1 Tuesday, 2 March 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The Accused Praljak not present]
5 [The Accused Petkovic takes the stand]
6 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you kindly call
8 the case, please.
9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning,
10 everyone in and around the courtroom.
11 This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et
12 al. Thank you, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Registrar.
14 Today is Tuesday, the 2nd of March, 2010. I would like, first of
15 all, to greet General Petkovic, who's here in the courtroom, all the
16 accused in the courtroom, Defence counsel, the OTP, as well as all the
17 people assisting us.
18 I shall, first of all, hand down two oral decisions.
19 First oral decision pertaining to the Petkovic Defence
20 application for extra time for the additional examination of
21 Milivoj Petkovic.
22 On the 24th of February, 2010, the Petkovic Defence filed a
23 public request with a view to asking the Chamber to grant it, overall, 15
24 minutes for its additional examination of Milivoj Petkovic after the
25 questions put by the Judges.
1 As a preliminary matter, the Trial Chamber would like to recall
2 that in its oral decision of the 23rd of February, 2010, it stipulated
3 that the Petkovic Defence would be entitled to address those topics that
4 had been addressed by the Judges as part of the questions put to
5 Milivoj Petkovic during the additional examination or re-examination.
6 The Trial Chamber had thus dismissed the possibility of a new
7 examination-in-chief after the questions of the Judges.
8 The Trial Chamber notes, moreover, that the Petkovic Defence has
9 exhausted the time credit allocated by the Trial Chamber, pursuant to
10 guide-line number 5, to conduct its examination-in-chief and its
11 re-examination. Consequently, the Trial Chamber decides to grant 15
12 extra minutes to the Petkovic Defence to enable it to conduct its
13 re-examination, which will take place after the cross-examination of the
15 Second oral decision --
16 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. I apologise for interrupting
17 the Chamber, but I'd ask the Registry to please pass on that I would like
18 to address the Chamber -- I'd like to address the Chamber prior to the
19 Chamber ruling on this matter.
20 As the Chamber knows, the Petkovic Defence filed a response
21 yesterday afternoon, and I believe the Coric filed a paper joining in
22 that submission, Your Honours.
23 First of all, I should say good morning to all of Your Honours.
24 Good morning, Mr. President. Good morning to counsel, all those in the
1 Your Honour, I do feel -- and I would ask leave before the
2 Chamber rules, to make a short oral reply about this matter, because
3 I think it's of the utmost importance. Of course, I don't know what the
4 Chamber's inclination or anticipated ruling is, but nevertheless,
5 Your Honour, if the Chamber will allow me one minute -- two minutes.
6 Your Honour, the simple truth of the matter is this, in response
7 to the submissions made: Under any honest assessment -- under any honest
8 assessment, Mr. Petkovic, at least for all of the co-accused, perhaps
9 putting Mr. Coric's counsel to one side we have yet to see, so I don't
10 pre-judge that, but as to all the Defence questioning to date, there is
11 no way that that can be considered to be cross-examination.
12 What we have seen here, and this has been an ongoing issue in the
13 case as the Chamber knows is this has been for all practical purposes by
14 any realistic, genuine, authentic measure, a common witness used by each
15 of the co-accused to advance their own case, to conduct their own further
16 examinations, all in the nature or substantially in the nature of direct
17 examination. If the proper label was applied, we might call it "truth in
18 labelling." I know food and drugs have to have truthful information on
19 the packaging. If we had truthful labelling about this, these would be
20 nothing more than direct examinations, in which case there would be no
21 mystery about the Prosecution's full opportunity to respond to all the
22 direct examinations with adequate time, applying the Chamber's usual
23 rules. It is the complete elevation of form over substance, for fairness
24 to the Prosecution to be determined what a label being applied, if this
25 is supposedly something called cross-examination, when it is not and has
1 not been.
2 To consider the situation further, Your Honours, there's only one
3 part in the courtroom -- party, there's only one party in the courtroom
4 who's going to challenge and test Mr. Petkovic's evidence, again, leaving
5 to one side Mr. Coric's counsel, which again I won't pre-judge. But
6 there's only one party, and that's the Prosecution, it is genuinely going
7 to test and challenge this witness's evidence. We need sufficient time
8 to do that. We are trying to assist the Chamber, and we hope the Chamber
9 will take that sincerely. We are trying to address a number of issues.
10 There's a huge number of issues to be addressed, and the Prosecution
11 needs adequate time and a fair amount of time in order to address all the
12 issues that have been raised.
13 And, of course, there was the lengthy examination by the
14 President. Mr. President, I have never said and I don't think anyone in
15 the courtroom has ever said that we question your right or opportunity to
16 do that. That is not my point at all. I appreciate the Court's
17 questioning. I think it's often helpful, and I appreciate that. There's
18 no question about that.
19 But the reality remains that when there is a lengthy additional
20 examination, questions are raised, topics are raised, new things are
21 said. Mr. Petkovic gives additional answers a different way, different
22 topics, new documents, that require response, that requires for the
23 Prosecution to be able to get its perspective and its challenge to
24 certain parts of the evidence.
25 Therefore, Your Honour, we stand by our request. We think it's a
1 reasonable request under these particular circumstances. In all the time
2 that's been given to the Defence, there's not been a single Defence team
3 that's gotten up so far who has not been granted more time; in fact
4 several more extensions of time, such as Mr. Praljak yesterday, Can I
5 have more time, can I have more time, can I have more time? The
6 Prosecution asks to be treated fairly and given sufficient time to be
7 able to assist the Chamber in covering the important topics that need to
8 be covered.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, can we just say we don't understand,
11 the Petkovic Defence, we don't understand why all these issues which
12 Mr. Scott has mentioned in the last few minutes aren't fully covered in
13 the written submissions, the motion that the Prosecution was invited to
14 put in, the response that we put in. So I'm certainly not going to
15 follow Mr. Scott and repeat what we have got there on paper.
16 We do say, with respect, that the last four or five -- well, it's
17 not four or five minutes, however many minutes Mr. Scott's been on his
18 feet, has been a waste of time. That's what those written submissions
19 were for. Your Honours have them and, no doubt, will rule upon them.
20 MR. KHAN: And, Mr. President, with your leave, I do, with the
21 greatest of respect, and however unwittingly, deprecate the, on occasion,
22 lack of, well, self-indulgence to simply address the Bench on any issue
23 many, many times. It's often the case that submissions do not get better
24 by mere repetition.
25 Now, Your Honours will determine in due course whether or not,
1 for example, the questioning put forward by my lead counsel in relation
2 to this witness was friendly cross-examination, all add item, on all
3 material issues, or whether or not on the substance, no the tone, on the
4 substance if there was a material distinction between the case of
5 Mr. Stojic and that of Mr. Petkovic. The Prosecution can say as many
6 times as they want, until they are exhausted, until the Court is
7 exhausted, that there is one defence here, and they have the
8 truth-seeking role.
9 The Defence will not for a moment cede that ground. The Defence,
10 in our respectful submission, are as much interested and as much engaged
11 in the truth-seeking role as any other party in this courtroom, as well
12 and including my learned friends on the other side. So, Your Honours, I
13 would ask -- I would join the submissions of my learned friend
14 Mr. Stewart that there has been an opportunity to vent these issues in
15 writing. Counsel should not simply take latitude that's given by the
16 Bench to address issues many, many times, because it does, as
17 Judge Prandler said repeatedly, eat into very precious court time. There
18 are many cases in this courtroom and in this building that are wishing to
19 be heard, and we all must be rather disciplined in the time we take on
20 our feet.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall turn to my colleagues
22 and ask them whether these submissions modify our decision in any way.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has handed
25 down its decision, and I shall present my personal opinion.
1 Oral decision relating to the Prosecution's application for extra
2 time for the cross-examination of Milivoj Petkovic.
3 On the 26th of February, 2010, the Prosecution filed a public
4 motion in which it requested the Trial Chamber to grant it 13 hours and
5 36 minutes overall for its cross-examination of Milivoj Petkovic.
6 In its oral decision of 11th of February, 2010, the Trial Chamber
7 had allocated the Prosecution, for its cross-examination, the same amount
8 of time as that that had been granted to the Petkovic Defence for its
9 examination-in-chief and its re-examination, i.e., six hours.
10 The Petkovic Defence, having had six hours and forty minutes,
11 forty extra minutes have thus been accorded to the Prosecution also. In
12 light of the extra time granted to the Petkovic Defence for its
13 examination-in-chief and its re-examination, and of the extra time
14 accorded to the Defence teams for their respective cross-examinations and
15 the topics addressed when the questions were put to Milivoj Petkovic by
16 the Presiding Judge, the Trial Chamber holds that it should also grant
17 extra time to the Prosecution.
18 Consequently, the Trial Chamber decides to grant the Prosecution
19 two hours and twenty minutes for its cross-examination of
20 Milivoj Petkovic and notes that the Prosecution now has nine hours
21 overall to cross-examine Milivoj Petkovic.
22 My personal opinion runs as follows: I fully share in the
23 decision that has been taken by the Trial Chamber as regards the
24 possibility that the Prosecution will have to have three extra hours,
25 compared with the initial time that had been granted on the 11th of
1 February, 2010; i.e., six hours. Accordingly, the Prosecution has
2 50 per cent of extra time.
3 As far as the reasons behind this extra time, as far as I'm
4 concerned, this stems from the questions put by the other Defence teams
5 and not provided by any individual Judge.
6 On close scrutiny of the practices developed in all the other
7 Trial Chambers show that as far as time is concerned and the time used by
8 the Bench, this Bench is included in the overall time allotted to the
9 parties, i.e., Prosecution or Defence. For instance, in the Karadzic
10 case, the Trial Chamber has decided to grant a number of hours to the
11 Prosecution and to the Defence, and in this time are included the
12 housekeeping matters as well as the questions from the Bench, if there
13 are any.
14 In addition, all the other Chambers have adopted the guide-lines,
15 i.e., the decision to grant for cross-examination, whatever it may be,
16 80 per cent of the time in order to expedite the trial, irrespective of
17 matters of substance raised.
18 As far as possible questions relating to issues not addressed are
19 concerned, I would like to recall that I addressed things two ways; i.e.,
20 the indictment was the first part, and the second part was the Defence
21 case. During the first day, my questions only related to the indictment
22 and on P exhibits of the Prosecution, which were known to the
23 Prosecution, as it seemed the Prosecution familiar with its case, of
24 course, cannot indicate that these are new topics.
25 As far as the Defence is concerned, I have only used those
1 exhibits that had been mentioned during examination-in-chief, and I did
2 not address any new topics, with the exception of the question of Prozor
3 following Mr. Scott's intervention.
4 That said, there are the causes and consequences to be addressed.
5 If nine hours are granted, this is only a consequence of a cause. The
6 main cause has to do with the interpretation of Rule 90(H) by the
7 Trial Chamber. This interpretation seems to be contrary to the spirit of
8 the article. Rule 90(H) stipulates that the cross-examination should be
9 limited to. The mere factor that the Rules stipulated that it should be
10 limited to means that those people who drafted the Rules indicated that
11 the cross-examination should be limited. In what way is it limited? It
12 is limited to three questions: issues mentioned during
13 examination-in-chief; issues relating to the credibility of the witness;
14 and issues relating to the case presented by the parties. The main
15 problem is due to the interpretation one makes of a party's case; (ii),
16 Rule 90(H), settles the issue, and this, I think, some people have lost
17 sight of this. Let me stipulate what it means.
18 In the cross-examination of a witness who is able to give
19 evidence relevant to the case, for the cross-examining party, counsel
20 shall put to that witness the nature of that case of the party for whom
21 that counsel appears which is in contradiction of the evidence. This
22 word, "contradiction," is the most important term. The person who is
23 cross-examining is going to contradict the topic that has been addressed.
24 That said, I fully agree with what Mr. Scott said a few minutes
25 ago, when he said that the cross-examination is, in fact, an
1 examination-in-chief. In my view, there should be no cross-examination,
2 save for the situation where there are varying opinions between the
3 accused, and in that case the cross-examination is justified.
4 Yesterday, Mr. Praljak attested to this. At no point in time was
5 he in contradiction with General Petkovic. Nonetheless, he was granted
6 one hour and ten minutes. Had he been in contradiction with, then he
7 could have.
8 To conclude, I would like to quote two case laws of the ICTY of
9 February 2004 -- ICTR of 2004. The president was Mrs. Vaz, who is
10 currently an Appeals Chamber Judge, for the people who don't know this.
11 This was in the Andre Rwamakuba case. In paragraph 15 of its decision,
12 let me quote - this is extremely short - it states:
13 "The Trial Chamber holds that the decision does not jeopardise
14 the outcome of the trial in any way."
15 It is noted that in its decision of the 5th of December, 2003,
16 the Chamber only established a framework and a guide-line. During the
17 cross-examination of another witness by the counsel of another accused,
18 the Trial Chamber clarified its decision by maintaining that this was not
19 equality, in arithmetical terms, and that it held that it would decide on
20 a case-by-case basis, i.e., analyse any specific situation. If limits on
21 the time in cross-examination are needed, the Chamber can, nonetheless,
22 accord more time to a party that needs it, only if this does not lead to
23 an unjustified waste of time.
24 The second case law text stems from the judgement by the
25 Appeals Chamber in the Akayesu case. In this well-known case, in
1 paragraph 317, the Presiding Judge had been told that he had controlled
2 the time of the cross-examination. The Appeals Chamber states the
3 intervention by the Presiding Judge had a particular purpose, which was
4 to control the proceedings, and these were aimed at the parties involved
5 in the trial. The Prosecutor and his associates, in paragraph 318, the
6 Appeals Chamber states that the Appeals Chamber holds that the Presiding
7 Judge fulfilled his role, which he is invested with, and may control the
8 time of examination-in-chief and cross-examination-in-chief when
9 witnesses come to testify.
10 I haven't finished.
11 The Appeals Chamber thus recalled that the time allocated for
12 cross-examination is monitored, and the person monitoring such time is
13 the Presiding Judge.
14 I, therefore, feel that time should be granted when there is a
15 need for it. Cross-examination does not amount to examination-in-chief.
16 Ms. Alaburic.
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
18 I'd like to make a request with regard to the decision on the
19 time allocated to the Prosecution for the cross-examination of
20 General Petkovic. But, first of all, I would like to ask you for a
21 little patience and allow me to say a few words.
22 If we carefully analyse the cross-examination of
23 General Petkovic, regardless of whether one considers this examination to
24 be friendly or unfriendly, we will then see that this examination has
25 nothing to do with the questions that Judge Antonetti put to
1 General Petkovic. This story about Judge Antonetti's questions has been
2 blown out of all proportion in this courtroom in order to lay a
3 foundation for a request for additional time and so that the Prosecution
4 can satisfy his desire for additional time.
