{short description of image}

  1. 1 Thursday, 8th October 1998

    2 (Open session)

    3 --- Upon commencing at 10.09 a.m.

    4 JUDGE JORDA: Bring in the witness, please.

    5 Good morning to the interpreters, good morning to

    6 everyone. Does everybody hear me? We can now

    7 continue, that is, as soon as the witness is in the

    8 courtroom, of course.

    9 (The witness entered court)

    10 JUDGE JORDA: General, do you hear me? Do

    11 you hear me, Brigadier?

    12 MR. KEHOE: Excuse me, I think we're getting

    13 some overlap in the interpretation booth. I am getting

    14 the Croatian translation.

    15 JUDGE JORDA: Do you hear me in English?

    16 MR. KEHOE: Yes, I hear you.

    17 JUDGE JORDA: Do you hear my voice, there?

    18 MR. KEHOE: I hear you, but I also hear Maya.

    19 JUDGE JORDA: Are you getting the English?

    20 Do you hear me Brigadier?

    21 THE WITNESS: I am not getting the Croatian

    22 translation. I am not getting the Croatian

    23 translation.

    24 JUDGE JORDA: Registrar, do you think we

    25 should suspend --

  2. 1 THE INTERPRETER: It's fine now.

    2 JUDGE JORDA: Did you have a restful night,

    3 Brigadier?

    4 THE WITNESS: Yes.

    5 JUDGE JORDA: Today is going to be long.

    6 Mr. Kehoe is going to continue with the

    7 cross-examination.

    8 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President, Your

    9 Honours, Counsel.

    10 WITNESS: SLAVKO MARIN (Resumed)

    11 Cross-examined by Mr. Kehoe:

    12 Q. Good morning, Brigadier.

    13 A. Good morning.

    14 Q. Brigadier, we are again moving into another

    15 subject area here, and one of the areas that you

    16 discussed, and this was in your arguments or in your

    17 statements in response to Defence's questions

    18 concerning the problems of command in Central Bosnia.

    19 You noted that Colonel Blaskic couldn't

    20 appoint and dismiss brigade commanders and other

    21 commanders, except with the input and approval of the

    22 locals, the local municipal authorities. And

    23 specifically, if we could just go through your

    24 transcript of your prior testimony on direct.

    25 On page 12.170, you noted at line 9 that if

  3. 1 you want to appoint a brigade commander, before doing

    2 anything else, the commander of the Operative Zone,

    3 Colonel Blaskic, had to reach an agreement with

    4 municipal authorities. When such an agreement was

    5 reached, information from the commander would be

    6 submitted through the brigade commander to the

    7 commander of the Operative Zone to the highest level

    8 and to the president of the Croatian community of

    9 Herceg-Bosna.

    10 On page 12.072, you noted that the method in

    11 appointing of commanders, a major influence and a

    12 decisive role was played by the municipal

    13 functionaries; if we are talking about the commanders,

    14 at the municipal level.

    15 Lastly, on page 12.147 you again noted on

    16 line 12 that with regard to appointments of brigade

    17 commanders the key role was played by the local

    18 political authorities with respect to the brigades and

    19 with respect to the subordinate units.

    20 We discussed, or Defence put several

    21 documents in, one particular document we will talk

    22 about briefly, which prompted a question from Judge

    23 Riad which said, Judge Riad asked, "So, this is not

    24 stated at all in these documents, the practice was

    25 contrary to the orders."

  4. 1 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman is not satisfied by

    2 this long introduction, and he is wondering whether you

    3 are arguing or whether your making a final statement.

    4 He doesn't really understand the question you're going

    5 to ask, nor have the Judges understood. Mr. Kehoe, we

    6 don't really have a great deal of time, try to go right

    7 to the questions.

    8 MR. KEHOE: I am, Judge. I'm just going back

    9 to -- the questions are going to be based on what the

    10 witness said in the past, and we're merely going to it.

    11 Q. This is my final point. The question

    12 was, "How did you dismiss a commander? Was the

    13 permission of the municipal authorities required for

    14 this, too, or could the Commander in Chief do so

    15 directly?"

