mobilisation work, although they didn't have the power
9 to engage in those affairs? Did you hear about that?
10 A. Yes, there were such examples.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Now, can we take a look at document
12 P 01831.
13 Q. Just tell me whether that is a document which confirms what
14 you've just said.
15 A. Yes, that's it, because the Mostar municipality cannot proclaim a
17 Q. Now, skip over the next document, and look at P 15500 next,
18 please, and tell me whether the municipal government of the HVO of Mostar
19 could on the 25th of February, 1993, pass a decision on the establishment
20 of Home Guard units.
21 A. No, this goes beyond its powers.
22 Q. And one more document, which is 1D 110 --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I have a question. You just
24 said that this was not under his powers. Why is it that Mr. Topic, whose
25 name is seen in many document, why is it that he intervenes here?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm not quite sure. He
2 refers to the Statute. He refers to the Statute of Mostar municipality
3 and relies on that, although there's no logic for him to make decisions
4 linked to the mobilisation process, either mobilisation of materiel and
5 technical equipment or manpower.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Another question. If Mr. Topic
7 interferes in the -- in the responsibilities of the Department of
8 Defence, does that have a political meaning or not?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'm not sure how far this was
10 important. I really can't say. I apologise, but I really can't say
11 either way.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead, Madam Nozica.
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Q. Now, the proclamation of mobilisation for a materiel tech -- or
15 equipment of manpower, did that come under the remit of the Defence
16 Department or the president of the HZ-HB?
17 A. Only under the authority of the president of the HZ-HB.
18 Q. I have five more minutes, so let's try to get through the last
19 area as quickly as possible, and I'd like you to go back to the recruits
20 who were on the list for military recruits in your municipality, and we
21 looked at P 6017, and they were in units of the Croatian army and MUP of
22 the Republic of Croatia
23 skip over one document and find P 3336 and tell me when you've found it.
24 A. I've found it.
25 Q. This is a letter signed by Mr. Stojic, and it is addressed to the
1 defence minister, Mr. Susak, defence minister of Croatia and the Minister
2 of the Interior, and it has to do with military recruits who unlawfully
3 are in the Republic of Croatia
4 collection centre in Grude. Mr. Pinjuh, according to your records, in
5 your offices, defence offices, did you draw up lists of persons -- the
6 document is P 336. 5336. P 5336. Did you draw up the lists of these
7 recruits who were spending time unauthorised elsewhere?
8 A. Yes, and I believe that when it came to the numbers and figures,
9 this is the result of the report sent through the offices to the head.
10 Q. I would now like to ask you to look at P 2647, please.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. This is a letter sent by Mr. Stojic of the Ministry of Defence of
13 the Republic of Croatia
14 status in the 4th Brigade be resolved and enabling them to stay with us,
15 and three persons are mentioned: Zlatko Jarkic, Stojan Musa, and
16 Ivan Sabljic. Mr. Pinjuh, do you know these persons personally, and did
17 you have -- or your office for defence in Citluk, did you participate at
18 all in the compilation of this document?
19 A. I know all three persons. All three had been pupils or students
20 of mine. I know that after they were wounded in the Republic of Croatia
21 they spent a time recuperating on the territory of the Croatian Community
22 of Herceg-Bosna from where they had gone to join the Croatian army, and
23 they were still kept on the records of the Citluk defence office where
24 they reported while they were there.
25 In the meantime, their unit in the Republic of Croatia
1 them back, and they said they would declare them to be deserters if they
2 didn't come back. They were willing to help, but their status had to be
3 resolved, which is why I sent a letter to the chief of the
4 administration, who evidently forwarded it to the head, and he sent it to
5 the personnel administration of the Republic of Croatia
6 this was resolved in a positive way and that they remained for awhile in
7 the units of the HVO.
8 Q. Let's go back a little bit because some things need to be
9 clarified. These three persons, if I understood you correctly, were on
10 the records of the Citluk defence office because they came from that
11 area; is that correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did these three persons volunteer to join the units of the
14 Croatian army when the aggression of the JNA against Croatia began?
15 A. Yes, in 1991.
16 Q. Did these three persons later answer the call-up they received
17 from your office as members of the HVO?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. Did they ask through you, and you through the administration, and
20 the head of the department Stojic that their status in the 4th Brigade of
21 the Croatian army be resolved from where they had left in order to join
22 the HVO?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. Very well. And finally, let's look at the next two documents.
25 2D 1239. Just tell Their Honours what this is about.
1 A. Well, this is a certificate issued by the defence office to every
2 conscript at his request confirming that Stojan Musa in this case was a
3 member of the office or, rather, was -- that his name was in the military
4 records of the Citluk defence office.
5 Q. And Stojan Musa is the same person mentioned in the previous
6 document P 2647; is that correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Would you please look at the next document, which is 2D 1240.
9 A. It's about the same thing, but --
10 Q. Just wait a little, please. Yes, go ahead, sir.
11 A. It's also a certificate in this case for Ivan Sabljic stating
12 that his name is in the records of the Citluk defence office.
13 Q. We don't have any information about Zlatko Jarkic, but can you
14 confirm that his name was also on the records of your defence office and
15 that he was a conscript obliged to respond to a call-up from the Citluk
17 A. Yes, I can confirm that.
18 Q. Mr. Witness, to the best of your knowledge, were there also
19 Muslims who went to join the Croatian army as volunteers in the beginning
20 of 1991, that is after the JNA aggression against Croatia?