5 Your Honour, please allow me.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, just 15 seconds.
7 We handed down a decision, so you're not supposed to comment on
8 the decision. You can ask for a certification of appeal, and then we can
9 issue a decision straight away. But if you want the floor in order to
10 say that you agree with me in saying that the Prosecutor should not be
11 granted any additional time because of the questions I put, well, I said
12 I was in favour of that in the decision.
13 Now, as to the time allotted, that stems from the questions put
14 by the other Defence teams, but that's over. So why do you want to take
15 the floor again?
16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I'll tell you why.
17 In the course of the break, I would like you to request -- I
18 would like to request you to allow me to have contact with
19 General Petkovic so that we can agree on what we should do with regard to
20 your decision on additional time for Prosecution examination. I don't
21 believe that we just have the possibility of filing an appeal. I think
22 that there is other -- there are other means of appeal, but I'd like to
23 consult General Petkovic about this. But in order to be able to confer
24 with my client in a satisfactory manner, I believe that we ought to
25 know -- could Judge Trechsel please allow me to say this. If the
1 Prosecution gets two hours and twenty minutes on the basis of Judges'
2 questions and on the basis of questions put by other Defence teams, I
3 would like to know exactly how much time is being allocated on the basis
4 of the Judges' questions, and I would like to know which questions are
5 concerned. I would like to know on the basis of which questions from
6 other Defence teams this time is being allocated, and I would like to
7 know whether the Chamber will control the way in which this additional
8 time is being used. It's important for us to have this information so
9 that we can decide as to the steps to take, the legal steps to take, with
10 regard to your decision on additional time for the Prosecution.
11 If you would allow me to have contact with General Petkovic, I
12 will tell you what our position is immediately after having spoken to my
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to have a break,
15 and you can then consult with General Petkovic. Of course, there's no
16 problem whatsoever.
17 Let's start with the Coric Defence. Thank you.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: I just want to do make one correction,
19 Mr. President, because you indicated that General Praljak did nothing but
20 direct examination, and I just want to give an example because I don't
21 want -- I want to make sure that the Trial Chamber realises what we're
22 trying to do.
23 Yesterday, the general was confronted with certain documents
24 concerning Halilovic. Now, the general's initial opinion was that
25 General Praljak was absolutely wrong about Halilovic, and he held
1 Halilovic, it would appear, in very high esteem, other than the fact that
2 Halilovic couldn't be trusted for his word. Documents were shown. The
3 general admitted that he had not seen those documents, granted there
4 should have been one more question, such as, Now that you see these
5 documents, do you change your opinion? That question wasn't asked. But
6 that being said, now there seems to be evidence before us, at least,
7 giving rise to a different interpretation as to what General Petkovic
8 initially indicated. At some point, it may be relevant, because
9 obviously Halilovic is a big player in this case. This is an example of
10 where we can say that nothing but direct examination was done.
11 I don't want to go into all the specifics, but I do think that
12 sometimes there are useful ways of getting information in through
13 cross-examination, and this was one of them.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, could I just mention something?
16 On the transcript --
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I'll give you the floor in
18 a moment.
19 Yes, Mr. Karnavas, on this very specific example of Halilovic, I
20 agree with you.
21 Yes, Mr. Stewart.
22 MR. STEWART: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 At page 9, it was just Your Honour's explanation and views on
24 Rule 90, the need to include what Your Honour said, which is at page 9,
25 line 5. Your Honour was referring to Rule 90(H)(i), and then at page 9,
1 at line 13, Your Honour was referring to Rule 90(H)(ii). Otherwise, the
2 explanation doesn't appear at all clear.
3 Your Honour knows, I think, already that we accept, as we have
4 to, the majority decision of the Trial Chamber, which the Petkovic
5 Defence, with the greatest respect, regards as absolutely right, and
6 Your Honour knows that we do not accept Your Honour's minority view which
7 you've expounded again this morning. But it's already in decisions made,
8 so there's absolutely no question of my re-arguing any of that.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are absolutely right. We
10 were talking about 90(H)(ii), and then it is in relation to 90(H)(i).
11 Thank you for making it clear. I had not noticed it in the transcript.
12 Yes, Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Your Honour, but again, I mean, Ms. Alaburic I
14 have to address, and I want the opportunity -- I want the Prosecution to
15 have the opportunity to respond when certain issues are raised.
16 Ms. Alaburic put certain propositions before the Chamber. I certainly
17 disagree with it, and if the Chamber is minded to consider it further,
18 other than having contact -- she can have contact with Mr. Petkovic. I
19 don't care, that's fine. But she asked for certain other things in her
20 submissions, and if the Chamber is minded to entertain those at all, then
21 before the Court rules and before the Court forms its decision, I want
22 the Prosecution to be heard on those. So I would ask the Chamber to
23 advise me and give me the opportunity to address any additional matters
24 raised by the Petkovic Defence prior to the Chamber ruling on them,
1 Thank you.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now the Coric Defence, please.
3 WITNESS: MILIVOJ PETKOVIC [Resumed]
4 [The witness answered through interpreter]
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your
6 Honours. Good morning to everyone in the courtroom.
7 Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:
8 Q. Good morning, Mr. Petkovic.
9 A. Good morning.
10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I would like to say that
11 I have handed out three binders to make it easier to follow my
12 cross-examination. The first binder has some Post-its in it, and it
13 contains certain documents I will be showing Mr. Petkovic. They have
14 been organised in the order that I will be showing them to Mr. Petkovic
15 in. I will also refer to Mr. Petkovic's testimony in the Blaskic and
16 Kordic cases, and I'll show him certain transcript pages which are
17 contained in the main binder, which also has Post-its. There are two
18 other binders, just in case. These are the full transcripts from the
19 Blaskic and Kordic case, so everyone in the courtroom can check these
20 transcript pages that are in the main binder and check to see that they
21 correspond to the actual transcripts. I don't want there to be any
23 Q. Mr. Petkovic, when answering a question put to you by your
24 counsel - it's on page 49408 of the transcript - you said that the chief
25 of the Main Staff wasn't involved in taking decisions that concerned the
1 organisation and the responsibility of the military police.
2 Could you please have a look at the first document in the binder,
3 P00960. This is a document dated the 28th of December, 1992. They are
4 the instructions on organising the units of the military police. On the
5 first page in the Croatian version, the third paragraph from the
6 bottom - its page 2 in the English version somewhere in the middle - it
8 "When manning military police units, the active military police
9 units, the committees in the operative zones have to ensure that there is
10 territorial representation in municipalities which is in proportion to
11 the population of each municipality."
12 We'll skip the next two paragraphs, and then it says:
13 "For the purpose of reorganising the VP units, we propose that
14 commissions consisting of the following members be established:"
15 A, for the first active-service battalion, we can see that a
16 representative of the Main Staff of the HVO is proposed as chairman. And
17 then under B, it says, for battalions in the OZ, we have a proposal for
18 one member of the commission, a battalion commander -- an operative zone
19 commander. Correction.
20 And then we go further down. In English, it's page 4,
21 paragraph 2, and it says:
22 "Officers and commanders will be appointed in accordance with the
23 decision on the internal organisation of the Defence Department after the
24 10th of January, 1993, by which time the commissions from each OZ must
25 send a list of proposed candidates for commanding and officer posts in
1 the OZ. In making this proposal, co-operate with all brigade commanders
2 in the OZ and the HVO of the municipality from which a certain candidate
3 is being proposed."
4 It's been signed by the head of the Defence Department.
5 Mr. Petkovic, tell me -- I have just one question: Were you
6 familiar with this, what I have just read out from the document?
7 A. No, Your Honours. This is the first time I have seen this
8 document, and I would like to see the list of the members of commission
9 under A and B.
10 Q. That's fine, Mr. Petkovic. I just wanted to know whether you
11 were familiar with this. You said you weren't. That's fine. Let's move
12 on to the next subject.
13 In response to a question put to you by Judge Antonetti,
14 according to which there were two types of military police, one of which
15 was attached to brigades, and this is page 49791 of the transcript, in
16 response to that question you said that as far as you were concerned,
17 there was only one military police, not two, but some of them were
18 responsible for carrying out duties within brigades. Mr. Petkovic, let
19 us now look at what you said about this same topic in the Kordic case.
20 We'll be looking at page 26776, lines 9 through 23.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, when you mention
22 figures, do read them slowly, because it's not easy for interpreters.
23 Thank you.
24 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] The document number --
25 or, rather, the transcript reference is P10029. I see that the pages
1 have been correctly recorded, so now I'm reading from the page I
2 mentioned and the following page, and that is 26777, line 1. I'll be
3 reading in English. The interpreters have the very same pages in front
4 of them, and it says [In English]:
5 "Q. I'm moving strictly in chronological order. We gave
6 military police -- commanders of brigades, when they were formed, had
7 military police units attached to them, did they not, General?
8 "A. Yes, yes.
9 "Q. Those units were, from the inception of the brigades, under
10 the control of their brigade commanders; correct?
11 "A. Yes.
12 "Q. Thank you.
13 "A. In the order, it says that the brigade military police was
14 under the command of the brigade commanders.
15 "Q. Yes. This document, indeed you've read it already, as it's
16 been before you, dated the 17th of August, describes the present
17 position. It doesn't describe a change. It's simply describing the
18 position that had always been in effect since the brigades and brigade
19 military police came into being .
20 "A. Yes, Your Honour."
21 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Petkovic, do you remember saying this in the
22 Blaskic case?
23 A. Yes, Your Honours, I -- you said Blaskic now. Didn't you say
24 Kordic before?
25 Q. Yes, Kordic.
1 A. Your Honours, yes, this is obviously my statement in the Kordic
2 case, but it is not in contradiction with the statement that I gave to
4 Q. No, no, you don't need to interpret. The question was
5 straightforward. So you said it.
6 Now let us look at -- I will remind everybody in the courtroom,
7 because we listened to this all together - it can't be found in the
8 binder - I'll remind you of the words of Mr. Tokic, Witness, in this
9 case, and it was recorded on transcript page 45507, lines 14 through 18.
10 Before I read it out, let me remind everybody that Mr. Tokic was
11 a Defence witness of General Praljak's, and he was a commander of a
12 brigade from Gornji Vakuf; am I right?
13 A. Yes, correct.
14 Q. Mr. Tokic says the following:
15 [In English] "Sir, apart from the Ante Starcevic Brigade in
16 Gornji Vakuf-Uskoplje, there was also, well, the battalion -- well, it
17 was called the battalion, but it had up to 60 men from the Bruno Busic
18 Regiment and then the military police, and then there was a platoon-size
19 units from HOS, the brigade police, which was under my composition. They
20 were units which had the mobilisation establishment and schedule and was
21 made up of men from Gornji Vakuf."
22 Mr. Petkovic, do you remember this part of Mr. Tokic's testimony?
23 You were in the courtroom then.
24 A. Yes. Mr. Tokic testified about the structure of the military
25 police. He had military police in his brigade, and that is not a matter
1 of contention.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Petkovic. I would like to ask you a technical
3 question now.
4 When we say "establishment structure," is that the number of
5 organisational units of a military unit or organisation? When we say
6 that something is in the establishment of something else, what does it
8 A. It means that it will be part of that brigade and act within that
9 brigade. There is no doubt that the platoon of military police acted
10 within the brigade, but it was also part of the Military Police
12 Q. All right, Mr. Petkovic. You don't have to explain things. Just
13 answer my question.
14 Now let's see P04262. [No interpretation]
15 JUDGE PRANDLER: There is no English interpretation.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Apologies.
17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. We can see that this was forwarded to all OZs, and we can also
19 see that it was received by all brigades. I can see that it hasn't been
20 recorded that this is your warning.
21 As we have read it several times in this courtroom, I will not
22 show everything. Let us start with the heading: "I hereby warn," and
23 let us read the first item. It says:
24 "The brigade military police is directly subordinate to the
25 brigade commanders. It is also part of the brigade establishment and has
1 the same status as other units within the brigade."
2 Now, I would like to ask you to look at another document in
3 connection with this first item, and that's document P01099. The
4 document is called "Schematic Illustration of the Establishment of the
5 Brigade." Let us look at page 2, where there is the first schematic. We
6 can see that third from the left there's also a platoon of the military
8 Mr. Petkovic, do you agree that this schematic we've just seen
9 confirms what you say in item 1 of document P04262 which I've read out a
10 minute ago?
11 A. Yes, it does. It does confirm that there was a platoon of
12 military police.
13 Q. All right, all right, Mr. Petkovic, just yes or no. Let's be
14 brief, because my time is extremely limited.
15 Let us look at item 2 of document P04262, the selection of -- or,
16 rather, recruiting manpower to be carried out only from the military
17 structure of a brigade, and the commander has a right to replace every
18 military policeman.
19 Let us now look at document P0 -- PD05106 -- PD05106. 5D, sorry,
20 not PD. 5D. 5D05106. This is a document a document signed by the
21 Frankopan Brigade commander. It's dated the 3rd of April, 1993. And he
23 "Pursuant to an order issued by the commander of the OZ and the
24 authorisation of the brigade commander, the Command of the Frankopan
25 Brigade appoints" so-and-so" to the post of the platoon commander of the
1 brigade military police."
2 Tell me, Mr. Petkovic, does this document illustrate the
3 practical implementation of what we have read under item 2 of your
5 A. No, it does not, because the brigade commander has no right to
6 appoint the commander of a platoon of the military police.
7 Q. Now, Mr. Petkovic, I'm not sure about that, because we saw what
8 this says. But, anyway, the brigade commander appointed the platoon
9 commander, and this is an exhibit already. This refers to
10 Central Bosnia, and it shows that one commander was replaced by another.
11 Stanko Primorac, Cane, was in the Ljubuski Brigade. We don't need to
12 show the document because it's an exhibit already. P00990, that's the
13 document number, the exhibit number.
14 A. But I must reply to that question.
15 Q. No, you don't. You said that he had no right to do so, and I
16 don't want to go into that. I'm merely showing the fact that an
17 appointment was made.
18 Let us move on to item 4 of our document, which says:
19 "All problems within the brigade police are your problems and
20 should be tackled via the system of command."
21 Let us now look at document 5D05107, which has to do with that.
22 This is an order by brigade commander or the commander of the
23 Vitez Brigade, dated the 22nd of March, 1993, in which he says:
24 "Pursuant to the provisions of the Rule Book on Military
25 Discipline, I order:
1 "Brigade policemen Ivica Rajic and Ivica Jukic fail to carry out
2 orders and behaved carelessly and behaved non-militarily, and thus are
3 subject to the provisions of the Rule Book on Military Discipline, and
4 15 per cent shall be deducted from their monthly salaries."
5 Under item 2, we see that it says the amount deducted from their
6 salaries shall be given to those policemen who prove best.