    16 And your answer was, "The approval was

    17 required of the municipal authorities."

    18 So, your point, sir, was that the municipal

    19 authorities were both, the approval of those

    20 authorities was needed to both dismiss and appoint

    21 commanders.

    22 JUDGE JORDA: We understood that, Mr. Kehoe.

    23 Let's go forward, come on. We've already understood

    24 that. Now take the documents out and ask the

    25 questions.

  5. 1 MR. KEHOE:

    2 Q. Let us turn our attention to two documents,

    3 sir, Defence Exhibit 47, and, Mr. Dubuisson, the

    4 excerpts from the Narodni Lists, which I believe is

    5 Defence Exhibit 38, if we could just go to the area

    6 that's tabbed. We're going to deal with the articles

    7 in that tab right there, which is article 29 and 34, on

    8 the tabbed page, sir.

    9 Defence Exhibit 247, yes.

    10 JUDGE JORDA: Was that 47 or 247? I didn't

    11 quite get the number.

    12 MR. KEHOE: 247, Mr. President. Defence 247.

    13 If we could put the ELMO on in the video

    14 booth, please. Okay.

    15 Q. Brigadier, do you have those documents before

    16 you, both the Narodni Lists, Articles 29 and 34?

    17 A. I do.

    18 Q. As well as Defence Exhibit 247?

    19 A. I have both documents in front of me.

    20 Q. Let's move through these quickly, Brigadier.

    21 Starting on Article 29, correct me if I'm wrong, but

    22 the article, and we will move straight to the pertinent

    23 part in Article 29, where it says: "The supreme

    24 commander of the armed forces of the Croatian community

    25 of Herceg-Bosna shall be the president of the Croatian

  6. 1 community of Herceg-Bosna presidency. The supreme

    2 commander shall appoint and dismiss from duty military

    3 commanders in accordance with the special provision."

    4 Now, let us turn our attention to Article 34,

    5 and we will be focusing on subdivision 2 in that

    6 article. Article 34, "Commanders in the armed forces

    7 shall be appointed and dismissed as follows: The

    8 presidency of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna

    9 shall appoint and dismiss commanders of brigades and

    10 high ranking officers.

    11 The Croatian Defence Council, HVO, shall

    12 appoint and dismiss commanders of battalions and

    13 companies, as well as other officers; and brigade

    14 commanders shall appoint and dismiss commanders of

    15 platoons, detachments and other non-commissioned

    16 officers."

    17 Now, let us turn our attention to Defence

    18 Exhibit 34, where there is apparently a request for

    19 clarification on the power to appoint and dismiss. And

    20 Blaskic answers that, and I believe during the Defence

    21 direct you identified this document as Colonel

    22 Blaskic's signature.

    23 The accused calls on Article 34 in this

    24 document, and let me read it and move to the pertinent

    25 part on number 2.

  7. 1 "Further, to the provisions of Article 34 of

    2 the decree of the armed forces of the Croatian

    3 community of Herceg-Bosna," and he refers to the

    4 Narodni List Gazette, the Official Gazette, "the order

    5 of the main HVO headquarters 396, of 27 June 1992, and

    6 the authorisation of the head of the Defence office of

    7 the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna, 0323992, of 4

    8 December 1992, we hereby give you some clarification on

    9 the persons authorised to appoint officers and

    10 non-commissioned officers to certain posts and to

    11 dismiss them and the procedure for this."

    12 Let's move to 2. "The head of the Defence

    13 office and the commanders authorised by him appoint and

    14 dismiss other officers, i.e. persons who have been

    15 proposed for these officer posts.

    16 Now, do you see that, sir?

    17 A. Yes, I do.

    18 Q. Now, Blaskic was given an authorisation by

    19 the head of the defence officers to appoint and

    20 dismiss; wasn't he, pursuant to Article 34?

    21 A. General Blaskic had the authority, the

    22 prescribed authority envisaged by procedure to appoint

    23 and dismiss commanders in the way envisaged by the

    24 provisions of Article 34 of the decree that we have

    25 before you, that is, on the basis of the authorisation

  8. 1 he was given.