21 A. Yes, there were.
22 Q. Do you know whether some of these Muslims came back to join the
23 Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina [Realtime transcript read in error, "Army of
24 Republika Srpska"] and whether they had to go through the same procedure
25 of regulating their status, their previous status in the Croatian army?
1 A. Yes, yes. They had to go through the same procedure.
2 Q. And my last question for the witness: Did you have in 1992 and
3 1993 any direct contacts with Mr. Bruno Stojic? How often and on what
5 A. In this period, we could have had only a few official meetings,
6 which the gentleman attended.
7 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, did anyone in the course of your work in 1992 and
8 1993 ask you to do anything contrary to the regulations or to your
10 A. No.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Pinjuh. Thank you,
12 Your Honours, I have concluded my examination-in-chief.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Ms. Nozica. Now, a
14 very short follow-up question, if I may, for you, Witness. Those three
15 people, you knew them well because they were your students, so you have a
16 good memory, Mr. Musa, Mr. Sabljic, and Mr. Jarkic. There are three of
17 them. So if I understood you properly, these three persons entered the
18 Croatian army as volunteers, but when they became members of that army,
19 what nationality were they? What nationality were they at that time?
20 Were they citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or were they Croatian citizens?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] They were citizens of the Republic
22 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, but they were Croats.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, so they went to Croatia
24 as volunteers, I assume to fight the Serbs because they were injured.
25 They must have been injured during combat with the Serbs; is that so?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That's correct, yes.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Up until now, this all seems
3 very logical, but something surprised me earlier on. You said that they
4 risked being deserters in Croatia
5 they become deserters?
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Their unit would have considered
7 them volunteers because they had left that unit. After their recovery,
8 they were supposed to rejoin the unit and --
9 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Would have
10 considered them deserters.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So they wanted their status to be
12 put on hold.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A last technical question, if I
14 may. As far as you know, these three students, your own students, when
15 they entered the Croatia
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] To the best of my knowledge, yes,
18 they did.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So as far as you know, yes.
20 Well, before we have the break, there are still 25 minutes, the
21 cross-examination for the other counsel, as well, D3 to begin with or,
22 rather, D1, whatever you prefer. I don't really know who does what
23 anymore. D1.
24 MS. TOMANOVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence of Dr. Prlic has no
25 questions for this witness. Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. D3.
2 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence of
3 General Praljak will be the first to take the floor, as the Defence of
4 Mr. Prlic has said they have no questions. We have just a brief
5 question, which is of a mostly military nature, and if I may be allowed
6 to ask leave for General Praljak to put the question himself.
7 Cross-examination by the accused Praljak:
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Witness. Good afternoon, Your
10 A. Good afternoon, General.
11 Q. Just a brief question, to the best of your knowledge, did the
12 Yugoslav People's Army attack Croatia
13 Bosnia-Herzegovina, or did they have a plan to attack all the peoples who
14 were hindering the implementation of its idea to take all the territory
15 of Bosnia-Herzegovina and aligning Croatia, Karlobag, Virovitica, and so
16 on, Karlovac, Karlobag, and Virovitica, up to the sea?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can confirm with certainty
18 that that's how it was.
19 Q. According to what you know, it was the peoples, the Muslims, the
20 Croats, whether they were called Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Croats
21 in Croatia
22 on the territories which the Serbian political and military ideas
23 considered to be Serbian lands?
24 A. Well, all territories were attacked where there were Serbs.
25 Rather, all those who were not Serbs living on territories where there
1 were Serbs were attacked.
2 Q. So the Serbian political and military leadership considered that
3 any area where even a small number of Serbs lived or even no Serbs were
4 actually Serbian lands?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. Thank you very much.
7 A. You're welcome.
8 Q. My second question: Are you aware that in the April 1992 I
9 arrived in the areas of Citluk, Capljina, and so on, Mostar?
10 A. I know that you arrived, but as to the month ...
11 Q. All right. Now, could you tell Their Honours whether
12 mobilisation and bringing the units up to manpower level was the most
13 difficult job that you, Bruno Stojic, Mate Boban, Slobodan Praljak, or
14 anyone else had to perform in that area to the best of your knowledge?
15 A. Well, I think it was.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, tell Their Honours the following: If you called
17 up some people who had given false addresses, left on their own
18 initiative, gone to Germany
19 certificates saying they were unfit and so on, so if only 50 percent, 60
20 percent, or 30 percent of the men you had called up responded, what legal
21 or other means did you have to take any sort of action against those who
22 had not responded, although they were bound to do so by law, so what
23 could you, Mate Boban, or Bruno Stojic do to those people?
24 A. Almost nothing.
25 Q. I'll repeat the end of my question. So throughout the war,
1 throughout the war, if you sent call-up papers, sent them out, and 50
2 percent, 60 percent, 30 percent of the men responded, what could you do
3 to those who had failed to respond? What punishment, what sanctions
4 could you impose, or what could be done pursuant to the laws and
5 regulations in force?