7 Tell me, Mr. Petkovic, is the brigade commander here tackling a
8 problem in the military police?
9 A. Well, this is illegal. He had no right to do that. Only the
10 Disciplinary Court was entitled to do that.
11 Q. Well, I'm not -- that was not my question. My question was
12 whether or not he actually did so.
13 Let us look at another document, P02595. Again, the commander of
14 the Vitez Brigade, but this time on the 1st of June, 1993, again based on
15 the Rule Book on Military Discipline, orders Dragan Calic, a member of
16 the Vitez Brigade, and the brigade police, violated the disciplinary
17 rules and is redeployed from the Vitez Brigade to the line of defence.
18 Tell me, Mr. Petkovic, does the brigade commander here, too, deal
19 with an issue within the military police?
20 A. Well, redeploying somebody to the line of defence is not a
21 military -- is not a disciplinary measure. Whoever wrote this didn't
22 have a clue. But, of course, nobody can prevent the brigade commander
23 from sending somebody to the line of defence.
24 Q. All right, Mr. Petkovic, all right. Let's move on to the next
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, before you
2 answer the question, take some time, because the interpreters are telling
3 me that there's a lot of overlapping and they're getting a little
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will act in accordance.
6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Let us move on to the following topic. On page 49793 of the
8 transcript, you said that there were four so-called standard battalions
9 of the military police which performed duties of the military police.
10 Did you mean the four battalions that were ones in the zones of
11 operation, one each?
12 A. Yes, there was one battalion per OZ.
13 Q. Let us now look at what you said about that in the Blaskic case.
14 The document number is P10028, and the page of the transcript that I'll
15 be reading is in the binder with the tabs. I'll read -- I'll start
16 reading with page 24015, lines 1 through 5:
17 [In English] "There were battalions of the military police in
18 every military district or, rather, in the every area covered by military
19 district, there was a certain battalion of the military police."
20 [Interpretation] Now on the very same page, let's have a look at
21 line 15:
22 [In English] "The rules on the establishment and work of the
23 military police stipulates as follows:
24 "1. That all units of the military police are subordinated to
25 the chief of Administration of the Military Police from the point of
1 personnel, organisational, logistics, training and other activities
2 pertaining to the military police. However, the rules stipulate that in
3 carrying out regular military police tasks, the units of the military
4 police shall be subordinate ..."
5 [Interpretation] Now we have certain technical difficulties here,
6 so we will go on to page 24016, and your answer continues at line 10:
7 [In English] "... that in carrying out regular military police
8 tasks, the units of the military police are subordinate to the commander
9 of the operative zone or to another military territorial commander; for
10 the most part, we had commanders of operative zones.
11 "In order to make this clearer, I shall invoke the tasks, the
12 military/territorial tasks, that the military police carries out. The
13 first task of the military police is the protection of lives and the
14 personal safety and security of military personnel.
15 "A brief comment: This task the military police carries out
16 within the area of the operative zone. There is exceptional interest in
17 this task on the part of the commander of the operative zone. It is
18 logical that for carrying out such a task, the military police is
19 responsible to the commander of the operative zone."
20 [Interpretation] We are now on the following page, 2417. I'll
21 very briefly read out passage 3, 7, 12, 20, 23. I'll read out those
22 lines, in fact. And on page 24018, lines 5 to 8, I'll read out the other
23 tasks that you referred to:
24 [In English] "Secondly, discovery of punishable acts.
25 "The next task: Traffic safety.
1 "Furthermore, providing security for safety and military persons.
2 "Furthermore, it supervises the conduct of military personnel,
3 but military personnel who are in the region of that particular operative
5 "Furthermore, it contacts military individuals and accompanies
6 them if they are members of operative zone. There can also be other
7 individuals taking them into custody.
8 "Furthermore, participation in combatting sabotage units ..."
9 [Interpretation] Mr. Petkovic, tell me -- well, now I'd have to
10 look at -- now I'd like to have a look at the transcript from the Kordic
11 case, page 26820. I'd like to have a look at what you said there.
12 P10029 is the number from the Kordic case. 26820 is the page I'll be
13 reading out, lines 10 to 16:
14 [In English] "Your Honours, yes, there was a continuity of
15 command under the military police, and I believe that in archives of the
16 Operative Zone of Central Bosnia there are documents from January,
17 February, March, indicating normal command over the military police,
18 because it is carrying out tasks for the needs of the commander of the
19 operative zone, not for anyone else, and in that area. And, therefore,
20 it is only normal that he should be the commander of those units."
21 [Interpretation] Mr. Petkovic, do you remember having given such
22 testimony in the Blaskic and Kordic cases?
23 A. Your Honours, this is all in accordance with the regulations on
24 the organisation of the military police --
25 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter notes that the speakers are
1 overlapping and the witness cannot be followed.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm saying what has been
3 transcribed, Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You are again overlapping to the distress of our
5 interpreters. I'm not saying who, but it's just a problem that both must
6 be very attentive to.
7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise,
8 Your Honours. I am trying to control the way I use my time and control
9 my cross-examination.
10 Could my colleague please sit down and not interrupt me until I
11 completed my sentence?
12 I only wanted to say that if my question requires a brief answer,
13 a yes-or-no answer, in that case the witness should answer in that way.
14 I understand that he wants to explain certain things. He'll have the
15 opportunity to do so. My colleague who is defending him will give him
16 the possibility of providing explanations and additional responses. I
17 have limited time. I put a very simple question to him, did he remember
18 that that is what he said. I didn't ask him whether that was the case,
19 nor did I ask him where it had been recorded. But if the witness
20 continues to answer in this way, then I do apologise, but I have to stop
21 him, and then there is overlapping. It would be very simple -- or much
22 simpler if he answered the question.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like to
24 say that I interpret the legal provisions, nothing else. I don't depart
25 from the law. Everything I said here is transcribed on the 26th of
1 December, 1992, it's recorded there. That's a document I'm familiar
2 with, and I have been testifying to that effect. So there are certain
3 police duties. I just mentioned what was provided for by the law, and
4 why should it bother you if I say that the law regulated matters in this
5 way? I haven't diminished the importance of your question, I haven't
6 insulted you, and I didn't go off on a tangent. Why are you afraid? You
7 say it's a document -- you say it's a certain document.
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, Mr. Petkovic. You will be very
9 bored, because I'm repeating something that I have said many times, and
10 before that Mr. Karnavas has said so many times. Under
11 cross-examination, you are held to answer, Yes, No, I don't know, I don't
12 remember, and not to give explanations. That is what counsel is aiming
13 at, and she is right to do so. So if you would stick to this, there
14 would be not such a danger for overlapping, because she's trying to stop
15 you when you want to go into explanations.
16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I
17 would like to say that these subjects are new subjects that weren't dealt
18 with in the examination-in-chief of General Petkovic. And in accordance
19 with the decision that has just been taken, could that be treated as
20 examination-in-chief and could one refrain from putting leading
22 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] These are not new
23 subjects. I referred to the page in the transcript that resulted in a
24 discussion in the courtroom. The witness mentioned four standard
25 battalions. He was asked about that. Then he said that they were under
1 Mr. Coric -- or, rather, under Mr. Stojic, the deputy head for security,
2 except for when they were re-subordinated or attached for the purpose of
3 combat operations. That was from the end of July 1993.
4 In this particular case, I have the full right to inform
5 Mr. Petkovic of what he omitted or to inform him of what he said in a
6 different manner in other cases, and that significantly changes the
7 meaning of his testimony in this case about the military police.
8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that is not in
9 dispute. I just want to do say that these aren't subjects that were
10 dealt with in the course of examination-in-chief, and that is the only
11 issue that I am addressing.
12 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] I'd just like to respect
13 certain principles. I was asked about what do I think about the fact
14 that two generals examining each other. They have the same role, the
15 same position, given war, so what I think about that, it is not really
16 necessary for me to state. What is of interest here, we heard about a
17 term for the first time yesterday, the combat part and the non-combat
18 component of the HVO. That's the first time we heard those terms. If
19 that hasn't been mentioned before - at least I haven't heard such terms,
20 and these terms haven't been discussed in four years - yesterday someone
21 mentioned those terms, and that establishes a rank for HVO units, a
22 certain hierarchy which -- what is the combat component, what is the
23 non-combat component.
24 Yesterday, I couldn't sleep, because when I was the head of the
25 military police I thought about 166 military policemen, and over 600 men
1 were wounded while they were part of the non-combatant component of the
2 HVO. I thought about how they suffered. I was wondering about my
3 responsibility, how did that happen.
4 Your Honours, could my Defence please be allowed to have
5 sufficient time? We are not discussing useless matters here. Often such
6 matters are discussed; that's my opinion. Time is wasted, an incredible
7 amount of time is wasted. For years, we've been referring to counts in
8 the indictment about the charges levelled against us. We're not
9 defending Croatia. Some pretend that they are defending Croatia,
10 Franjo Tudjman, and I don't know whom. We're telling the truth about
11 Croatia, about Franjo Tudjman, about the military police. We have to
12 respond to lies. So please allow us to have the necessary conditions to
13 deal with these matters.
14 This is the time of our defence. It's a difficult time for us.
15 We've been preparing for this for dozens of years now, so please allow my
16 counsel to do her work. But if she is continually interrupted, I'd like
17 to ask the Chamber -- well, I can see that the Chamber isn't putting many
18 questions. You rarely put questions now. Please allow my counsel to do
19 her work, and then everyone else can proceed.
20 Thank you very much, but this is something I had to say.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric, your counsel is
22 doing her job. She's doing her job well. She's putting her questions,
23 and General Petkovic will answer.
24 There are two comments I would like to make on what you've just
1 You are right. For the time being, I'm not putting any
2 questions, and my fellow Judges are not either. As far as I'm concerned,
3 as far as the military police is concerned, things are extremely
4 straightforward, and this rests on the simple question: Does the
5 military police come under the brigade or another entity? It's thanks to
6 the questions put by your counsel and Mr. Petkovic's answer that I will
7 be able to understand matters much more clearly. Perhaps I will even be
8 able to understand much more clearly when Mr. Scott conducts his
9 cross-examination. When you will call your witnesses and when -- then I
10 hope to have an answer to this extremely straightforward question.
11 Second comment. You said you didn't sleep all night because
12 General Petkovic talked about non-combat and combat. When I heard that,
13 I understood that when he says "non-combat," he means those people who
14 are not fighting, i.e., those who are reserve people, or involved in
15 administrative matters, in logistics, and so on and so forth. This is
16 the way I understood what he was saying.
17 General Petkovic is nodding, which means that that is how we are
18 to understand this.
19 If the military police is in combat, that means that these people
20 are combatants.
21 Mr. Coric.
22 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Very briefly.
23 I think you have misunderstood me. Could you check the
24 transcript? General Praljak's question was very specific: Is the
25 military police part of the non-combatant component? General Petkovic
1 said, Yes, as far as I can remember. Please check that. What
2 General Petkovic said is perhaps the consequence of our conversation --
3 our private conversation last night.
4 Thank you very much.
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, given what Mr. Coric
6 has said, it seems that Mr. Coric spoke to my client about his testimony
7 and that General Petkovic's answers today are the result of the
8 conversation Mr. Coric had yesterday with my client about his testimony.
9 Could we please clarify this and take the necessary measures?
10 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Yes, I admit that we spoke to
11 each other yesterday. If Mr. Petkovic agrees, I can tell you exactly
12 what we spoke about, but I think it would be better not to go into that.
13 But if necessary, I can do so. I'd be quite happy to tell you what we
14 spoke about.
15 But, similarly, since we have started speaking about such
16 matters, you shouldn't speak in the course of the break, in the middle of
17 my Defence's cross-examination. So I'm asking the Chamber not to allow
18 General Petkovic and his counsel to speak to each other, because those
19 are the rules of the Court. I have remained silent about this, but I
20 noticed this immediately. In the middle of their cross-examination, you
21 allowed them to have contact with each other. I don't know which
22 violation is worse, the fact that we spoke to each other yesterday or
23 this other case. The fact that we spoke to each other about I don't know
24 what, if someone else is guilty, are we guilty for this, well, I don't
25 know. I'm not testifying here.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic.
2 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] My question about having contact
3 with General Petkovic was quite specific and had to do with certain
4 procedural measures or rules. I don't mind Mr. Scott being present when
5 I speak to General Petkovic. An interpreter could assist him. I
6 mentioned Mr. Scott because he's opposite me, but I don't mind anyone
7 from the courtroom being with me, and I will ask General Petkovic what we
8 should do, how we should proceed with regard to today's decision. I
9 didn't have any contact with my client without the Chamber's leave.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, since you
11 were on the front-line, what do you have to say?
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, as for
13 saying that the police was the non-combatant component, well, I would
14 like to ask the Coric Defence to say what the tasks of the military
15 police were. And if they find that among those tasks the military police
16 also had the task of going to the front-line and carrying out combat
17 operations, well, then I'll withdraw everything I said. I'm not going
18 into the fact that there were additional orders that were issued from the
19 assistant head according to which their military police members were sent
20 to carry out certain tasks, but that's another matter.
21 The military police isn't defined as a combat unit, but the fact
22 that later orders were issued and they were sent in because of certain
23 situations, well, that fact is a different matter. So please check to
24 see what the tasks of the military police are and see where such tasks
25 can be found.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric, General Petkovic has
2 explained what happened over dinner. From what I understand, he says
3 that the military police is on the front-line; then there is an order.
4 If the military police is not on the front-line, then it is a non-combat
5 police. That's what I've understood.
6 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, well, I'm
7 receiving slips of paper from my Defence, although in certain periods I
8 don't get any advice. I would like to read out to you from the Military
9 Lexicon of the former Yugoslavia, and General Petkovic graduated from the
10 military schools of that country, only a very short passage which
11 outlines the structure of military police in all republics of the former
12 Yugoslavia and all of its parts. I would only read out two or three
13 sentences, and I'm quoting the Military Lexicon from 1971, which is
14 available here in the courtroom, and this is at the same time my reply to
15 the statements issued by Mr. Petkovic:
16 "The units of the military police are specially-trained units for
17 carrying out combat tasks and dedicated tasks from the purview of the
18 military police. They are organised into squads, platoons, companies,
19 battalions, and brigades of the military police. They are directly
20 subordinated to the commander to whose units they belong."
21 This is page 199 from that Military Lexicon.
22 There is more, and this is an excerpt I took yesterday,
23 anticipating this discussion. So this is my reply to Mr. Petkovic. And,
24 General, do not explain here, but limit yourself to answering the
25 questions of my Defence counsel. I know that you taught some time ago,
1 but that's no longer the case.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric, you weren't chief of
3 military police in the JNA. You are -- what you said refers to the JNA.