    2 I'm not sure whether he was given that

    3 authorisation by the president of the Croatian

    4 community of Herceg-Bosna or the head of the defence

    5 department. This can be seen from the documents on

    6 commander appointments. It was on the basis of that

    7 authorisation that he appointed the commanders within

    8 the scope of competence of the president of the

    9 presidency. That is those above the level of the

    10 Operative Zone.

    11 Why General Blaskic was given such

    12 authorisation was, in my personal opinion, the fact

    13 that we were cut off and that we were unable to

    14 communicate with our superiors, and to ensure greater

    15 efficiency of operations. That was the rule. But in

    16 practice, things were different.

    17 On the basis of this article, General Blaskic

    18 wrote appointments and dismissals; but for that to be

    19 carried out, for the document that he wrote to be

    20 implemented, he had to have the approval and had to

    21 have consultations, both in the case of appointments

    22 and dismissals.

    23 Sometimes we had commanders of municipal

    24 headquarters, sometimes brigade commanders, in those

    25 cases he had to have the approval of political

  9. 1 representatives. That is, representatives of the

    2 civilian municipal authorities. Because, throughout

    3 the war, during the paralysis of the authorities of

    4 Bosnia-Herzegovina, the municipalities functioned as a

    5 state.

    6 When talking about lower level appointments

    7 of platoon or company commanders, which the brigade

    8 commander was authorised to do, the brigade commander

    9 could not carry out that appointment in a village, the

    10 commander of a platoon or a company, if the village did

    11 not approve of that commander, because such a person

    12 would have no authority at all. That was the reality.

    13 What we are talking about are the provisions,

    14 the regulated provisions based on the decree of the

    15 armed forces of Herceg-Bosna and Article 34, which

    16 authorised General Blaskic to do this. And he did so,

    17 but under the conditions I've described, both when it

    18 had to do with appointments and dismissals.

    19 I think that we have several such orders here

    20 that have been tendered by the Defence, as far as I

    21 recall.

    22 Q. Well, this document has been tendered by the

    23 Defence, Brigadier, and nothing of what you said

    24 appears in this document, does it, where Blaskic

    25 himself is issuing a clarification on the appointment

  10. 1 to, on the authorisation to appoint and dismiss; none

    2 of what you said is in this clarification.

    3 A. General Blaskic, in this document, provides

    4 clarifications for brigade commanders. I assume this

    5 clarification was necessary, because in the brigade

    6 command they probably didn't have this decree on the

    7 armed forces, so that the provisions of that decree

    8 have been copied so that the brigades would know what

    9 was meant. Because it can be seen that the supreme

    10 commander can transfer his authority to a commander.

    11 The procedure was as I have described, and as

    12 corroborated by the documents.

    13 Q. Let's turn to some of those documents, and

    14 with the assistance of the usher, we will move through

    15 some documents relatively quickly. And if we can

    16 gather them at once, 456/62, 456/ --

    17 JUDGE JORDA: Are you still talking about the

    18 same subject?

    19 MR. KEHOE: Still the same subject, Judge.

    20 We have a few more questions, we're going to move

    21 through quickly.

    22 JUDGE JORDA: The Judges really do understand

    23 the difference in the point of view here.

    24 MR. KEHOE: I understand, Judge, but we have

    25 some documents to explore this area, in light of some

  11. 1 of the issues that have been raised, that possibly will

    2 clarify the issue a little more.

    3 Again, Mr. Dubuisson, it's 456/62, 456/63,

    4 456/64, 456/65, 456/66 and 456/67. That would be

    5 456/62 through 456/67, in series.

    6 I assure you, Mr. President, we will move

    7 through these documents quickly.

    8 Q. Now, the first document, Brigadier, do you

    9 see that document? It's dated, actually it's dated the

    10 4th of July 1992. At least that's the stamp in the

    11 upper left-hand corner of the document.

    12 A. It is a document 95/14, is that the document

    13 you're referring to?

    14 Q. No, it's not. If I can take a look, it

    15 should be Exhibit 456/62, and the stamp on the upper

    16 left-hand corner is 4 July 1992.