6 A. There was nothing we could do, to put it in a nutshell.
7 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I
8 have no further questions.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. One moment. I
10 have a question. Following the questions raised by General Praljak, I
11 was listening to both the questions and answers and looking at document
12 P 6017, which is in binder number 2. Now, what I was interested in was
13 page 2 concerning the situation of the municipality of Tomislavgrad
14 Now, in that municipality - there's no point in looking at the
15 document; you can rely on what I'm saying - there are 27.347 citizens,
16 Croatians; 7.716 conscripts, military conscripts. Now, what I see is
17 that abroad there are some 3.105 people, 3.105, in other words, almost
18 half of the number of the conscripts. So General Praljak when he raised
19 his question was highlighting that. But how is it that Tomislavgrad,
20 that municipality could get these 3.105 people to return? These people
21 were abroad in Denmark
22 were working. They had gotten married, had children at school, and so
23 on. How could those people return, take up arms, whereas they -- they
24 were making Volkswagon automobiles in a factory in Germany or something
25 like that? Things are not as simple as they might look. What were the
1 means that you had at your disposal, you yourself, to get these people to
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At municipal level, including the
4 municipality of Tomislavgrad, the municipality could issue a local
5 decision on their material obligation. These were people who had work
6 permits who had left for foreign parts before the war. Many had taken
7 their families with them, and they would probably stay there throughout
8 their working lives. Therefore, there could be no repression applied,
9 nor was any applied to the best of my knowledge.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Well, my question
11 applied to Tomislavgrad, but if you look at Livno, the same applies at
12 Livno. There were 28.456 Croatian citizens, 9.312 military conscripts,
13 and we see that 3.409 are Livno Croatians that are living abroad.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Those are two examples of
15 municipalities where most of the male population was working abroad, most
16 males were working abroad, and two municipalities where only during the
17 summer would you be able to see the proper number of children and men.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] During the afternoon, I also
19 saw a document that mentioned these conscripts, and in that document it
20 was stated that a non-negligible percentage hadn't actually done their
21 military service in the JNA or else had only entered military service for
22 ten months. The HVO, was it confronted with this problem of
23 qualification of the conscripts in as much as many of them hadn't done
24 their military service at all and those that had hadn't done it for very
25 long? Was that a true problem?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, certainly it was a problem
2 because nobody was prepared enough for war, especially not young people.
3 But it was difficult, young men who were already in the units, it was
4 difficult to send them back for training, basic and specialised training
5 courses, so they preferred staying on in the units, and then a Solomon's
6 solution [as interpreted] was found to be reservists and then from a
7 reservist's position to go back to being active.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Last question. This analysis
9 of the conscripts, well, in this document I was struck when I looked at
10 the detail of the statistics. I was struck by the number of criminal
11 proceedings that had been taken on a municipality-by-municipality basis.
12 For instance, in Tomislavgrad, 410 criminal reports; Livno, 501; Posusje,
13 307; Hana Prozor [phoen], 307; Kupres, 167 --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Or 166, interpreter's correction.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Uskopic [phoen], 256-66;
16 Bugojna, there were none there; Jablanica, nothing is indicated; Mostar,
17 147; Siroki Brijeg, 46; Ljubuski, 147; Capljina, 58; municipality of
18 Mostar, now, this is a record figure, 1.056, 1.056; Neum, 26; Stolac, 74;
19 Rude [phoen], 107. Well, these figures seem to be fairly significant.
20 According to you, all these proceedings taken against conscripts, what
21 was the cause of these proceedings?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the cause was the resistance
23 to respond to the call-up and to do military service, so this is an
24 attempt, well, at intimidation because as far as I know all this remained
25 dead letter on paper. So we did say what we wanted, but there was no way
1 in which we could force them to comply.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] These figures, and it seems to
3 be -- 1.671, were they also -- did this include criminal proceedings that
4 had nothing whatsoever to do with the failure to carry out one's military
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic for D3.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
9 Good afternoon to everybody in the courtroom.
10 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
11 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, good afternoon to you too. I have two groups of very
12 short questions on behalf of the Petkovic Defence. The first group of
13 questions will relate to the questions raised by Judge Antonetti about
14 the engagement of the Home Guards in securing prisons, providing security
15 for prison, and this was recorded on page 31 of the transcript. And
16 then, Mr. Pinjuh, I shall be asking you a few questions about the answer
17 you gave about the two offices within the Main Staff. The first -- or,
18 rather, department. The first was for manpower levels and the second for
19 additional training.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mrs. Alaburic, perhaps it would
21 be preferable to take our break now, which will give you an opportunity
22 to start up again after everybody has had a rest. Let's have a 20-minute
24 --- Recess taken at 5.37 p.m.
25 --- On resuming at 6.00 p.m.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam Nozica.
2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just I have to
3 intervene. On page 64 of the transcript, line 6, in my question, it said
4 the Army of Republika Srpska. Well, it's being corrected. My colleague
5 tells me it should be the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It's being
6 corrected, but as I'm on my feet, I thought I'd just say what I wanted
7 to, so if it's being corrected, then that's fine. Thank you.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Your Honours, Mr. Pinjuh, as I said, my question -- first
11 question will relate to the Home Guards, and as Judge Antonetti asked a
12 question about this, the involvement of the Home Guards with respect to
13 securing certain prisons. I'd like to look at a document now in my
14 binder. P 1424 is the document number. 1424 is the number. That's
15 right. It's a document which you've already looked at today, and you
16 discussed it with my learned friend Ms. Nozica. It is an order from Mr.
17 Bruno Stojic dated the 5th of February [Realtime transcript read in
18 order, "15th of November"], 1993, which relates to unit mobilisation
19 changes and in respect of the Home Guards, and I'd like us to take a look
20 at the statement of reasons or explanation of the order, as it says. I'd
21 like to put the date right also. It says the 15th of November in the
22 transcript. I said the 5th of February, 1993, and in the statement of
23 reasons it says that the Home Guard units are being established in order
24 to protect the territories and facilities of special significance for the
25 defence and to provide support to the armed forces. Is that roughly what
1 you yourself said, that the Home Guards were in fact units, relatively
2 older people, designed to protect territories and safe-guard certain
3 facilities and features; is that right?