4 The structure that you had was different.
5 There are two documents outlining the tasks of the military
6 police. Later Defence counsel put that forward, and then we'll study
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Petkovic, everybody
9 agrees. Mr. Coric would like to you answer the questions put by his
10 counsel. His counsel would like to put questions to you, and you would
11 like to answer, so let's continue for another five minutes before the
13 Please take the floor, Counsel.
14 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Well, now that I have the floor again, I would like to remind you
16 that before this interruption, we spoke about the daily tasks of the
17 military police and about Mr. Petkovic's testimony in the Blaskic and
18 Kordic cases. He said that he -- he said that he remembers giving those
20 Q. Mr. Petkovic, I want to remind you now what a witness in this
21 trial said about the same topic. I'm just checking whether or not the
22 witness was protected. No, he wasn't. So it was Witness Bozo Pavlovic.
23 The page is 46905 of the transcript, lines 6 through 11:
24 [In English] "Q. Based on the documents we've looked at so far,
25 it's clear that before the 30th of June, 1993, you and the commander of
1 the 1st Brigade were issuing orders to the military police in your area
2 of responsibility; am I correct?
3 "A. Yes, I was issuing orders to them for the police assignments
4 in my area of responsibility."
5 [Interpretation] Let's now look at what the same witness said on
6 page 46907, lines 9 through 13:
7 [In English] "I've already said that the police in the zone
8 carried out military police assignments pursuant to our orders, and that
9 is precisely the job they should do, that is to say, to control the area.
10 And anything else, if there's any crime or anything like that, then they
11 have to prevent that."
12 [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Petkovic, do you remember this part
13 of Mr. Pavlovic's testimony?
14 A. I hope that you have read it out accurately.
15 Q. Yes, I have. It can be checked in the transcript.
16 A. Well, certainly, it's better to read it out than for me to try to
17 remember. Pavlovic said that he issued orders to the military police,
18 but we don't see who gave him that right.
19 Q. Stop. Stop right there. I asked you whether you remember. If
20 you don't remember, fine.
21 And tell me now, Mr. Petkovic, did Mr. Pavlovic confirm, by
22 saying that, the de facto application of what you spoke about in the
23 Blaskic and Kordic cases, and that's the same thing that I have just read
24 out, as concerns the commanding of the military police in daily tasks?
25 A. I set up a link with the commander of the OZ, as far as daily
1 tasks are concerned, and I stand by that, because those were the legal
2 provisions. I don't know who gave the right to the lower-rank commander,
3 Pavlovic, to use that 3rd Company of the Military Police.
4 Q. All right, Mr. Petkovic, all right. If you don't know, how am I
5 supposed to know?
6 Let's move on to document --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It might be a good idea to have
8 the break now, since it is nearly 10.30.
9 During the break, Ms. Alaburic can talk to General Petkovic on
10 the sole issue of time allocation, not about any matters of substance.
11 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
12 --- On resuming at 10.54 a.m.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may proceed.
14 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Petkovic, before the break we saw what was in accordance with
16 the rules, as you said, and gave your reasons, with regard to the daily
17 tasks of the military police, and now I would like to go into the
18 de facto situation in brief. And to do that we will look at several
19 documents. P00781 is the first such document.
20 Toward the beginning of today's examination, I asked you what an
21 establishment structure was, and you provided an answer. Could you
22 please tell me briefly what an establishment system is and whether there
23 is a difference between an establishment structure and an establishment
24 system, but briefly, if possible?
25 A. There should be no difference whatsoever.
1 Q. All right. Mr. Petkovic, you have the document in front of you.
2 This document was signed by the commander of the Zone of Operations
3 North-West Herzegovina, Colonel Zeljko Siljeg. It's dated the 20th of
4 November, 1992. It's called "Report on the Establishment of the Command
5 of the OZ North-West Herzegovina," and it was sent to all brigade
6 commanders in that area. It says here, in paragraph 2:
7 "The establishment system of the OZ North-West Herzegovina
8 includes the following units:"
9 And several brigades are mentioned. And under item 9, we can
11 "The 2nd Military Police Battalion - Livno."
12 Mr. Petkovic, are you familiar with this report submitted by
13 Mr. Siljeg?
14 A. Item 9 is wrong.
15 Q. That wasn't my question. Easy. Are you familiar with it or not?
16 A. I can see that this was not forwarded to the Main Staff of the
18 Q. Then I follow from that, then, that your unfamiliar with it.
19 Let's move on to the following document.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment. General, if I did
21 not ask any questions, Mr. Coric might be worried, but this is not the
22 reason why I'm asking the question. I'm somewhat surprised to see the
23 English version. It is -- we see 1 to 9, and in English it is said,
24 handwritten, "11.05, 10.50, 10.50," and we can't find the equivalent
25 thereof in the B/C/S version. Does this mean that there is another
1 document? Because this is a Prosecution document. We have the number,
2 P781, so was the translation done from another document or is there a
3 mistake here?
4 General Petkovic, how do you account for the fact that next to
5 the "Herceg Stjepan Brigade," this mention would have been handwritten
6 "11.05," or don't have you an explanation for it?
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if this was
8 translated from Croatian, then there should be no such tag as this
9 handwritten "11.05," because I can see no such thing in the Croatian
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's a bit of a mystery.
12 Please continue.
13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Please allow me to recall, Mr. Petkovic, you
14 should answer, Yes, No, I don't know. You have not answered the
15 question. You have given something which probably, and that's how
16 counsel understood it, was meant to be an explanation. But the question
17 was: Do you know -- did you know this document or did you not? And the
18 answer is, Yes, or, No.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think the question whether or not
20 I was familiar with it was put to me later. I was reading the
21 distribution list, to who it was forwarded.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Well, I am not going to do the work of counsel.
23 Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic, please.
24 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
25 I may have missed that, so it didn't enter the transcript.
1 Q. Mr. Petkovic, let's clarify. Did you answer that you were not
2 familiar with document P00781?
3 A. Yes, that was my answer, and I said that it wasn't forwarded to
4 the Main Staff.
5 Q. All right. The following document is 5D05095.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One moment, please. We're
7 going to continue, but as to the issue of answering, Yes, or, No, I don't
8 know, I subscribe to my colleague's position. However, I do have to say
9 that as per the Rules, nothing is said on the issue, and I want to make
10 that clear, for it to be recorded in the transcript.
11 In this famous Akayesu appeals judgement, paragraph 323, the
12 Appeals Chamber says this on leading questions and cross-examination:
13 "The Appeals Chamber --"
14 Please listen carefully, because it's interesting:
15 "The Appeals Chamber recalls that the Rules of the Tribunal never
16 included any specific provision on the specific issue of leading
17 questions. However, the Rules present general rules governing
18 examination-in-chief and cross-examination, seemingly inspired by the US
19 Federal Rules of Evidence. Admittedly, based on such a model, leading
20 questions are generally authorised and used in cross-examination, whilst
21 they are prohibited in examination-in-chief. Nevertheless, the
22 Appeals Chamber is of the view that the Rules have their own life, once
23 they have been adopted. The question of interpreting the Rules may be
24 inspired by a model of domestic law it is based on, but in no case can it
25 be subordinated to it."
1 Therefore, the Appeals Chamber is saying here that the Rules is
2 what matter and not domestic law, and that the Rules are silent on this,
3 so anybody can do what they want. This is why I went along with my
4 colleagues' position, even though I sometimes have strong reservations,
5 because if you answer a question by saying, No, it may cause problems.
6 But please continue.
7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
8 I called document 5D05095. This is a document from the brigade
9 commander. I repeat the document reference, 5D05095, a document of the
10 commander of the Dr. Ante Starcevic Brigade, dated the 21st of March,
11 1993. It says: "I order," and under item 2: "Reinforce manpower
12 performing security," et cetera, and then "assign two military policemen
13 and one civil policeman." And it also says, apart from that, "select
14 five men for some factories." For one factory, it's the military police
15 of the brigade; for the other factory, it's the Bruno Busic unit, and for
16 another factory the active military police.
17 And under item 4 it says:
18 "The commanders of the above-mentioned units are personally
19 responsible to me for the execution of this order."
20 Tell me, Mr. Petkovic, does this order refer to the tasks of the
21 military police, as you have stated it in the Blaskic case, and that is
22 providing security to facilities.
23 A. Yes, the military police's task is to provide security for
24 certain facilities. This is part of their daily duties. This is done if
25 it is necessary, as assessed by the commander.
1 Q. Let's have a look at the following document, 5D04374. This is an
2 order from the Command of the Operative Zone of South-Eastern Herzegovina
3 that was sent to the 3rd MP Battalion and to the Mostar Police
4 Administration. Under item 1, it says:
5 "Uniformed and armed persons are prohibited from entering the
6 zone of responsibility of Mostar municipality without the prior written
7 permission of the OZ JIH/South-Eastern Herzegovina Operations Zone ..."
8 Mr. Petkovic, is this one of the regular tasks that the MP -- the
9 military police have to perform, a task that concerns security and
10 protecting the lives of people in the zone of responsibility?
11 A. Yes, this is one of the MP's regular duties, one of their daily
13 Q. Let's have a look at the following document. It is 5D04375.
14 This is also an order from the commander of the South-Eastern Herzegovina
15 Operations Zone. It's dated the 17th of April, 1993. And it says:
16 "In keeping with the current situation in the city of Mostar and
17 the need to secure the city, I hereby order that the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th
18 Battalions of the 2nd HVO Brigade and the 4th Battalion of the 3rd HVO
19 Brigade each attach at least 50 soldiers under the command of the 3rd HVO
20 Military Police Battalion in Mostar."
21 And then it says:
22 "I shall hold the commanders of the 2nd and 3rd HVO Brigades and
23 the commander of the 3rd HVO Military Police Battalion responsible for
24 carrying out the order."
25 It was forwarded to the commanders of these brigades, and we can
1 see that at the bottom, and the Command of the 3rd Battalion of the
2 military police.
3 Mr. Petkovic, does this order also concern regular MP duties? We
4 can see that it has to do with securing towns.
5 A. Yes, it has to do with providing security for a town, and the
6 army should reinforce the security.
7 Q. P02534 is the following document I would like to have a look at.
8 It consists of two parts, this document consists of two parts. The first
9 part is your order, and the second part is a document in which the
10 commander of the operations zone in South-Eastern Herzegovina forwards
11 your order to the relevant units. It's dated the 27th of May, 1993. It
12 prohibits those who have to perform military service to go to the
13 Republic of Croatia from Mostar. It says such individuals are banned
14 from leaving the town and going to the Republic of Croatia or
15 municipalities in Western Herzegovina, and with a view to ending such
16 occurrences: "I hereby order:"
17 Under 1:
18 "All permits to leave the area of HZ-HB issued to military
19 conscripts in Mostar shall be invalid as of this day."
20 We can see that this was sent to the military police, amongst
21 others. Mr. Petkovic, does this order also concern the regular duties of
22 the military police?
23 A. This ban on leaving the town is also one of the regular daily
24 duties that the military police has to perform. It can go on for two,
25 three, or more days, as the commander of the operations zone will have to
1 assess how long this shall be in force.
2 Q. Let's have a look at the following document, P04063. Again, this
3 is one of your orders, dated the 9th of August, 1993. It has to do with
4 bringing in deserters and those who have to perform their military
5 service and who fail to respond to mobilisation, conscripts who fail to
6 respond to mobilisation: "I hereby order:" And we can also see it was
7 also sent to the Military Police Administration. It says under item 5 --
8 or, rather, you say:
9 "The VPN will bring those persons in and detain them in the
10 Ljubuski Prison, where they will be held until the end of the trial."
11 Under item 6, you say:
12 "The commanders of zones, brigades and units at their levels, the
13 HVO VPN and the Military Court president will be responsible to me for
14 carrying out this assignment."
15 The first question I would like to put to you, Mr. Petkovic, is:
16 What does "VPN" mean?
17 A. That's the head of the Military Police Administration, the head
18 of the military police, in fact.
19 Q. Mr. Petkovic, does this document also concern the daily tasks
20 that the military police had to perform; bringing in deserters?
21 A. Yes, that's one of the military police's tasks, its regular and
22 daily task that they have to perform.
23 Q. Let's have a look at the following document, 3D0 --
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me. As a judge, I cannot but be
25 surprised to read that you have ordered the Military Court president to
1 be responsible to you for carrying out an assignment. How do I have to
2 understand this, in view of the very well-known general rule that judges
3 must be independent?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Trechsel, a judge
5 is independent, but if he doesn't deal with the cases referred to him,
6 then he has to be informed of the fact that he has to deal with referred
7 cases. Otherwise, these cases will just accumulate and the Court will be
8 quite useless.
9 The date here is the 9th of August, and at the time there were
10 many men who weren't where they should have been. They quite simply
11 left. So the Court, in a certain sense, which is independent, has to be
12 warned to participate in the matter and to ensure that things are done in
13 an effective way.
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. I'm not going to discuss this. That
15 does not mean that I quite agree with your view.
16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. The following document is 3D02584. It's another order of yours,
18 dated the 14th of August, 1993. It has to do with -- it says leaving the
19 zone of responsibility is forbidden: "I hereby order:" Item 3 says:
20 "The military police shall block all exits from the zones of
21 responsibility and prevent soldiers from leaving."
22 Mr. Petkovic, does this order also concern the daily duties
24 A. Yes. The military police, especially within a brigade, has to
25 block all exits from the brigade to ensure that the troops don't leave.
1 That's a daily task, because there were individuals who would flee from
2 the zone on a daily basis, every day.
3 Q. Very well, Mr. Petkovic.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Petkovic, one thing catches my attention.
5 This is addressed, if I have seen it correctly, to the OZ, the operations
6 zone, and to military police. It strikes me as so far we had gotten the
7 impression that the military police was integrated in the OZ, and an
8 order to the OZ would include an order to everyone under the command of
9 the OZ, including military police. Here, it seems to be different. I
10 wonder whether you can explain.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that's correct, the
12 military police was in the operative zone for its daily tasks. Here it
13 says that all exits should be blocked, the police should be encouraged to
14 block all exits from the operative zone of the brigade.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Usher, please make sure
16 that the microphones are closer to Mr. Petkovic. It's hard to hear him.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Petkovic, I may not have brought across what
18 catches my attention.
19 If you give an operative order to an operative zone, would you
20 say order to the operative zone and to the artillery of the operative
21 zone, or to the operative zone and another sub-unit of the operative
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, that's not how this should be
24 understood. But since the case was quite specific, well, have you this
25 handwritten addition that says that the military police should be
1 included, the commander of the operative zone should be reminded of the
2 fact that he has to use the military police to block all exits from the
3 brigade's zone.
4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Is it your handwriting that we see here?
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours, that's my
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm putting my last question on this.