    17 A. The document I have in my hand is marked

    18 IT-95-14-T. That's the document that I have -- but the

    19 number doesn't fit.

    20 Q. Brigadier, this is a document signed by

    21 Colonel Blaskic; is it not?

    22 A. Could we please check whether we're talking

    23 about the same document? Or could you please read the

    24 first sentence so I know I have the right document?

    25 The document I have in my hand.

  12. 1 Q. It says, "Bearing in mind the need to form

    2 zones of responsibility or operative zones, in the

    3 region of Central Bosnia, I hereby issue the

    4 following."

    5 A. Okay.

    6 Q. Is that document signed by Colonel Blaskic?

    7 A. Yes, this is General Blaskic's signature.

    8 Q. Okay. Is that his stamp?

    9 A. This is the stamp of the regional

    10 headquarters for Central Bosnia, this headquarters was

    11 operating with a base in Gornji Vakuf.

    12 Q. In this document on the 4th of July 1992,

    13 Blaskic is appointing four commanders for four

    14 Operative Zones throughout the Central Bosnia Operative

    15 Zone; isn't that right?

    16 A. In the first paragraph that is what it says.

    17 Q. Now, is it your testimony that Blaskic

    18 consulted with all the municipal leaders when he

    19 appointed these Operative Zone commanders, before he

    20 appointed them?

    21 A. I claim with respect to this document, as

    22 follows: Even though I was not in this headquarters at

    23 the time, but I know what the practice was for the

    24 general to appoint these people, and when I was

    25 speaking about the organisation I said that there were

  13. 1 regional crisis staffs with representatives of the

    2 political authorities in the municipality on them; and

    3 for such a document to be passed, and for such

    4 appointments to be made, General Blaskic had to act in

    5 this way. Especially as General Blaskic didn't even

    6 know these people at the time, because he was serving

    7 in Slovenia, and he certainly had to have consultations

    8 and get the green light to appoint such people.

    9 This was particularly pronounced at the

    10 beginning when people were suspicious about certain

    11 commanders and didn't trust them, and the people

    12 demanded, and the politicians insisted that those

    13 people should be appointed which the people felt would

    14 lead them best in the struggle and who would best

    15 organise defence in their area.

    16 Q. Let's turn to the next document, the 24th of

    17 October 1992, which is 456/63. Now, this is a

    18 document, is it signed by Colonel Blaskic?

    19 A. Yes, this document was signed by General

    20 Blaskic. This is his signature of the command of the

    21 Central Bosnia Operative Zone headquarters. This can

    22 be seen from the stamp, that was how it was called at

    23 the time.

    24 Q. In this document, Blaskic is nominating

    25 Colonel Filip Filipovic commander of the municipal

  14. 1 headquarters in Travnik and Nikola Grubic deputy

    2 commander.

    3 Now, prior to doing this, is it your

    4 testimony that he had to consult with the municipal

    5 authorities in order to appoint these people?

    6 A. He certainly had to consult with those

    7 authorities, and it can be seen from this order that

    8 the commander wrote this order on the basis of the

    9 authorisation he was given by the main headquarters,

    10 the authorisation I explained a moment ago; and

    11 especially in this case he had to have consultations

    12 with representatives of the municipal authorities,

    13 because Filipovic had only just arrived from the former

    14 Yugoslav People's Army.

    15 Q. Let's turn our attention to 456/64, which is

    16 an order of Blaskic on the 20th of November 1992. Now,

    17 in this particular document, again, this is a packet

    18 communication; is it not?

    19 A. Yes, a packet communication.

    20 Q. In this document Blaskic says: "In view of

    21 the situation on the front, I hereby appoint a new

    22 defence sector commander and relieve the present

    23 commander of his duties.

    24 1. Mr. Ivica Rajic being appointed commander

    25 of section one, and Mr. Ivica Cosic deputy commander,.

  15. 1 2. Mr. Zivko Tojic shall be appointed

    2 commander of sector Two, and Mario Cerkez" -- it

    3 probably was Mario Cerkez, and it says that in the

    4 original -- "deputy commander."

    5 Now, in this particular document, Blaskic is

    6 both appointing and relieving commanders, at least

    7 that's what the preparatory language is?