4 A. Yes, that's what I said.
5 Q. Now, let's look at point 2, which defines the special interest
6 features of special interest and significance to defence. I don't need
7 to read through them because we can all do that ourselves. But tell me,
8 please, Mr. Pinjuh, among those facilities, if I'm reading this
9 correctly, there's no mention of any prisons; right?
10 A. No, there is no mention of that, no.
11 Q. Very well. Now, it says there that the features of special
12 importance, special significance can be, during a state of war,
13 facilities which are deemed such by the head of the Defence Department or
14 the chief of the Main Staff or commander of the operative zone. Now, Mr.
15 Pinjuh, do you know any decisions or orders or any other documents
16 whereby one of the authorised persons mentioned would define a prison as
17 a facility of special significance to be guarded by the Home Guards?
18 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
19 Q. All right. Fine. Now, let's take a look at page 1 of the
20 document again and focus on 1.2 where it says that the command of the
21 Home Guards, the Home Guard command, along with the municipality HVOs and
22 operative zones evaluate the situation on the territory and determine
23 facilities of special significance for the defence. And in this
24 connection, my question to you, Mr. Pinjuh, is this: Theoretically, did
25 the possibility exist for some municipal HVO in agreement with the
1 municipal units, whether the Home Guards or a municipal brigade, could
2 they decide to proclaim a feature, a facility for special defence and
3 then decide to engage the Home Guards for providing security for that
4 facility? Could that happen theoretically?
5 A. Well, I can't really comment.
6 Q. All right. Fine. Now, a brief explanation, Mr. Pinjuh, with
7 respect to the answers you gave with respect to the Main Staff. And the
8 two departments, the first department that you mentioned was the manpower
9 level reinforcement, and this was recorded on page 36 of the transcript,
10 and then mention was made of the department for education and training on
11 page 42 of the transcript. And about the formation of the Main Staff,
12 you discussed that on the basis of document -- well, it's not in my
13 number, but anyway, the number is P 00502, the formation of the Main
14 Staff or establishment of the Main Staff, and it is a document compiled
15 in September 1992.
16 Now, taking that document and your statements about the existence
17 of two departments within the Main Staff, one might gain the impression
18 that the Main Staff was a very impressive body at that time.
19 So I'm going to show you a number of documents now about the Main
20 Staff members, and perhaps we could comment the work of the Main Staff
21 which undoubtedly took part in implementing these two tasks that were
22 mentioned, significant ones, in the examination-in-chief. Look at 2D
23 1352 now, please. 2D 1352. And that's the last document in this set of
24 documents, in my binder. It is a list of persons in the Defence
25 Department in the Main Staff for salaries. It's a salary list for 1992.
1 And the last document relates to the Main Staff. So take a look at that,
3 So it's a list of salaries for November 1992 for Main Staff
4 members. The document was compiled on 17th of December, 1992, signed by
5 the chief of the Main Staff Milivoj Petkovic, and here we see that in the
6 Main Staff, on the salaries there, we have 20 persons. Have you found
7 the document? It's the last document. Just look at the Croatian
8 documents. The number at the bottom is 2D 66-0134. It's the last page
9 both in Croatian and English. Have you found that? Have you managed to
10 find it?
11 Mr. Pinjuh, see it says Main Staff, 20 persons. Is that what it
12 says in the document?
13 A. Yes, I do see that.
14 Q. Now, part of the document is illegible, but perhaps we'll manage
15 to decipher something. Tell me, did you know how many people worked in
16 the Main
17 A. No.
18 Q. All right. Tell me, are any of the names familiar on the list?
19 For example, number 8, Zvonimir Susec, have you ever heard of him? Does
20 it ring a bell?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Tell us who he was.
23 A. He was -- he worked in the Main Staff, and I think that he worked
24 in the area of manpower level reinforcement.
25 Q. Yes. It is Zvonimir Susec. Now let's look at another document,
1 Mr. Pinjuh, and I'll repeat the name again. Zvonimir Susec, S-u-s-e-c.
2 Zvonimir Susec. Well, we'll have the next document, and the name is
3 clearly written there. It's P 1579, which is a telephone directory dated
4 March 1993, and under number 4, we have a list for the Main Staff --
5 A. Could you tell me the number again, please.
6 Q. P 1572 is the number. Number 1, the Defence Department, and then
7 point 4, the Main Staff of the HVO of Mostar. Look at that list. You
8 will find them on the following page, as well, and somewhere in the
9 middle it says Zvonimir Susec. Mr. Pinjuh, from this list can we
10 conclude that in that establishment department, there's just this one
11 person, the chief Zvonimir Susec?
12 A. I can't confirm that. In the minutes, yes, but I can't confirm
13 that that was actually the case.
14 Q. Well, I'm asking you that on the basis of this list.
15 A. Well, you said this was a telephone directory, whereas a military
16 formation is something different.
17 Q. All right. Formation establishment. Does that mean the actual
18 manpower level, or does establishment mean a systemisation of the work
19 post regardless of how many people were going to employ in a given
21 A. Well, I think that establishment when it comes to the Main Staff
22 and the operative zones, military territorial staffs didn't lack carters,
23 didn't lack manpower according to my experience, but I can't say anything
24 based on telephone numbers and telephone directories.