8 Did you put this just for clarity, to sort of recall that this
9 must be carried out by the military police, or is there another
10 explanation why you thought it necessary or useful to add these words?
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I thought that it was necessary so
12 that the commander of the operative zone wouldn't say, I'll just rely on
13 the brigade and what the brigade does. As part -- well, he also has the
14 right to engage the 3rd Battalion of the Military Police to perform daily
15 tasks, and then some men from the 3rd Battalion can engage individuals to
16 carry out the blockade of the relevant exits from the zone concerned.
17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I'll now skip a document.
19 We'll move on to my next subject.
20 Q. Mr. Petkovic, as an introductory step, I would first like to see
21 what you had to say in the Blaskic case with regard to re-subordination.
22 The number of the document is P10028. The page of the transcript is
23 24023; the lines, 22 to 25. Page 24024 as well, and lines 1 to 16. I'll
24 go through that slowly now:
25 [In English] "I mentioned subordination here, the term. When a
1 unit is subordinated to somebody, that means that it is not within his
2 organisation and set-up. By that reminding units of this kind and by
3 establishing them while a situation is underway, the commander to whom a
4 unit has been subordinated takes over all the obligations and
5 responsibilities towards that unit, just as if it was within the
6 composition of his own organisational entity.
7 "Apart from not being able to do what I set out a moment ago,
8 which mostly relates to personnel matters, such as appointments or
9 relieving individuals of their duty, the commander of a unit which is
10 subordinated, from that point on in time takes on all responsibilities
11 and tasks and is responsible for them -- they are responsible exclusively
12 to the commander to whom they are subordinated, and he is duty-bound, for
13 all orders that he gives and instructions that he gives, to carry them
14 out and implement them."
15 [Interpretation] Mr. Petkovic, do you remember having given this
16 testimony in the Blaskic case?
17 A. Yes, Your Honours, I do.
18 Q. On pages 49791 to 49795 of the transcript of this case, you
19 answered questions about the participation of the military police in
20 combat operations, and you said that initially there was just one light
21 assault brigade that carried out combat tasks, and that at the end of
22 July 1993, four such battalions were established, and that on occasion
23 the Defence Department could attach some of the standard battalions of
24 military police for combat operations, to carry out combat tasks. You
25 also added that towards the end of July an order was issued according to
1 which the military police or certain elements from within the military
2 police were to be re-subordinated in order to carry out combat operations
3 to the HVO.
4 Do you remember having testified in that manner? I have
5 summarised the substance of your testimony.
6 A. Yes, I do remember having testified in that manner, and I
7 remember all the orders I referred to.
8 Q. Could we now have a look at what you had to say about the subject
9 in the Kordic case, first of all, and that can be found at the following
10 pages of the transcript of that case: 26766, lines 21 to 25, and
11 page 26767, line 1. You said the following:
12 [In English] "Your Honours, I said -- I said that I do not
13 remember issuing an order just then on the 15th to subordinate the police
14 to Blaskic. In my view, the police was subordinated through the
15 structure of the military police and the deployment of the military
16 police in the area of Central Bosnia. It was already subordinated to him
17 for the execution of those tasks, so there is no need to subordinate them
18 to him twice."
19 [Interpretation] Mr. Petkovic, do you remember this statement of
20 yours in the Kordic case?
21 A. Yes, these are my very words, and I was referring to the fact
22 that the military police was subordinated to the commander of the zone of
23 operations, and that order -- the relevant order was still in force.
24 Q. Mr. Petkovic, you said that I'm afraid of your answers, which is
25 not the case, but my time, indeed, is strictly limited. So whenever I
1 ask you a yes-or-no question, please answer with a yes, or No.
2 Let's look at another statement you made in the Kordic case on
3 page 26818, lines 11 through 14: :
4 [In English] "Who gave combat orders to the military police in
5 the Central Bosnia Operative Zone?
6 "A. Your Honours, all orders were issued by the commander of the
7 Operative Zone for Central Bosnia and by no one else."
8 [Interpretation] Do you remember, Mr. Petkovic?
9 A. Yes, I remember, and I know why it was that way. Which date did
10 I mention, late July 19 something?
11 Q. No, you didn't say. Well, yes, here it says "1993."
12 A. Yes, in 1993.
13 Q. Mr. Petkovic, I want to remind you or check whether you remember
14 what a witness in this trial said, Mr. Zvonimir Skender, and it was
15 recorded on transcript page 45241, lines 8 through 15:
16 [In English] "Judge Trechsel: I don't think this is possible.
17 We need to clarify this. If there are two commanders who can give
18 orders, that both are entitled to do this, this will be rather
19 disorderly. Could you not clarify this for us, please? In
20 administrative terms, the military policemen were still part of the
21 police administrations, whereas as far as their work on the ground while
22 they are part of the brigade, it is only the brigade commander who tells
23 them what they must do on the battle-field.
24 "The Witness: Yes, that's right."
25 [Interpretation] Mr. Petkovic, tell me whether you remember that
1 Mr. Skender stated this in the courtroom.
2 A. Yes, that's what he said in the courtroom.
3 Q. Mr. Petkovic, an introductory question before we pass over the
4 documents. In the document, where we read "all armed forces" in area
5 so-and-so, who is meant by "all armed forces"?
6 A. Whichever forces that are there, they should be enumerated.
7 Q. So when the term "armed forces" is used, does that, apart from
8 the regular army, include the military police and the civilian police?
9 A. If the military police is present, yes. If the civilian police
10 could be used in combat under a special permission, then they would also
11 be included.
12 Q. Let us look at document P00645. This is a document of the
13 commander of the Zone of Operations North-West Herzegovina, sent to the
14 Command of the Brigade of Gornji Vakuf and the Brigade Bugojno.
15 A. Let me just find it.
16 Q. It should be the very next document, P00645. This document is
17 dated the 24th of October, 1992. There is a subject line: "Control of
18 the territory. Order:" And it says:
19 "All armed forces in the territory of Prozor municipality and in
20 the town of Prozor, itself, are to be placed under the command of the HVO
21 Rama Brigade."
22 And further down, we can read:
23 "All armed forces in the territory of Gornji Vakuf are to be
24 placed under the command of the HVO Ante Starcevic Brigade."
25 Mr. Petkovic, following up on your previous answer, let me ask
1 you: Did Colonel Siljeg place units of the military police in the
2 territories of these two municipalities placed under the command of this
4 A. If they were there, we most certainly did.
5 Q. Let us move on to the following document, 3D01785. The document
6 originated from Miljenko Lasic, commander of the zone of operations, but
7 it seems that Mr. Petar Zelenika signed in his stead, which I'll ask you
8 to confirm. It's dated the 5th of January, 1993. It reads:
9 "I hereby order:
10 "Implement an unconditional cease-fire along the entire defence
11 line of the OZ JIH."
12 Item 2:
13 "For any possible instances of opening fire, ask permission from
14 the commander of the OZ JIH ..."
15 And we see that it was forwarded to the military police, among
17 Let me first briefly ask you, Mr. Petkovic: This isn't
18 Mr. Lasic's signature, but rather Mr. Zelenika's?
19 A. Yes, it is Zelenika's signature, but still it's -- it reads
20 "Commander Miljenko Lasic."
21 Q. Does this order refer to combat activities or, rather, cease-fire
22 and potential combat activities?
23 A. That depends who was on the front-line and carried out the tasks.
24 Whether the military police was on the front-line or in town is an open
1 Q. Hypothetically, if they were on the front-line, did this refer to
3 A. If they were there, they should have -- they would have been
4 obliged to terminate combat duties. But I don't see how they could have
5 been there at this time. I'm inclined to think they were in town at that
7 Q. All right, Mr. Petkovic. I ask you again to be brief.
8 The following document is 5D04376. This is a document dated 19th
9 of April, 1993. It originates from Colonel Zeljko Siljeg again. It
10 says: "Order for engagement." Item 1:
11 "Immediately prepare a company of military police from the 2nd
12 Military Police Battalion, which is to be in Prozor by 1500 hours on the
13 18th of April, 1993. The commander is to report at the same time to the
14 Prozor IZM, forward command post. Bring all personal weapons and
16 In responsibility to this order, one platoon of military police,
17 21 men arrived on 19 April, 1993. Where are the others?
18 Mr. Petkovic, tell me, does this order -- is this order about
19 combat use of military police?
20 A. That remains to be seen. This is about the 2nd Battalion, which
21 in an operative sense is subordinated to Siljeg.
22 Q. Mr. Petkovic, just a minute. What does this mean, "2 B/K of
23 ammunition per weapon"?
24 A. It's the combat sets of ammunition.
25 Q. What does "B/K" stand for?
1 A. It stands for the quality of ammunition that goes with a certain
3 Q. How much, exactly?
4 A. It depends on the type of weapon. An automatic rifle will --
5 goes with five magazines, with a certain number of bullets, 25 or what.
6 Q. A brigade is mentioned which is to prepare and send one tank,
7 also with one B/K or combat set?
8 A. A brigade is a combat unit, and certainly if they have a tank,
9 they will use it.
10 Q. What I want to say, Mr. Petkovic, is the following: that this is
11 a co-ordinated order under which simultaneously a tank is requested from
12 a brigade and soldiers from the military police, and it says, at the same
13 time, "1500 hours," and I conclude from this that this is the same task
14 for which both these components should be used.
15 A. Well, that is possible, but to be able to tell, we should see
16 what happened on the 20th. And if the 2nd Battalion of the Military
17 Police went into combat, we should check whether it had a permission from
18 its superiors.
19 Q. I don't know that, Mr. Petkovic.
20 A. Yes, but we can tell, based on this.
21 Q. But please provide short answers. If you don't know something,
22 then say so.
23 We'll skip one document and look at a document dated the 27th of
24 May, 1993. It's again from Mr. Siljeg, sent, as we can see, to the 1st
25 and 2nd Battalions of the Military Police: "I order --"
1 P0 --
2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You are giving the number of the document, and
3 that's what I was asking for. Thank you.
4 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] P02539.
5 Q. Let's take a look at item 13:
6 "Have the troops of the Bruno Busic Regiment, the 1st and 2nd
7 Military Police Battalions, as well as the Independent Platoons of the
8 Rama Brigade and the Reconnaissance Company, prepared for offensive
9 combat activities."
10 Item 17:
11 "The deputy commander of the North-West Herzegovina Zone of
12 Operations, Ante Govorusic, shall be directly responsible for executing
13 this order and for commanding the units."
14 Tell me, Mr. Petkovic, does this order refer to combat activities
15 of the military police?
16 A. Yes, obviously, it was issued to him for the purpose of combat
17 activities, and the forces are listed. He wasn't in the position to use
18 the 1st Battalion independently, so he was given permission, and it is
19 explicitly stated that offensive activities are planned.
20 Q. You say that he needed a permission. You probably haven't seen
21 that permission or approval, but assume so, based on your knowledge of
22 the regulations.
23 A. I haven't seen this order either, but I know how the military
24 police can be used in combat, and these rules were adhered to from the
25 beginning to the end. I didn't have to see that every day, and I haven't
1 seen this order before.
2 Q. All right. Mr. Petkovic, I asked you whether you saw that
3 permission or approval. You haven't seen it, but assume that there must
4 have been one.
5 Let's move on to the following document, and that's --
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just a very short question.
7 Mr. Petkovic, who would have had to give the agreement?
8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Trechsel, to use
9 military police in combat, the approval of the head of the Department of
10 Defence is necessary or that of the chief of the Military Police
11 Administration. Without that, the military police cannot be used in
12 combat. And the 1st Battalion is under the direct command of the chief
13 of the military police, so Siljeg was in no position to use this
14 battalion on his own.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel, the Registrar has just
17 told me that you have had 69 minutes so far, so you have 1 minute left.
18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. Pusic's
19 Defence has granted me 20 minutes of their own time.
20 Q. Mr. Petkovic, I have a brief question for you about the
21 authorisation you referred to.
22 When we had a look at the daily tasks earlier on, we had a look
23 at certain appointments for brigade military policemen, you said that
24 your commanders acted in an unauthorised manner, they ignored the rules
25 and they shouldn't have issued such orders?
1 A. Yes, that's exactly what I said with regard to the orders that
2 you showed me.
3 Q. Since you didn't see any authorisation for Mr. Siljeg's order,
4 can you claim with certainty that in this particular case he didn't act,
5 as you say, against the rules, but nevertheless took such decisions,
6 issued such orders?
7 A. I can claim that he didn't act in that manner. I don't know who
8 would have engaged the 1st Battalion without the authorisation of the
9 military police.
10 Q. Mr. Petkovic, why doesn't Mr. Siljeg refer to such an
11 authorisation in any of his orders?
12 A. Because it wasn't common practice to refer to such authorisation.
13 He used what he had at his disposal. He wouldn't have over-reached his
14 authority if he hadn't had such authorisation.
15 Q. Is this claim you're making just with regard to Mr. Siljeg or
16 with regard to all your commanders?
17 A. With the exception of Colonel Blaskic, yes, that would be the
18 claim I'm making.
19 Q. Mr. Petkovic, I have told you about what Mr. Pavlovic had to say.
20 I read out what he said, and I said that he acted without authority, he
21 over-stepped -- he over-reached his authority. Does it have to do with
22 the category of Colonel Siljeg or Blaskic?
23 A. He was on a lower rank, he had a lower rank.
24 Q. No. Did he act in accordance with the rules or contrary to the
1 A. Pavlovic acted in accordance with the rules, if the 3rd Company
2 of the Military Police was subordinated to him. In that case, he acted
3 in accordance with the rules. If he acted independently, then he wasn't
4 acting in accordance with the rules. And I don't believe that he could
5 independently engage the 3rd Company if he hadn't received authorisation
6 to do so.
7 Q. Everything you have said, Mr. Petkovic, just now is pure
8 speculation, they are your assumptions?
9 A. No, it's not a matter of assumptions, it's not speculation. That
10 is how the system functioned.
11 Q. I didn't ask you about the system. I asked you about the
12 de facto situation.
13 Let's move on to the following document. You have said what you
14 have had to say. It's in the transcript. I don't agree with it. The
15 document is P02599. It's one of your own documents, dated the 1st of
16 June, 1993. It has to do with a response to the attacks of Muslim units
17 against HVO. It's addressed to all OZs, operational zones:
18 "I hereby order that all HVO forces have to be ready for
19 defensive combat activities."
20 Is this your order, Mr. Petkovic? Can you recognise it?
21 A. Yes, this is my order, and all my forces must be prepared to
22 engage in combat activity, to engage in defensive activity, in fact.
23 Q. Mr. Petkovic, let's have a look at the following document,
24 4D00923. It's from Colonel Siljeg. It's dated the 1st of June, 1993,
25 addressed to all OZ SZH units and also to the 2nd MP Battalion. It has
1 to do with a response to Muslim attacks, the attack of Muslim units:
2 "I hereby order: Pursuant to the order of the chief of the HVO
3 Main Staff, I hereby order that all HVO forces must be ready for
4 defensive combat action."