    8 A. I don't see anyone here. Yes, I see, that is

    9 what it says in the preamble, but I can explain this

    10 order.

    11 This order came into being after we lost our

    12 positions to the army of Republika Srpska in the

    13 territory of Travnik municipality.

    14 This is not an appointment, a permanent

    15 appointment. The commander of the sector will remain

    16 that for 10 or 15 days until the defence line is

    17 established, because you see that the commander is from

    18 Kiseljak, an officer is from Busovaca that Zivko is

    19 from Zenica, that Mario Cerkez is from Vitez; these

    20 were commanders of brigades or municipal headquarters,

    21 it depended, being appointed as sector commanders.

    22 Which means we used all available forces in order to

    23 successfully organise and stop the advance of the

    24 Bosnian Serb army.

    25 This is operative use, so, these commanders,

  16. 1 in addition to their duties as brigade commanders, at

    2 the same time were sector commanders. And this lasted

    3 for a month or a month-and-a-half. So this is

    4 operative use of forces, this exists in military

    5 terminology.

    6 Q. So, in order to get operative use of forces,

    7 did Blaskic need municipal approval, or not?

    8 A. In this specific situation the danger was

    9 threatening of the Bosnian Serb army entering Travnik.

    10 So, we exerted the utmost efforts, together with the BH

    11 army, to stop their advance and we succeeded.

    12 Q. That wasn't my question. My question was

    13 whether or not he needed municipal authority to issue

    14 this order on the sector commanders. That was my

    15 question.

    16 A. When brigade commanders are engaged as sector

    17 commanders, then it was up to the commander to assess

    18 the situation in the area within the zone of

    19 responsibility of a particular brigade, and he would

    20 choose the most suitable person.

    21 So, in this case he did not need to ask for

    22 approval for an already appointed brigade commander to

    23 become a sector commander for a month, a

    24 month-and-a-half, or for 20 days, as the situation on

    25 the battle front.

  17. 1 Q. So you would agree with me, Brigadier, that

    2 there are some situations, according to your testimony,

    3 where Blaskic would need municipal authority, but there

    4 are other situations, such as reflected in this

    5 exhibit, 456/64, where he does not need municipal

    6 authority; is that right?

    7 A. This order and this example is unique, there

    8 are no multiple examples of this kind.

    9 Q. This order of appointment and dismissal is

    10 unique, is that your testimony?

    11 A. Yes, it is the only one of its kind.

    12 Q. Let's just go through the rest of these very

    13 quickly and we'll explore that subject in one moment.

    14 Let's turn our attention to the balance of these

    15 documents and we have 456/65.

    16 JUDGE RIAD: I just want to ask the witness,

    17 Brigadier, did you know about this order or you have

    18 just discovered it now when the Prosecutor submitted it

    19 to you?

    20 A. Mr. President, Your Honours, I knew of this

    21 order. I remember its text because I was involved in

    22 the organisation of defence in these sectors. I, at

    23 that time, had a different task and a different role

    24 and this is why I remember this.

    25 JUDGE RIAD: Except that you were very

  18. 1 categorical when you answered me that General Blaskic

    2 could never dismiss without the consent of the other

    3 municipal Commanders. You never mentioned there were

    4 exceptions.

    5 A. Your Honour, General Blaskic could never

    6 dismiss a Brigade Commander, but if he wanted to

    7 appoint 20 persons to help out on a certain task, he

    8 did not need any approval, otherwise we wouldn't have

    9 been able to function at all the way we did.

    10 JUDGE RIAD: Thank you.

    11 MR. KEHOE:

    12 Q. Brigadier, let's go back to the exhibit we

    13 were just going to discuss again 546/65, an order on

    14 the 9th of January, 1993. And in this order, Blaskic

    15 calls on the various articles in the Narodni List or

    16 the official gazette as would be translated in English

    17 and he says:

    18 "Pursuant to Article 29, Item 7, Article 30,

    19 Item 2, Article 31, Article 34, Item 2 on the decree on

    20 armed forces of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna,

    21 and the authorisation issued by the main staff of the

    22 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna, Operation Zone

    23 39692 of the 27th" -- excuse me -- "27th of June, 1992,

    24 issued an order. Ivica Bagaric from Travnik is

    25 appointed chief of the Travnik Brigade, anti-aircraft

  19. 1 defence with headquarters in Travnik." Again, another

    2 order appointing someone chief of the Travnik Brigade.