25 Q. We've just seen the telephone directory, but we also saw the
1 payroll for November 1992, and on that list were 20 persons. Here now,
2 you are looking at this document. Let's see one more document, and then
3 I'll ask you the question. The document is P 1683.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have examined this
5 telephone directory carefully. According to what you remember in Citluk,
6 how many telephones did you have? You don't remember?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I really can't say.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if I said that you had
9 two, the 08850082 and 5080582 and 584, that you had two telephone lines,
10 what would you say? Is it true? And did the telephone function
11 correctly, or did it not work very well?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it was down -- the line was
13 down from time to time, but for the most part it functioned properly with
14 interruptions; the lines were interrupted; there was a lot of digging
15 going on and so.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, let's look at the next document. P 1683 is the
19 number. It is a list of members of the Main Staff compiled on the 18th
20 of March, 1993, signed by Brigadier Petkovic. Have you found the
21 document? Mr. Pinjuh, of course you can't compare that to a telephone
22 directory in order to see whether it's correct, but can we conclude that
23 in the Main Staff at that point in time together with the driver, the
24 secretary, the adjutant, the typist and so on, there were 32 persons?
25 There was one whose position had not been regulated yet and temporarily
1 employed in the Main Staff, two more persons. Is that what follows on
2 the basis of this document?
3 A. Yes, that's what we can see here.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, I think we have to say
5 that for the two individuals who were employed temporarily, were two
6 Croatian officers, Miro Prce and Josip Speranca.
7 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, yes, that is clear,
8 and this document is already exhibited. We have seen it several times in
9 the courtroom, and I think in the past weeks we have a report by Mr. Prce
10 on his temporary work in the Main Staff and with respect to the
11 establishment of the Home Guard. So that is not being challenged.
12 Q. Anyway, Mr. Pinjuh, on this second page, number 26, we have
13 Zvonko Susec again, and it says assistant to chief for establishment and
14 staffing; and then 27, Tomislav Naletilic, chief for establishment; and
15 then 37, Zeljko Akrap, assistant for education and training; and there's
16 nobody else there dealing with any of these two major groups,
17 establishment and education and training in the Main Staff. Is that what
18 one can conclude on the basis of this document?
19 A. Yes, that's what it says here.
20 Q. Now, if you recall the establishment of the Main Staff dated
21 September 1992, and you were presented that document during the
22 examination-in-chief, the establishment of the Main Staff and under
23 number 44, 46, 47, 48, you spoke about the existence of department -- the
24 department for manpower level replenishment. And we have 75 functions in
25 that document, and if you add up all the people working there and
1 occupying one post, it would follow that the Main Staff
2 establishment-wise ought to number about 100 persons. Did you analyse
3 the document in that way?
4 A. No. But the Main Staff below it has the operative zones, and
5 they have these same people or, rather, similar people engaged in similar
6 work, and they have war brigades who have people working in these areas,
7 an assessment of the plan, a proposal for a plan, and then the plan goes
8 to the administration for mobilisation and defence, which draws up a
10 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, I don't wish to deal with that. I'm not challenging
11 that at all. All I want us to do is to clarify certain matters because
12 from your answers about the existence of a department within the Main
13 Staff dealing with these matters, the Judges could draw the conclusion
14 that the Main Staff had about 100 persons organised in different
15 departments and that this functioned in a somewhat different way from
16 what these documents show. So that's why I'm asking you, if you compare
17 these documents now, the ones I'm showing you now with the establishment
18 of the Main
19 -- were the manpower levels in the Main Staff replenished 100 percent?
20 A. I can't say on the basis of a telephone directory and this
21 document here, which is, in my opinion, far more relevant than the
22 telephone directory because we are dealing with a list of persons who
23 have regulated status in the Main Staff and persons who do not.
24 Q. But Mr. Pinjuh, that's why I didn't show you the telephone
25 directory alone. I showed you three documents, so if you look at all
1 three of them together, and you can see that in November 1992 there were
2 20 people in the Main Staff including all the auxiliary staff, and that
3 in March 1993 there were 32 employees employed full-time, including all
4 the auxiliary staff. What would you as a person dealing with a
5 maintenance of manpower levels in certain units have to say about the
6 manpower levels in the Main Staff?
7 A. Well, it may have been approximately the same as the manpower
8 levels of the wartime units or even less.
9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. Pinjuh.
10 Your Honours, I have completed my cross-examination. Thank you very
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I have a question, but
13 I don't know if you are able to answer or not and since it was the
14 Alaburic Defence that presented this document. We are talking about the
15 telephone directory. It is P 1572. In the telephone directory, you are
16 listed under page 4. You are in there. It's the Department of the
17 Defence here. I see the head Bruno Stojic, deputy Slobodan Busic, and
18 then I see Mladen Naletilic and then Veso Vegar. To your knowledge, what
19 was Naletilic doing in the department of the defence, if you know? If
20 you don't know, just say so.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I regret that I don't know the
22 answer to that question.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Well -- for D5.
24 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] No, we have no questions
25 for this witness. Thank you.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. D6.
2 MR. SAHOTA: We have no questions for this witness either.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before I call on the
4 Prosecutor, I believe the Registrar has an IC number to give.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. The Prosecution has finally
6 submitted its list of documents to be tendered through witness Vegar
7 Veso. This list shall be given Exhibit number IC 929. Thank you, Your
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine, the Prosecution can begin
10 its cross-examination.