5 Mr. Petkovic, does this have to do with your order from P02595?
6 A. Yes, Colonel Siljeg is referring to my order, dated the 1st of
8 Q. Give a few documents, and I'll have a final question about this
10 The following document I would like to have a look at, I won't
11 read it out because we've seen it on numerous occasions in the courtroom.
12 It's been admitted as an exhibit. It's 5D00548. This is a Coric
13 document. It's a request for re-examining the engagement of military
14 police units at the front-lines, and in this document he suggests that
15 military police units should be withdrawn from the front-lines.
16 This document has been shown to Mr. Praljak. It was shown to him
17 on a number of occasions in the course of his testimony. He testified
18 about it on page 40988, 40989, 42522, 42523, 42526, 42527. Mr. Praljak,
19 when testifying about this document, said that he agreed with everything
20 that Mr. Coric had said in the document, but that the logic he was
21 following was of a different kind because he was faced with two
22 possibilities alone, one of which was that the military police should
23 remain at the front-lines, and the other one was that he should return
24 the military police to Mr. Coric, send them back to Mr. Coric, and the
25 ABiH would then reach the Adriatic Sea. So given that situation, he took
1 the decision that he stands by to this day.
2 So with regard to this matter, I have one question for you,
3 Mr. Petkovic. Does this quite clearly demonstrate that -- does what
4 Mr. Praljak said quite clearly demonstrate that Mr. Coric couldn't have
5 withdrawn the military police from the front-lines, he couldn't have
6 terminated their engagement in combat operations, because Mr. Praljak
7 decided otherwise? And you have followed Mr. Praljak's testimony.
8 You're also familiar with this document.
9 A. Well, Your Honours, I listened to Mr. Praljak's testimony, but
10 there's something else I would like to add, something I'm perhaps more
11 familiar with. I'm perhaps more familiar with the documents and the
12 procedure followed prior to this date. This is something that
13 General Praljak forgot.
14 The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Light Assault Brigade --
15 Q. No, I didn't ask anything about that. Please stop there. Could
16 you please simply tell me, I don't agree, Mr. Coric could have withdrawn
17 them, and that would be the end of the matter.
18 A. I don't agree with Praljak's opinion. Mr. Coric could have
19 withdrawn them because we have seen orders in which he sent them down
20 there to perform those tasks. Units from the 5th Battalion, the 2nd
21 Light Assault Battalion from Livno he sent down there from Mostar. He
22 could have returned them -- withdrawn them whenever he wanted to do so.
23 Q. Mr. Petkovic, in that case, tell me why didn't he withdraw them
24 instead sent letters all over the place? Why didn't he simply issue an
25 order and say, Return, he instead wrote letters of various kinds?
1 Mr. Praljak says he took a decision and they weren't returned. Why did
2 Mr. Coric have them returned? Why did he bring them back if that was
3 possible? Why does Mr. Praljak say that the decision was his to take and
4 that he didn't send them back to Mr. Coric? Why was it possible for
5 Mr. Praljak to take such a decision? And he does admit that that's what
6 he decided, that the decision was his, they weren't sent back.
7 A. I haven't seen a single document in which Mr. Coric had specific
8 requests for certain units to cease to be in combat and to be returned to
10 Q. Just a minute. In this document, he's making a request that
11 concerns the entire military police, and he says why.
12 A. I see that he is making a request that concerns the entire
13 military police, but I have my own opinion, and it is an opinion you do
14 not want to listen to. This is a matter of justifying the inefficiency
15 of the military police when it came to performing their duties. And the
16 head of the Department of Internal Affairs acted in a similar manner in
18 Q. Mr. Petkovic, are you disputing the truthfulness of what
19 Mr. Praljak said, when he testified that he took the decision that he
20 agreed with everything that Mr. Coric had said; therefore, he doesn't
21 believe that this is a false justification? He also said that he didn't
22 want to send them back, so are you now claiming that Mr. Praljak, when
23 this was stated in the courtroom, was lying, yes or no?
24 A. No, madam, Mr. Praljak wasn't lying. I know that Mr. Praljak
25 confirmed the contents of this document.
1 Q. He didn't confirm it. He spoke about it at length, and he
2 supported his decision with arguments.
3 Let's move on to the following subject. Mr. Prlic
4 [as interpreted], you have testified about the duties of commander with
5 regard to crimes committed or with regard to suspicions about crimes
6 committed. First I'd like to have a look at what you said in the Blaskic
7 case about the matter.
8 24144 is the page I will read out, lines 13 to 25, and 24145,
9 lines 1 to 4:
10 [In English] "I think that the commander of the operative zone
11 can be in charge of this part of the military police that is supposed to
12 carry out these investigations. In principle, the military police,
13 itself, initiates such investigations at the proposal either of the
14 commander or on the basis of the possibility that he discovers the crime
15 or the perpetrator, itself.
16 "Q. Can you mention legal grounds for these that you are saying,
17 that the commander of the operative zone can take charge of these
18 criminal investigations? Do you know where it says so, in which
19 regulations, in which law?
20 "A. Well, I have to admit that I'm not an expert in these
21 articles. As commander, I proceed from the fact that all units within my
22 territory are under my command and that I have certain authority over
24 [Interpretation] Mr. Petkovic, do you remember having testified
25 to this effect in the Blaskic case?
1 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. What I have just read out is your position that you expressed on
3 the basis of your experience and the knowledge you had as a commander; do
4 you agree with me?
5 A. Yes, that was the case. At the time, that is how I understood
6 the procedure. That is the extent of my knowledge about the procedure.
7 Q. Let's remind ourselves of what Witness Zvonimir Skender had to
8 say about the very same subject. It's 45322 of the transcript, lines 7
9 to 22:
10 [In English] "We'll start at the battalion level, brigade level,
11 zone level, Main Staff level. For a commander to start any procedure
12 whatsoever, to take any steps whatsoever, with respect to types of
13 conduct that are not permitted, what exactly does he need to know?
14 "A. Well, first he needs to be made aware that there is a
16 "Q. Fine. Let's assume that he is. What else does he need to
18 "A. Assuming that he knows of a problem, then immediately he
19 must turn it over to the military police.
20 "Q. That's right. But turn over to the military police just
21 what? Does he need to know who, where, when, and so on and so forth?
22 "A. Well, he will give information on the cases that he has
23 learned about; the fact that there was a brawl, for example, that their
24 house was torched, that someone was killed. If -- when the unit
25 commander knows about this, he's told about this, then he asks for the
1 military police to come over, and he explains what he just learnt."
2 [Interpretation] Tell me, Mr. Petkovic, do you remember this
3 testimony, do you remember Mr. Skender's testimony, and do you agree with
5 A. You read out quite a lot. It would be difficult for me to go
6 over all of it. But a commander who found out that a certain act had
7 been committed should ensure that the perpetrator didn't abscond. He
8 should also file a procedural report. If he wasn't aware of the relevant
9 facts, he would launch an investigation through the police, through the
10 SIS. He would try and preserve all traces, all evidence, so that the
11 perpetrator could be found. And you read out a lengthy passage, so it's
12 difficult for me to remember and reproduce everything, but I assume that
13 that is what he had in mind too.
14 Q. I'll have to skip a few documents now.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, because I think that you
16 only have three minutes left.
17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Petkovic, can we have a look at P02968? Have you found that
20 A. P02968? Yes, I have it.
21 Q. It says:
22 "Because of Vinko Zuljevic's criminal behaviour, I hereby order
23 that the military police should urgently arrest him and take him to
25 You sent this order to the operative zone and to the IZM Prozor,
1 the Forward Command Post Prozor. Does this order have to do with the
2 conduct of the commander in relation to an individual suspected of
3 committing a crime?
4 A. Yes, the commander at the forward command post will engage the
5 police he has at his disposal in order to find the perpetrator and arrest
7 Q. Have a look at the following document, 4D00924. This is a
8 document from Colonel Zeljko Siljeg. Does it show that he acts in
9 accordance with your orders from the previous documents?
10 A. Yes, Colonel Zeljko Siljeg. It's about the same person,
11 Mr. Zuljevic. He knows the whereabouts of that person and what he has
12 done. He is now initiating activities that he be located and arrested.
13 Q. I have a brief question to end with, but before that I'll ask
15 While you were chief of Main Staff, were you superior to the
16 commanders of the zones of operations?
17 A. Yes, I certainly was [Realtime transcript read in
18 error "wasn't"].
19 Q. Now take a look at four documents in a sequence, 4D01038. I'm
20 only interested in the headings of these documents.
21 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have a correction
22 of the transcript in line 9. The colleague can check whether this was
23 correctly recorded.
24 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] The gentleman said "I
25 certainly was," rather than "was not."
1 Q. Is that correct, General?
2 A. Yes, you're right, I was superior to them. Which document was
4 Q. 4D01038.
5 A. Tell me where it is, roughly.
6 Q. It is behind the document that we've just seen. It is the fifth
7 document from the one that Mr. Siljeg drafted. So 4D01038. Have you
8 found it? It must be further back.
9 A. Yes, I had to skip some.
10 Q. 4D01038, and followed by P02038, and then P02047 and P02071.
11 Mr. Petkovic --
12 A. I haven't seen this one. Did you say "P01"?
13 Q. No, the document references are the following: 4D01038. You
14 found that one. Then P02038, then P02047.
15 A. Just a moment. Okay.
16 Q. And P02071, that's the one right after that one. All these
17 documents contain the line "Demand." They don't order; they demand?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. The first two documents are your documents. They were sent to
20 the OZs?
21 A. The first one to only one OZ.
22 Q. Yes, that's correct. And the second to all OZs; right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. The third was sent by Colonel Siljeg to the units in his OZ, and
25 the fourth was sent by Colonel Blaskic to the units in his zone.
1 Tell me, Mr. Petkovic, why did you and the commanders of the
2 zones demand rather than order things here? What's the difference, if
4 A. Well, if we were to interpret both notions, well, they would be
5 roughly equal, but they -- it depends from document to document. But
6 whether I demand or order, those to whom I issue that demand or order
7 must act in accordance.
8 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: Thank you, Mr. Petkovic. I only have two
9 topics left, two brief topics.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You've abused our goodwill, our
11 patience. Surprisingly enough, whilst you haven't warned us, you told us
12 that Mr. Pusic has given you 20 minutes, and now you're asking for extra
13 time yet again. Well, if you want to use your own time credit to do so,
14 I'll ask my fellow Judges to see whether they agree with the idea.
15 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, yes, I
16 certainly want to do so by using my own time credit. I will not need
17 more than 10 or 15 minutes. I wanted to deal with two more topics. One
18 has to do with taking people to perform labour duties, and the second
19 issue is military discipline. The witness has been asked about both
20 topics, and I believe they are important and have a bearing on the
21 military police and Mr. Coric.
22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: While we are on technical matters, I seem to
23 have noticed a certain movement by Mr. Coric, who originally, I think,
24 had indicated that he wanted to ask questions himself. I would avoid
25 that after you have used additional time, then Mr. Coric would also wish
1 to have even more time, because the time allocation is, of course, to the
2 Defence and not to individuals within what the Defence is. And the
3 question is actually addressed to counsel. I would like counsel to
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric needs to switch
6 off his microphone.
7 He said to me that if he should conclude that I haven't covered
8 all topics or if he is not satisfied, that he would ask questions, so
9 you'll actually have to ask Mr. Coric because I'm not sure about his
11 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my counsel will
12 certainly take this through to the end, and I'll take a rest. So my
13 request to you is to allow me to ask questions to General Petkovic about
14 four or five topics. This is really a rare occasion, and you said that
15 this is the first time in history that two accused are examining each
16 other, but I do think that these are extremely important things.
17 Let me remind you of one topic. Mr. Petkovic claimed that I
18 wrote some letters to the president of Herceg-Bosna, to the minister of
19 defence, the chief of Main Staff, et cetera, in order to find excuses for
20 the inefficiency of the military police, so I would like to speak with
21 him about that; so to show who in that war was efficient and who was
22 inefficient, although it isn't really very smart to speak of yourself as
23 being efficient, given the indictment. But I'm not dodging what I did in
24 the war. I did what I was able to do, and I acted in accordance with
25 what was at my disposal.
1 I believe that many people in this courtroom would be grateful to
2 you if you allow me to ask questions to Mr. Coric [as interpreted].
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll discuss the matter to see
4 whether they agree, in principle, and then what about the time.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: It should be "ask
7 questions to Mr. Petkovic," rather than "to Mr. Coric."
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] After discussing the issue, the
9 Trial Chamber is of one voice. It agrees with the principle underlying
10 the lawyer's motion to ask for another 10 or 15 minutes. And the
11 Trial Chamber is also in agreement with the principle that Mr. Coric may
12 ask questions, but the entire time is now to be taken out of the overall
13 time allotted to you.
14 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
15 Q. Mr. Petkovic, in the past few days you were asked questions about
16 people being taken away to perform labour duties. You explained an order
17 of yours in which that is mentioned as a possibility, and I would,
18 therefore, like to go through two documents briefly.
19 The first document is P03793. Have you found it?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. This is a document signed by the brigade SIS and the brigade
22 commander. It's about the Ljubuski Brigade, and it says:
23 "Due to the use of prisoners by unauthorised bodies, and in order
24 to prevent such use, I issue the following order:
25 "1. Any use of prisoners without the approval of the brigade SIS
1 or the brigade commander is strictly forbidden."
2 And item 2 deals with the way how prisoners must be secured, and
3 item 3 deals with the same thing. Item 5, the transportation of
4 prisoners is regulated.
5 Tell me, Mr. Petkovic, does this order regulate the treatment of
6 prisoners while they are being taken to perform labour duties and in the
7 course of that labour?
8 A. Yes, that's how the brigade commander put it in this order, but
9 this only refers to those prisoners who were used by his people from his
11 Q. Let us look at the following document, P04750. This is a
12 document from the commander of the Knez Domagoj Brigade, sent to four
13 battalions, or even five, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, as well as the Neum
14 Battalion, some more units, and then the active military police, the
15 brigade military police, the MUP of Capljina, that of Stolac, and that of
16 Neum, to the SIS of the brigade, to the Gabela Prison, the Dretelj
17 Prison. The document is dated the 2nd of September, 1993.
18 It says:
19 "Due to shortcomings noticed and the failure to apply security
20 measures during the transport of prisoners from the prison to the area
21 where the works are taking place, and in order to ensure more efficient
22 security, I issue the following order."
23 And under item 1, it says:
24 "Each vehicle with prisoners is to be secured from the front and
25 the rear sides ..."