    3 In this order, did Blaskic have to get the municipal

    4 authority?

    5 A. Just a moment. Just a moment, please. This

    6 is the chief -- sorry, my translation was that it was a

    7 Brigade Commander. No, he was an expert within the

    8 command, a person who is involved in the air defences,

    9 so this is within the command structure.

    10 Q. Brigadier, let's clarify the translation and

    11 I am reading No. 1 and we should get this clear before

    12 I explore this question. It says, "Ivica Bagaric from

    13 Travnik is appointed chief of the Travnik Brigade

    14 anti-aircraft defence with headquarters in Travnik."

    15 A. Yes, with headquarters in Travnik.

    16 Q. Now my question for you is, did Blaskic need

    17 the municipal authority approval to appoint Mr. Ivica

    18 Bagaric to that position?

    19 A. With respect to the officers in the Brigade

    20 commands, then the Operative Zone Commander had to do

    21 it in agreement with the Brigade Commander. So in

    22 order for Mr. Ivica Bagaric to be appointed to this

    23 duty, Mr. Blaskic had to reach an agreement with his

    24 Brigade Commander on this appointment.

    25 Q. Brigadier, that's not my question. My

  20. 1 question is: Did Blaskic need the approval of the

    2 municipal authorities to appoint Ivica Bagaric to this

    3 particular position as chief of the Travnik Brigade

    4 anti-aircraft defence? Did he need the municipal

    5 authority approval, or did he not?

    6 A. As far as I know for officers in the Brigade

    7 commands, no approval of the municipal authorities was

    8 needed. But the Brigade Commanders' approval was

    9 needed. That was the reality.

    10 Q. So, Brigadier, we have another situation on

    11 the appointment of Commanders where Blaskic did not

    12 need municipal authority approval in order to appoint

    13 somebody; isn't that correct?

    14 A. That is not the situation because the

    15 military Commanders are the following officers: The

    16 commander of squad, platoon, company, battalion and so

    17 forth. All other officers are just chiefs of

    18 departments. They do not have a command authority and

    19 role. So the chief of anti-aircraft defence is an

    20 expert position. I was the chief of the operations and

    21 training, so I did not have a command role. It was an

    22 expert role. So the command position is just command

    23 responsibility, be it at a level of squad, platoon, and

    24 so on.

    25 Q. So again, Brigadier, the bottom line is that

  21. 1 he did not need municipal authority approval to appoint

    2 Mr. Bagaric to this position? It's a simple question.

    3 MR. HAYMAN: He has answered the question,

    4 Mr. President. How long is he going to spend on this?

    5 It's an anti-aircraft expert position. This man was

    6 not a Brigade Commander, not a squad Commander, not a

    7 platoon Commander, etc, etc.

    8 MR. KEHOE: Let him answer the question yes

    9 or no and we'll move on.

    10 THE INTERPRETER: Could we ask the Judge to

    11 turn the microphone on, please.

    12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman, you have to realise

    13 that the witness does not answer the questions

    14 directly. For several times now -- please let me

    15 speak. You spoke, I listened to you. In fact, I think

    16 we're going to stop the question and the Tribunal will

    17 make its evaluation. But I wanted to tell you that

    18 several times now, the witness answered the questions

    19 indirectly. He starts with a long introduction, which,

    20 in fact, means that after several moments, the Judges

    21 are taken from one subject to another. The witness

    22 does not recognise a certain kind of contradiction

    23 within his own words, which is what Judge Riad

    24 initially brought out. Of course I am going to stop

    25 because -- I was going to stop him, but I ask you to

  22. 1 keep your calm, Mr. Hayman, because many things are

    2 happening here also have to do with the way the witness

    3 is answering. The questions are simple in respect of

    4 those questions and each time we seem to drift away to

    5 an exception, to another exception. That's what I

    6 wanted to say. Did you wish to make a comment? I'll

    7 give you the floor. I really wanted to share my

    8 opinion with you. Mr. Nobilo.