11 MR. KRUGER: Good evening, Your Honours. Good evening, counsel,
12 everybody else in and around the courtroom.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Kruger:
14 Q. Good evening, Mr. Pinjuh.
15 A. Good evening.
16 Q. Mr. Pinjuh, just to start off, I'd like to just quickly revisit
17 one or two of the things that you've testified about so far. Now, the
18 first thing, you responded to a question by General Praljak that with
19 regard to conscripts who did not heed call-up papers or call-up orders,
20 there was actually very little that could be done with regard to them.
21 You recall that answer of yours or that topic?
22 A. Yes, I remember that.
23 Q. Now, sir, is it correct that the decree on the armed forces and
24 then the other decrees pertaining to -- sorry, if I may interrupt myself.
25 If I could just ask the usher if we could retain the documents of those
1 binders. Thank you.
2 My apologies, sir. If we can return to the question. Is it
3 correct or do you know that the decree on the armed forces and then
4 various other decrees pertaining to the HVO military affairs provided
5 that not reporting or not heeding call-up orders constituted an offence;
6 it was a crime?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And punishment was also prescribed for that offence; correct?
9 A. I assume it was, yes.
10 Q. And, sir, isn't it also correct that the big problem with draft
11 dodgers is that they go abroad, they run away, they hide, and that's why
12 it's very hard to catch them; is that correct?
13 A. Yes, that's correct.
14 Q. So actually, if you say there was very little that you could do,
15 that doesn't mean that you wouldn't do anything if you could trace these
16 people. It was simply a matter of you had to find them first; correct?
17 A. We couldn't trace them. We couldn't get at them, neither we nor
18 the court.
19 Q. Okay. Now, sir, the next thing that I would just quickly and
20 briefly touch upon, and for this if we could quickly go back to the
21 documents in the binder provided to you by the Defence of Mr. Petkovic,
22 and that's the binder that you were looking at previously. I'd like to
23 refer you to the last document in that binder, and that is 2D 01352, the
24 very last document in that binder. Do you have it?
25 A. 01352?
1 Q. 01352, yes, that's correct. And, sir, that is the list of
2 payment for the Defence Department and the Main Staff signed by
3 Bruno Stojic, but we were looking at the very last document earlier,
4 which pertains to the payment of the Main Staff or the payroll of the
5 Main Staff. If you could just return or turn to that document, the very
6 last one in that collection. Do you have it? And it starts off with
7 Adem Zulovic. You see that as number 1, and then it goes to number 20.
8 Now, sir, my question on this is, if you look through those 20 names, you
9 will notice that the name of General Petkovic doesn't appear there or,
10 for instance, the name of Miro Andric, who appears on later lists. My
11 question to you is: Do you know who was paying for their salaries at
12 this time?
13 A. I really can't answer this question because I don't know.
14 Q. Now, before stepping off that, do you know Mr. Miro Andric and
15 General Petkovic, and then Miro Andric's brother Baz [phoen] Andric who
16 will appear on the later lists, were they members of the HVO or were they
17 members of the HV?
18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't want to
19 interfere, and I do apologise to my learned friend, but could the
20 foundation be laid for Mr. Miro Andric for the period in 1992 because he
21 appears in the lists for 1993. Thank you.
22 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I won't belabour this point. There are
23 documents in evidence. I didn't trace them. I can trace them by
24 tomorrow, which refers to him as being also on the Main Staff in 1992.
25 But I won't be labour that point.
1 Q. Sir, let's step off that and --
2 A. To your question, yes.
3 Q. Sorry, did you want to respond to that question, sir?
4 A. I met Mr. Petkovic, but I didn't know the other gentleman.
5 Q. Sir, let's turn for a moment to the Home Guards, and for this I'd
6 like you to turn to document P 01746 in the Prosecution binder. Sir,
7 before -- do you have the document in front of you? P 01746. I think it
8 should have a little yellow tab.
9 Now, before we look at that document, you recall that we've
10 already looked twice at a previous document which was an order issued by
11 Bruno Stojic on the 5th of February, 1993, on the formation of Home
12 Guards units based on the decision and organisation of Home Guards. Do
13 you recall that document that we looked at, the February order, 5
14 February order by Bruno Stojic to establish Home Guards units? Do you
15 recall that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. For the record, that was document P 01424.
18 Now, sir, if we can look at this document, P 1746. This is an
19 order by Milivoj Petkovic dated 28 March, 1993, and if we read at the
21 "Given that in most cases order number 01-254/93 of 8 February,
22 1993, which concerns the organisation of the Home Guard, has not fully
23 implemented, and in order to ensure that it is organised as quickly and
24 as well as possible, I hereby order, in collaboration with defence
25 administrations, immediately set about implementing all tasks in the said
1 order ..."
2 Sir, my question to you is: This is General Petkovic issuing an
3 order to all operational zones of the HVO -- or within the HZ-HB, and
4 this pertains to the establishment of Home Guards units. Do you agree
5 this is an order for the implementation of the original order by Bruno
7 A. Yes, on the establishment of temporary commands, if that's the
8 order you are referring to, two officers, one non-commissioned officer to
9 receive Home Guards, if they are put at their disposal.
10 Q. So, sir, in other words, this order demonstrates that an order by
11 Bruno Stojic on the 2nd of February is translated into action within all
12 the operational zones of the HZ-HB; correct?
13 A. To the best of my recollection, when replying to this, I said
14 that the head sent the order down his line and the chief of the Main
15 Staff also sent almost the same order down his line, and the order states
16 who had to do what.
17 Q. Just -- we may get back to this in another context, but Milivoj
18 Petkovic's order, wasn't that only made possible because there was an
19 earlier order by Bruno Stojic?