1 Item 3:
2 "During the performance of the work, special attention is to be
3 paid to the movement and work of the prisoners ..."
4 Item 5:
5 "The transporting vehicles are not allowed to stop ..."
6 Item 8:
7 "Military police at check-points, if they notice shortcomings in
8 the transport, will request proper security right away."
9 9: "The order is to be executed immediately."
10 10: "All commanders of units, the prison warden, and the
11 commanders of the military police and those of the civil police, are
12 responsible for the execution of the order."
13 Tell me, Mr. Petkovic, does this order, too, regulate issues that
14 have to do with securing the prisoners and their transportation?
15 A. Yes, the commander deals with the problems related to security
16 during transport and gives instructions to everybody as to what they
17 should do to keep up security in the process, and he also tells the
18 prison wardens not to release prisoners unless these measures are
20 Q. I will now show you two documents, and all I want to know is
21 whether you knew about them and whether you saw them at the time. The
22 first one is P07823.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Can you tell me -- because you
24 were experienced in the JNA, in the Croatian Army, in the HVO, and
25 possibly also in the ABiH, could you tell me what a prisoner can do, in
1 terms of labour? What kind of work can he do, and based on the
2 regulations you're aware of, what was he allowed to do?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour Judge Antonetti, if we
4 are speaking about HVO soldiers in detention, they are allowed to perform
5 any labour as the HVO soldiers in units. If we're speaking about
6 prisoners of war, they were not allowed to execute any labour that are
7 immediately linked to the defence lines. They could perform other
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next question, or a related
10 question: You made a distinction between HVO soldiers and the other
11 prisoners. Let us imagine -- well, it's not even a hypothesis, because
12 it was a fact, it did happen. Let's speak about Muslim HVO soldiers who
13 were disarmed and put in jail. Because they were in HVO units, what kind
14 of category do they fall under? Are they in the category of HVO soldiers
15 or are they in the second category, under which they're not to be exposed
16 on the front-line?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, they belonged to the
18 first category. They were temporarily detained soldiers of the HVO, and
19 due to that capacity of theirs, they were allowed to perform certain
20 tasks and do certain labour, as any other HVO soldiers. That's how we
21 treated HVO soldiers who didn't respond to mobilisation calls. They were
22 detained and taken to units. So they would belong to the first category
23 of HVO soldiers, because that is -- that was their status they still had.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm not going to name a
25 specific example, but, you see, when I ask questions, I don't take hours.
1 I really cut to the chase, because this is the question I will ask myself
2 during deliberations.
3 Let me take the following example, that of an HVO soldier. He's
4 a Muslim HVO soldier, and he was disarmed on the 30th of June, 1993, to
5 be very specific. Because criminal law is a hard science, so in August
6 1993, whilst he is in the Heliodrom facilities, he is made to carry out
7 labour on the front-line, and he's killed by enemy sniper fire, in your
8 view is he to be put in the first or in the second category, or yet in
9 another third category?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, he is also an HVO
11 soldier, in spite of the fact that we're dealing with August 1993, but
12 that's no justification for him being killed. He's an HVO soldier. He
13 was an HVO soldier at the time, too.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
15 Please continue.
16 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Mr. Petkovic, let's now have a look at document P07823. Have you
18 seen this document before? It's a document from Mr. Siljeg at the time
19 that he was the head of the Military Police Administration. The 8th of
20 February, 1994, is the date. It's addressed to the headquarters of the
21 Mostar Military District. It's for the attention of the commander. It's
22 also addressed to the company for securing the war prisoners facility.
23 It's for the attention of Commander Bozic. It's for his information. It
25 "In relation with an increasing number of requests from the units
1 under your command and directly to the War Prisoners Facility and the
2 Military Police Department, requests for using all prisoners to carry out
3 labour, for which we are not authorised, we hereby inform you that you
4 should ask for written approval from the chief of the HVO Main
5 Headquarters and the minister of defence. The military police is only
6 responsible for securing the war prisoners in the facility, and it is not
7 authorised to provide prisoners of war to perform labour in the units."
8 Mr. Petkovic, have you previously seen the document? At the time
9 it was drafted, did you see it? That's what I'm interested in. During
10 the case, perhaps you have seen it.
11 A. When it was drafted, no, I didn't see it, because it wasn't sent
12 to the Main Staff. But I know that this is a period during which
13 prisoners in HVO prisons were released, and only those who had been
14 defined as prisoners of war remained. I don't know what the number was
15 right now. And that is why it says that the military police, when
16 reorganised, was assigned the task to protect or, rather, secure those
17 who had remained.
18 Q. Let's have a look at P08149. That's the following document.
19 It's an order from Vladimir Sonjic, the minister of defence. The second
20 sentence is as follows from the top:
21 "Fully implementing the agreement on exchange of prisoners being
22 prevented -- this is being prevented by commanders of the HVO who, in
23 accordance with authorisation by the GS HVO willfully used prisoners to
24 carry out forced labour and did not take them back to the detention unit
25 for prisoners of war."
1 And then it continues to refer to the agreement and its
2 implementation. It says:
3 "I hereby order that the chief of the HVO Main Staff and the
4 commander of the Mostar Military District shall take measures to bring
5 back the prisoners ..."
6 And he mention from which units. And finally it says that the
7 chief of the HVO Main Staff and the commander of the Mostar Military
8 District are responsible for carrying out this order:
9 "A report on implementing this order should be submitted by 1200
10 hours on the 4th of April, 1994."
11 It was sent to Colonel Roso, to the Mostar Military District
12 commander, to the chief of the UVP for his information.
13 Mr. Petkovic, I can see that it wasn't addressed to you, but have
14 you already seen this document?
15 A. Yes, I'm familiar with this document. It was drafted after the
16 Split agreement, I believe, after the Split agreement between Roso and
18 Q. Mr. Petkovic, let's continue with the subject of military
19 discipline. Let's have a quick look at what you said about this subject
20 in the Blaskic case. It's page 24165, line 24 to 25, and it's on
21 page 24166, lines 1 to 7 of the transcript. The document number is
23 [In English] "Fine, my question was the following: Did Blaskic
24 have the authority theoretically, on the basis of the law, to punish, for
25 example, Pasko Ljubicic or Darko Kraljevic, as commanders of independent
2 "A. Yes, he had the authority to take such disciplinary action,
3 he did have the authority -- rather, the commander did. The territorial
4 commander did have the authority to take disciplinary measures."
5 [Interpretation] Do you remember giving this testimony,
6 Mr. Petkovic?
7 A. Yes, that's exactly what I said, in spite of the fact that the
8 disciplinary measures were of a minimal kind. With regard to officers,
9 they could be warned, cautioned. That's what could be done when
10 issuing -- when taking disciplinary measures.
11 Q. To avoid any confusion, was Mr. Pasko Ljubicic the commander of
12 the military police in Central Bosnia?
13 A. Well, I don't know which period you're referring to. During a
14 certain period, he was, and then during another period, he was the deputy
15 chief. Up until July 1993, I think he was the commander of the military
16 police, as far as I can remember.
17 Q. In any event, in 1993 he was in the military police. As to the
18 role he played exactly --
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Very well. We'll skip the following document and we'll have a
21 look at P07361.
22 While you're looking for that, I'd like to remind you of the fact
23 that in the course of your testimony, you said on a number of occasions
24 that the authorities of Herceg-Bosna did not establish military
25 disciplinary courts.
1 If you have found the document, P07361, this is a document from
2 the chief of the HVO Main Staff, Colonel Roso. It's addressed to all the
3 military districts and to the Prozor Forward Command Post. It's dated
4 the 28th of December, 1993. Mr. Roso is saying here that pursuant to the
5 regulations of Article 52, paragraph 2, of the Rules on Military
6 Discipline, and regarding the establishment of military disciplinary
7 courts within military districts -- well, he says that the commanders of
8 military districts are responsible for implementing this order.
9 Mr. Petkovic, I just have one question: Why didn't you, just
10 like Mr. Roso, draft such an order and establish military disciplinary
11 courts while you were the chief of the Main Staff?
12 A. The answer is simple. Ante Roso didn't establish a military
13 disciplinary court in this order, either. He didn't have such a right.
14 So he drafted an order that couldn't be implemented. The commander and
15 chief of Main Staff can't establish such a court. This is an order that
16 just remained ineffective. It was something that was put down on paper,
17 and that's all.
18 Q. Mr. Petkovic, I'm a little confused now, so I have another
20 We have seen a document. I'll provide you with a number before
21 the break. I can't remember it right now, but we've seen it on a number
22 of occasions in the court. It's an exhibit. It's a Praljak document in
23 which military disciplinary courts are ordered where those who have been
24 judged by such courts to serve their sentence.
25 According to what you have said, Mr. Roso drafted an order, and
1 you say that military disciplinary courts were never established, and
2 Mr. Praljak contacted courts that were not in existence?
3 A. Yes. General Praljak had a look at the Rules on Military
4 Discipline, and he wrote this order without taking into account the fact
5 that not a single military disciplinary court was established while I was
6 down in the area, and that was on the 5th of August, 2000 -- no, 1994.
7 Not a single military court had been established, so no trials were
8 instigated. So General Praljak made a mistake. He was thinking about
9 detention periods that detainees were to serve, but these military
10 disciplinary courts really did not exist, they weren't established. If
11 you don't believe me, try to find a judge from a military disciplinary
12 court and call him to come and testify here. So that is an omission
13 committed by General Praljak. And you saw that in the case of
14 General Roso, he couldn't have this carried out. This order is
15 pointless, so not a single military disciplinary court was established in
16 the territory of the HZ-HB, later the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna.
17 So that was the problem. There are certain divergences here.
18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Mr. Petkovic, I no
19 further questions. I have to say that I'm now quite surprised and
20 confused by what I've learnt through the cross-examination. Commanders
21 would issue orders that they had no write to orders, chiefs of the
22 Main Staff would issue orders for which they had no authority, chiefs of
23 the Main Staffs would address institutions that were nonexistent, but
24 we'll deal with this on some other occasion. My cross-examination has
25 now come to an end.
1 Your Honours, I believe it is time for a break. I would also
2 like to consult with Mr. Coric to see whether it's necessary for him to
3 take the floor or not.
4 Thank you very much.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just something I would like to
6 clarify. What the counsel has stated is something which, normally
7 speaking, should have been phrased in the form of a question, which means
8 that General Petkovic could have then answered the question.
9 Since we have a problem, General Petkovic, what the counsel has
10 stated is something which I have also realised. We notice that in the
11 brigades, there are commanders or officers who issue orders regarding the
12 manner in which the prisoners should be dealt with. You are not aware of
13 this. Why are you not aware of this; because this was done behind your
14 back or because things were generally disorganised in the HVO, or was
15 incompetence high on the agenda?
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the two orders that
17 were shown were drafted at the time that I was not the chief of the
18 Main Staff, and things were done behind the commander's back. This
19 concerns the Ljubuski Brigade and the Knez Domagoj Brigade. In one case,
20 we're dealing with the month of September; in the other -- oh, I can't
21 remember now. I'd have to have a look at the period that concerns the
22 Ljubuski order. The 27th of July. After the 24th of July, it was
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your answer is on the
1 We shall have a 20-minute break and resume with Mr. Coric's
3 --- Recess taken at 12.41 p.m.
4 --- On resuming at 1.06 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic.
6 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wish to
7 inform the Trial Chamber that Mr. Coric and I -- I would like to inform
8 the Trial Chamber that Mr. Coric and I had a consultation during the
9 break. We analysed my cross-examination and concluded that there is no
10 need for Mr. Coric to take the floor. So he will not examine
11 Mr. Petkovic.
12 And, secondly, I still owe you a document number, a document that
13 I dealt with toward the end. It's a document from General Praljak about
14 military disciplinary punishments, which is P05279.
15 Thank you, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic.
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, during the first
18 break I had a consultation with General Petkovic concerning your decision
19 to allot an additional two hours and twenty minutes to the Prosecution.
20 At this moment, we cannot state with certainty whether that decision is
21 contrary to regulations or not, because your decision does not include
22 factual and legal reasons.
23 In this courtroom, without giving reasons, certainly no legal
24 means can be applied. That is why all decisions of the Trial Chamber
25 must include factual and legal reasons. This is corroborated by the
1 jurisprudence of constitutional courts in individual states, but also the
2 European Court of Human Rights has defined the providing of reasons as a
3 necessary prerequisite for the application of any legal remedies. That
4 is why we request from the Trial Chamber to issue us a decision in
5 writing or orally that contains the factual and legal reasonings about
6 the decision of the 25th of February, 2010, addressed to all parties to
7 the proceedings, to state their mind about additional time for
8 General Petkovic. This decision includes an explication of the legal
9 basis for that decision. It's about allotting additional time to the
10 Prosecution, actually, because guide-line number 5, to which you referred
11 in your oral decision, does not provide for sufficient basis for an
12 unambiguous conclusion why the Prosecution's time for cross-examination
13 can be extended. I'm not saying that there are no legal grounds for
14 that, but I am saying that this oral decision does not contain an
15 unambiguous reasoning, and that is why we do not know whether this
16 decision is legal or illegal, and thus are unable to apply legal
18 Likewise, the decision, from the legal aspect, is not clearly
19 elaborated, because if the Prosecution gets an additional two hours and
20 twenty minutes due to the questions of the Trial Chamber and questions of
21 the Defence counsel, it should have been clearly stated how much of the
22 time is based on the Trial Chamber's questions and how much on the
23 Defence counsels' questions. It should also have been stated which new
24 topics or possibly answers provided by Mr. Petkovic require additional
25 examination by the Prosecution to clarify possible ambiguities or require
1 additional comment.
2 If the Defence, the Petkovic Defence, in accordance with its best
3 legal knowledge and in good faith, will consider your reasoning and be
4 able to conclude whether the decision is in keeping with the regulations
5 and legal, it will certainly remain in force. If we come to the opposite
6 conclusion, we will apply adequate legal remedies. Be it an appeal or
7 any other legal remedy, I'm unable to say at this moment.
8 What I would like to suggest, in case you should grant our
9 request, to start the examination of Mr. Petkovic today, and that
10 Mr. Petkovic answer the questions of my learned friend Mr. Scott for six
11 hours and forty-one minutes, whereas in the meantime we can clarify all
12 issues arising from this additional two hours and twenty minutes, after
13 which we will decide about General Petkovic's decision with regard to
14 this additional time. If this motion is unacceptable to anybody for any
15 reason, we submit that the cross-examination of General Petkovic by the
16 OTP be postponed until a decision is taken on this request of ours. And
17 if it is granted -- or, rather, if it is not granted, we will consider
18 whether or not to apply legal remedies of any sort.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
20 MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon, Your Honours, all those in and around
21 the courtroom.