20 A. No. One does not exclude the other.
21 Q. Sir, let's turn to something totally different now.
22 MR. KRUGER: And I'd like to show you the very first document in
23 the Prosecution binder. That is document P 00020. P 0020. It's the
24 very first document.
25 Q. Now, sir, this document is the 1991 survey of the population or
1 the "national composition of the population, 1991 results for the
2 republic by municipalities and populated areas." And I've only included
3 an extract with regard to Citluk municipality, and if you go to the very
4 last page of your document, and this page has not been translated into
5 English because it isn't necessary, so in the B/C/S version, for the
6 English speakers, it's also the last page of the B/C/S version. And sir,
7 there we see Citluk. The total population for Citluk is shown in 1991 as
8 15.063 people, and of that amount - and if we just move two columns or
9 three columns across - the total number of Croats is 14.623. Are those
10 figures basically correct to your recollection?
11 A. They could be. I believe this comes from the statistics.
12 Q. And, sir, if we look in Citluk municipality in 1991, in the
13 second column it says there were only 111 Muslims; is that correct?
14 A. It could be correct, yes.
15 Q. And then only 19 Serbs and 17 Yugoslavs, also basically correct?
16 A. That's what it says here.
17 Q. And 113 declared themselves as others. Now, sir, stating the
18 obvious, and I think you've also said this, but Citluk municipality was
19 essentially inhabited exclusively by people of Croat ethnicity; is that
21 A. Yes, for the most part, yes.
22 Q. Now, I'd like to show you this data presented in a different
23 format, and this is in the second-last document in your binder. It's
24 P 10851. P 10851. And this is a map that was prepared after the 1991
25 census, and there was such a map basically for each municipality.
1 Now, first of all, if we look at the top above the map, we'll see
2 the figures, once again, Croats, 14.823; Serbs, 19; Muslims, 111;
3 Yugoslavs, 17; and others, 113. So that corresponds with the previous
4 document that you saw. That's correct; yes?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Sir, if we look at the map itself, is that basically a map of
7 Citluk in the middle?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Now, the map is full of red circles, and if we look at the
10 legend above, which says Croats, 14.823, it shows that Croats are
11 indicated by red circles. So this, once again, shows that Citluk is
12 basically inhabited by Croats; correct?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Now, sir, if we look at the municipality to the south of Citluk.
15 That's Capljina municipality; correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And we see that in Capljina municipality, to the eastern side of
18 Capljina municipality there are a number of green dots. Is it correct
19 that that basically corresponds to the area where the Dubravad [phoen]
20 plateau lies? Is that basically where the Dubravad plateau lies, sir? I
21 see you're shaking --
22 A. Yes. Well, more or less, yes, approximately.
23 Q. Now, sir, the green dots, if we look at the legend, they
24 represent people of Muslim ethnicity showing that on the Dubravad
25 plateau, Muslims stayed and lived; correct?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you know what happened to those Muslims during the course of
3 1993 who stayed on the Dubravad plateau?
4 A. I really don't know. I don't know anything about that.
5 Q. To the west of Citluk, is that municipality basically Ljubuski?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And we see there's a small concentration of Muslims, and if we
8 look very carefully, we'll see that that town where that dot is is
9 Gradska. Do you know what happened to the Muslims in Gradska during
11 A. No, I really can't answer that.
12 Q. Sir, if you don't know what happened to these Muslims in the
13 municipalities adjoining Citluk, why is that? Were you only focused on
14 the events in Citluk or -- where you had functions to perform?
15 A. Well, we had so much work to do, you can see from these reports
16 that we didn't -- well, that we barely had time to do them properly.
17 Q. What happened to the 111 Muslims who resided in Citluk during
18 1993? Were they still there by the end of 1993?
19 A. I think most of them were, and I think they are still there
21 Q. Did you receive any order to arrest any military-aged Muslim
22 males during Citluk in 1993?
23 A. Well, I never received such an order, of course, because in 1991
24 we had units established which included Muslims, and in 1992 we knew that
25 the army of BH was being established, and the Muslims went over to those
1 units, and we did not make a fuss about that, nor did they make a fuss if
2 someone moved from the BH Army into the HVO. So to the best of our
3 knowledge, their conscripts are either in the BH Army or in third
5 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm trying my best to
6 abide by the rules. I did not intervene before the witness answered, but
7 we should really have some grounds for this question. The witness
8 testified about what he was doing, so was he someone who could issue
9 orders of the kind my learned friend is asking about, and could he know
10 based on his work in the office for defence about all these events?
11 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I may just briefly respond. The
12 witness being involved in defence matters should know about these matters
13 or at least have an idea if such orders were being received or executed
14 in the municipality where he worked.
15 Q. Sir, you did not arrest any -- or do you know of any Muslim males
16 who were arrested within Citluk municipality during or from the 30th of
17 June, 1993, onwards?
18 A. To the best of my knowledge, no, not then or later either.
19 Q. Are you aware of any Muslim women, children, or elderly who were
20 expelled from Citluk municipality from July 1993 onwards?
21 A. I don't have any such information.
22 Q. So certainly you must have heard that Muslim males were arrested,
23 military-aged men were detained from the 30th of June onwards by the HVO
24 in places such as Gretelj [phoen] and Gabela? Sorry, is there a problem
25 with the translation?
1 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, it seems there's problem with the
2 translation. Isn't it coming through? It's taking time.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, informally I heard that there
4 were some military prisons, but where they were, I didn't know, nor was
5 it my job to know and what sort of prisons they were, really.