22 We would object, Your Honour. I do not want to start my
23 cross-examination until I know exactly at least some fixed amount of
24 time. I don't want to start and go in a certain direction and structure
25 my cross-examination in one way, and then a day -- two days from now, it
1 be said, Oh, now your time's been cut by -- we changed our mind, based on
2 the request of counsel, and now you have two hours left.
3 So I do object, and do not want to begin -- I request not to
4 begin any cross-examination until the matter is resolved.
5 [Trial Chamber confers]
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber has noted the
7 comments made by Ms. Alaburic, as well as the comments made by Mr. Scott,
8 the Prosecutor. It holds that it is not going to go back on the oral
9 decision which was handed down this morning. This decision has been
10 handed down after having examined the written application of the
11 Prosecution and after having examined the Petkovic Defence written
12 submissions. Therefore, the Trial Chamber has decided to allocate two
13 hours and twenty minutes extra time to the Prosecutor, and this has been
14 decided unanimously. Therefore, Mr. Scott has nine hours to put his
16 That is the Trial Chamber's position, which goes unchallenged.
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in this case I
18 submit orally a request to be allowed to appeal this decision. The
19 reasoning being the following: The decision is not reasoned the way that
20 it is guaranteed by all conventions about human rights, and also given
21 the fact that the reasons provided in a decision of a court is a
22 precondition for applying legal remedies.
23 The decision, as read out, gives the OTP a chance to examine for
24 nine hours, without going into the reasons why he was -- why they were
25 allotted additional time, whereas we cannot efficiently monitor which
1 part of that time really is cross-examination as a reaction to our
2 examination-in-chief and which part of the time is based on questions
3 asked by the Trial Chamber or by Defence counsel. We believe that such
4 an undifferentiated decision infringes on the right of the accused to
5 decide, before taking the stand as a witness, whether or not to provide
6 testimony or not.
7 I must admit that from -- at a certain point last week, while we
8 were still discussing matters, while the OTP had not yet been allotted
9 additional time, the honourable Judge Trechsel made a comment containing
10 the phrase "so far." I hope that you will remember. Unfortunately, the
11 microphone was not activated, so that comment was not recorded. And I
12 consider it my professional failure that I didn't rise immediately and
13 insist that it be recorded. It was clear to us that something was going
14 to happen in the courtroom and that the Prosecution would be given time
15 that they had expected, either in part or wholly.
16 We consider it impermissible that during the examination of
17 General Petkovic, the rules are changed. General Petkovic cannot be put
18 in a situation to be forced to testify against his own will, and we
19 believe that it is his right to stop giving evidence even after having
20 begun giving evidence. That is his human right, of which he cannot be
21 deprived under any circumstances.
22 At this moment, Your Honours, we are not inclined to make use of
23 that right, because we wish to achieve what we wish will be instrumental
24 in implementing a fair trial by filing an appeal or some other means. If
25 the Prosecution wishes to harm General Petkovic seriously, they can do so
1 in seven hours as much as they can do it in nine hours.
2 So our position toward the time allotted to the Prosecution is
3 based on our adherence to principle. It should not be taken to mean that
4 General Petkovic is afraid of the additional two hours of providing
5 evidence. I wanted to say this, because there should be no doubt
6 whatsoever whether or not General Petkovic is afraid of the Prosecution's
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, as to the request
9 for certification of appeal, what do you have to say? What can you say?
10 MR. SCOTT: My initial reaction, Your Honour, and obviously this
11 is all coming on all of us, including the Judges, rather quickly, my
12 initial reaction would be to oppose it. But at the same time,
13 Your Honour, I do not want to start my cross-examination without some
14 minimal amount of certainty as the time that I will, in fact, have, at
15 least the minimal amount of time that I will have, and including at least
16 the nine hours, because that's the way now that I have planned my
18 I would also like to have some assurances -- what I hear counsel
19 saying, I have to admit, I've never seen it happen before in 30 years of
20 practicing law, but that it remains the possible discretion of
21 Mr. Petkovic, when I read the six-hour mark, he's going to get up and
22 leave the stand, and I also do not want to proceed on that basis.
23 So, Your Honour, I do not wish to begin cross-examination until
24 there is some certainty of the way that I can conduct the time and the
25 circumstances in which I can conduct an effective cross-examination.
1 I would add to those comments, Your Honour, that what we're
2 seeing now confirms, you know, what I've been saying now for several
3 weeks, or actually for some months. There was not a single complaint.
4 This proves the point. There was not a single complaint, when all the
5 co-accused, everyone, got up asking for more time, and about the scope,
6 and about whether they could ask this question or not; not a single
7 complaint. But when it comes to the Prosecution, the rules are
8 different, Specify this, specify that, what ground for this, what does
9 this relate to? None of the Defence were asked to give a
10 pre-justification of their examinations and what they were going into or
11 not, none of them were required to give any sort of advance showing or
12 summary or justification, but now the Prosecution, that should be
14 Ms. Alaburic says, Well, I should be able to do enough -- if I
15 put it colloquially, damage, if you will, in seven hours, as opposed to
16 nine. Maybe, maybe not, but there hasn't been a single counsel or party
17 that stood up to date with Mr. Petkovic who hasn't struggled with time.
18 Every single one, including Ms. Alaburic, herself. Every single one
19 hasn't had enough time to do what they wanted to do, every single one.
20 And I'm no different, the Prosecution's no different. I'm not --
21 sometimes I may like to think so, but I'm not superhuman. I have a task
22 to do, just like everybody else. And it's simply just disingenuous to
23 say, Well, seven hours is as good as nine hours. There is a huge amount
24 of topics to be covered. Virtually, the entire case has been covered one
25 way or touched on in one way -- by one party or another, by the Court's
1 questions. And it makes a heck of a big difference whether it's six
2 hours, or nine hours, or twelve hours. It makes a huge difference in the
3 way that I plan and conduct my cross-examination.
4 So with the great of the respect for the Chamber -- and, please,
5 I'm not the creator of this circumstance, so please don't shoot me for
6 the difficulties or the frustration involved. I am not the creator of
7 these circumstances, but I do not want to begin my cross-examination
8 until there is some certainty of the rules and circumstances in which it
9 will be conducted.
10 Thank you.
11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I
12 would first of all like to tell my learned friend Mr. Scott that I --
13 although I wasn't monitoring the translation of what I said, I can't say
14 whether what I said was actually interpreted correctly. It never crossed
15 my mind to say that it's all the same for the Prosecution, whether they
16 have seven or nine hours. Of course, that is not the case. What I said
17 is that from the point of view of General Petkovic, there's no
18 significant difference when it comes to damaging his interests or
19 bringing him into a situation that would be an awkward situation. So
20 whether the Prosecution has seven or nine hours wouldn't make much
21 difference with regard to General Petkovic.
22 As far as the fact that the Petkovic Defence never objected to
23 any requests from other Defence teams for additional time, well, I think
24 that we have explained this in detail in our requests for additional
25 time. I'll repeat this again. We believe that all the accused in this
1 case must have enough time for each witness in order to protect their own
2 interests. If Mr. Coric had asked for six additional hours, the Petkovic
3 Defence wouldn't have objected to this.
4 The Prosecution is in a different position from the Defence
5 teams. General Petkovic may act against the interests of Mr. Coric when
6 providing an answer, and Mr. Coric must have the right to react in an
7 appropriate way, if his interests are damaged.
8 The Prosecution has had six times more time than the Defence to
9 support its claims than the Petkovic Defence. This only concerns the
10 Prosecution part of the case. In the course of the Petkovic case, if you
11 compare the examination-in-chief, then the re-examination, and we're not
12 referring to redirect here, the Prosecution used up 20 per cent more
13 time. So we can't say that the Prosecution hasn't had sufficient time in
14 this case to prove the allegations against Mr. Petkovic or any of the
15 other accused. This is why I believe Mr. Scott's claims have no
16 foundation. However, I understand his position, according to which he
17 doesn't want to start with his cross-examination if he isn't familiar
18 with the conditions under which he'll be able to conduct that
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Scott. You want to
22 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour, another matter. I know this
23 may sound like a small matter, but it's not to the Prosecution. Since
24 Mr. Petkovic was given the materials, I would ask that they be -- ask
25 that they be retrieved, because he's now going through the materials as
1 we're sitting here, and I don't want that to happen, to be very
2 transparent. So I would like the Usher to please collect the materials
3 from the witness stand, please.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, I must say that
5 whilst you were speaking, I was looking at all the documents, so I, too,
6 leafed through the documents in order to ascertain whether he's going to
7 need nine hours to go through them all. So I am a culprit in this matter
8 as well.
9 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, you're not the witness. I have no
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's discuss this matter on
12 the Bench.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] By way of an oral decision
15 regarding the application for certification of appeal, and after
16 listening to the detailed remarks of the Petkovic Defence, after
17 listening to the detailed observations of the Prosecutor, the
18 Trial Chamber decides not to certify the appeal. It, therefore,
19 dismisses the application. The Trial Chamber maintains the nine hours
20 allotted to the Prosecutor.
21 But personally speaking, let me add this: If it is true that the
22 Petkovic Defence will have spent six hours and forty minutes on their
23 examination-in-chief, and had the other Defence teams not asked
24 questions, there would have been no problem at all. The Prosecution
25 would have had their six hours and forty minutes. The problem arose, in
1 my view, from the fact that the other Defence teams had questions.
2 Therefore, based on a series of factors, the Trial Chamber
3 allotted two hours and twenty minutes of extra time. But let us not
4 forget that after the Prosecution has asked their questions, the Petkovic
5 Defence will have a redirect. Of course, the time will have to be taken
6 out of the overall time allotted. As part of the redirect, as has been
7 seen already, the Petkovic Defence can use some of its time and possibly
8 ensure that there would be nine hours on one side and nine hours on the
9 other. So at this stage, no prejudice is caused, all the more so that --
10 well, I had a look at the documents, but I don't know what the
11 Prosecutor's questions will be. If he asks for nine hours, he must have
12 good reason for asking, so I guess that he wanted to address a series of
13 subjects. We had a bit of an idea of those topics through the Defence
14 team's question. It might be in everybody's interest, and first and
15 foremost in the general's interest, to have time devoted to questions and
16 answers. And afterwards, during redirect, the Petkovic Defence can use
17 additional time -- the time necessary, as it deems it, for relevant
18 questions, that it wants to sort of shed light on some of the general's
20 So that's all I had to say.
21 It is now 1.32, 1.33. Do you want to start now?
22 Oh, yes, yes. Mr. Ibrisimovic, in theory, you, too, could have
23 asked questions, but we sort of squeezed you out. But did you have any
25 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when I have a look
1 at the relation between Mr. Petkovic and Pusic and the questions that you
2 have put, I would say that, no, we have no questions for this witness.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Stewart.
4 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, it was just this, really, following
5 from the observation which Your Honour has, himself, made at page 99
6 onwards: You added "personally speaking," and then you gave a reasonably
7 concise form, but you gave what amounts to at least some part of
8 reasoning for the decision made. My request, Your Honour, is this: is
9 to know how far Your Honour's approach and what Your Honour has said
10 reflects the reasoning and the basis of the Trial Chamber as a whole and
11 the other Judges, because in -- Ms. Alaburic has indicated where we're
12 consider to go next on all these matters, knowing what the reasons are
13 for the Trial Chamber's decisions is an elementary matter, and knowing
14 what one Judge gives as a reason and without knowing whether that, in
15 fact, represents the Trial Chamber's reasons, doesn't actually meet that
16 elementary requirement.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I don't know whether my fellow
18 Judges want to answer, but in the Trial Chamber's reasoning, I explained
19 that the Trial Chamber read the written submissions filed by the
20 Prosecution for extra time, and the Trial Chamber also read your
21 submissions that oppose the Prosecution's application, and the three of
22 us concluded that the Prosecutor needed nine hours.
23 Now, personally speaking, but I did not discuss this with my
24 fellow Judges, I said that with a redirect, somehow you could get back to
25 an even number of hours.
1 And I remind you that the Appeals Chamber said this on several
2 occasions. There is no arithmetical rule as to the time allotted to
3 parties to the proceedings, and this was said by the Appeals Chamber.
4 The Appeals Chamber, that it is the Trial Chamber's discretion on a
5 case-by-case basis.
6 But, of course, if my fellow Judges want to say something,
7 please, they should do.
8 JUDGE PRANDLER: I should only like to confirm what the President
9 just said. In all other cases, we Judges are consulting with each other
10 before any decision is taken either on procedure or other matters, and it
11 happened this way, too, that we have consulted not only among ourselves,
12 the four of us, and I would like to emphasise that Judge Mindua had also
13 been consulted and involved in the decision before, and I also would like
14 to stress that we duly consulted with our legal team as well before we
15 concluded about the times to be allotted to the Prosecution. So I would
16 like to underline the procedure, that it was a correct one, it followed
17 the earlier pattern of working together and consulting with each other,
18 so, therefore, I would like to confirm this approach as a positive one.
19 Thank you.
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: As far as I'm concerned, I do not want to praise
21 our own proceedings. I think if something -- someone considers that
22 something is wrong, that can be raised.
23 Second point: This is not a judgement or something akin to a
24 judgement, but it is a procedural decision on a matter which is not
25 without importance, but not tantamount or decisive either.
1 And the third point: We have -- we share, to a large extent, the
2 reasoning given by the President. In addition, we think that the
3 questioning by the President also has amplified somewhat the subject, and
4 in certain parts had a certain resemblance with a continuation of direct
5 examination, putting questions to the -- and in particular also documents
6 to the witness which Ms. Alaburic had wanted to put before him but did
7 not have the time to. And taking all this in account, staying
8 considerably behind the demands of the Prosecution, weighing the pros and
9 cons, we have arrived to the conclusion that is now the decision.
10 MR. STEWART: Just for clarification, Your Honour, when you say
11 "we share --" when you say "we share to a large extent the reasoning
12 given by the President," do we take it that you are speaking about
13 yourself and Judge Prandler at this particular point?
14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Under his control, yes, I was of that view,
15 that's how I had understood our discussions, but he will object if he
17 MR. STEWART: Yes, well, I understand. That's clear, thank you.
18 Well, that seems to be an answer, yes. Thank you, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, Mr. Scott, I think it's
20 best to start tomorrow. We only have a few minutes left, unless you want
21 to start just with the few minutes left today.
22 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, when we were about 20 minutes out, I was
23 prepared to give it a shot, but we now have just a matter of a few
24 minutes, so I don't think it's really worth the point. We'll start
25 tomorrow, if that's suitable to the Chamber.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Scott, you can
2 start tomorrow.
3 I wish you all a good afternoon. We shall reconvene tomorrow
4 morning at 9.00.
5 [The Accused Petkovic stands down]
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.39 p.m.,
7 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 3rd day of
8 March, 2010, at 9.00 a.m.