6 MR. KRUGER:
7 Q. Okay. What about the expulsion of women and children and
8 elderly -- Muslim women, children, and elderly persons from
9 municipalities such as Capljina and Stolac? Didn't you hear about that,
10 or didn't you know about that?
11 A. Well, I didn't know anything officially, but there were rumours
12 going around, so it's very hard for me to comment on this really.
13 Q. Sir, just before stepping off of this map, if we look at the very
14 centre of this map we see a dot, a big dot saying Citluk, and that's the
15 town of Citluk. Was that where you were based?
16 A. Yes. The Citluk defence office was in the town of Citluk
17 Q. And if we go north-east from there to Mostar, it appears that
18 that is totally Croat-controlled territory; is that correct? If we look
19 at the red dots, judging by them.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Sir, does that -- can we deduce from that that there were
22 basically also good communications from Mostar to Citluk?
23 A. Well, for my affairs, I did have communication with Mr. Bosnjak,
24 and he was my superior.
25 Q. Now, sir, we only have a few minutes left. If I can quickly
1 refer you to the document just after this map in the binder, and that is
2 document 2D 00150. It's behind -- after the map, sir. Yes. 2D 00150.
3 This is a Defence exhibit, 2D Defence exhibit.
4 Sir, this is a document dated the 9th of June, 1993. It's the
5 overview of the national structure of members of the HVO signed by Jure
6 Brkic. And if we look at the attachment or appendix number 1, we see --
7 well, first of all, let's at least just say that he says:
8 "On your request, enclosed to the letter we deliver to you the
9 overview of the national structure of members of the HVO."
10 And then the appendix, it says name of unit, for instance,
11 Department of Defence, a total of 247 people: Croats, 238; Muslims, 9;
12 and percentage of Muslims is 3,64.
13 Now, sir, my question is, did you also have to conduct such an
14 exercise with regard to Citluk?
15 A. Yes, we did compile tables of this kind or reports or overviews,
16 but I mentioned the reason why we insisted upon this. The 30th of June
17 -- it was all after the 30th of June, 1993.
18 Q. But, sir, this document predates the 30th of June. This is the
19 9th of June, 1993, so why would it be important to determine how many
20 Muslims there are and their percentage in the different units in the HVO?
21 What is the purpose?
22 A. Well, it was important because we had jointly established the
23 first units which were formed on the basis of volunteers, so to see who
24 the members of the units were, that was important, and that's why it
25 lists Croats and Muslims here, and that's -- those are the numbers. Now,
1 in later reports, the reports were compiled just for Croats because for
2 the well known reasons, we objectively could not count on the Muslims
4 Q. But that was only after the 30th of June; correct?
5 A. Yes, and that's why it says Croats and Muslims here.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we'll have to stop
7 because Mr. Scott needs a few minutes. I have a question for Ms. Nozica.
8 Your second witness, is he or she going to be ready tomorrow?
9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,
10 I'd like to bring the witness in the day after tomorrow because
11 technically it's impossible for me -- well, the witness arrived today, so
12 I really can't have enough proofing time with him and bring him into the
13 courtroom on Tuesday. So I had planned him for Wednesday, and with
14 respect to what Mr. Kovacic just said, I'm quite sure that we'll finish
15 with the witness on Wednesday by the end of the day.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, Mr. Scott.
17 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Just two housekeeping
18 matters just trying to assist to clarify a couple of items. The
19 Prosecution --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can this be done in the
21 presence of the witness?
22 MR. SCOTT: I think it can, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Go ahead.
24 MR. SCOTT: Thank you very much. Your Honour, there was a
25 request last week by the Stojic Defence to add an exhibit in connection
1 with the next witness, and just so the record is clear, the Prosecution
2 doesn't have any objection to that. Seems the most efficient way of
3 dealing with that matter. The Prosecution does not object to the
4 addition of that exhibit.
5 Secondly, Your Honour, concerning the same witness, Mr. Kovacic
6 indicated earlier today that he would have, well, virtually no questions
7 for the witness, but I assume -- presumably he is taking it as a 92 ter
8 witness. One question of clarification: Were there any exhibits in
9 relation to that witness? We understand there will be a -- presumably
10 there is a statement, but are there any -- if counsel could indicate,
11 that would be helpful, Your Honour. Thank you.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic, for witness --
13 92 ter witness, will there be any exhibits.
14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we don't plan to have
15 any exhibits with the next witness, but we are going to have the proofing
16 session, and I think we are duty-bound to hold a proofing session before
17 we bring the witness into the courtroom. So we don't plan to do so, but
18 whether the witness will or not, I don't know, but if he has anything to
19 add, then I'll let you know about that in good time.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So for the time
21 being, there will simply be a statement, and you will be asking him to
22 confirm that it's his statement and that it's his signature. Mr. Scott,
23 that's what Mr. Kovacic says. Is that agreeable to you?
24 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. It's practically 7.00.
1 Witness, let me remind of your instructions: No contact with anybody
2 whatsoever. We shall meet again tomorrow. The hearing will begin with
3 you tomorrow at 2.15, since we will be holding our hearing in the
4 afternoon. So, yes, that is indeed the case. Afternoon session
5 tomorrow, quarter past 2.00. And I say this all the more because I will
6 be on another -- in another hearing in the morning, so I know it's going
7 to be in the afternoon. Have a very nice evening. We'll see you
--- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.59 p.m.
10 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 24th day of
11 February, 2009, at 2.15 p.m.