    9 MR. NOBILO: Thank you, Mr. President. Of

    10 course the Defence is trying to assist in this

    11 proceedings so that it would go as smoothly as

    12 possible. But we have problems in terminology. My

    13 colleague is confusing certain terms and this is why we

    14 have the impression that our witness is not clear.

    15 When it was said that Blaskic could not appoint

    16 Commanders without the approval of the municipal

    17 authorities, this is what my witness is answering to,

    18 that it was just a Commander and he could not. The

    19 same when we have officers in a field and we have as

    20 yet a different category, so there are three different

    21 categories here that we're talking about.

    22 JUDGE JORDA: I suggest that Mr. Kehoe ask

    23 his questions category by category again. The

    24 Brigadier will answer only in a direct fashion very

    25 briefly and then the Judges will evaluate because I

  23. 1 think that they have received enough information. The

    2 Judges will read the orders, the transcripts, the

    3 witness' answers and the Prosecutor's questions.

    4 All right, Mr. Kehoe, for the last time,

    5 would you ask the questions if you have several of

    6 them, ask them. The type of command by type of

    7 command, if you like. The witness will answer very

    8 directly and very succinctly and then the Judges will

    9 make their evaluations with the documents that they

    10 have and then we're going to move to another subject

    11 because it's going to be almost one hour now that we

    12 spent -- actually, more than one hour on this subject

    13 and especially since we began with it yesterday.

    14 Mr. Kehoe.

    15 MR. KEHOE:

    16 Q. Well the question I have on this document

    17 regarding Mr. Bagaric, 456/65 is; did Blaskic, or did

    18 he not, need the approval of the municipal authorities

    19 to appoint Mr. Bagaric to this position?

    20 A. For the appointment up to this position, that

    21 is the position of the chief of the anti-aircraft

    22 defence, Commander Blaskic did not approval of the

    23 municipal authorities.

    24 Q. Did Mr. Bagaric have individuals under his

    25 command once he received this appointment?

  24. 1 A. Commander Bagaric did not have any personnel

    2 under his command in this duty.

    3 Q. So Commander Bagaric became chief of the

    4 anti-aircraft defence, but he had nobody under him as

    5 the chief; is that what you're saying?

    6 A. As far as I know, he did not.

    7 Q. So he was working by himself?

    8 A. Mr. President, Your Honours, I would need to

    9 recall the --

    10 JUDGE JORDA: It's a direct question.

    11 Brigadier, when the Chief Bagaric was the chief of the

    12 anti-aircraft defence headquarters, you're saying he

    13 had no soldiers under his order, is that what you're

    14 saying? That's what you had just said, he had no

    15 soldiers under his order because that's going to be put

    16 into the record.

    17 THE WITNESS: No, he did not have

    18 subordinates.

    19 JUDGE JORDA: Very well.

    20 MR. KEHOE:

    21 Q. Let's turn to 456/66, Brigadier. Now 456/66,

    22 Brigadier, is an order of Blaskic of the 26th of

    23 January, 1993, and nomination and an appointment. He

    24 talks about due to the current changes in the situation

    25 -- we'll go to the order 1:

  25. 1 "I nominate and appointment Mr. Milenko

    2 Aravpovic as the company Commander of the 1st

    3 battalion. And Mr. Pero -- and pardon my pronunciation

    4 Drljepan -- is appointed as company logistics officer

    5 as well as deputy commander and the former Commander is

    6 relieved by this order." And this goes to the Brigade

    7 in Busovaca, the Nikola Subic-Zrinski Brigade.

    8 Now, with regard to these particular

    9 appointments, did Blaskic need the approval of the

    10 municipal authorities to appoint and dismiss this

    11 personnel?

    12 A. Mr. President, Your Honours, I cannot answer

    13 this question with a simple yes or no, I need to

    14 clarify it. When I spoke about the appointment of

    15 company Commanders, which are the local units, I

    16 explained what the procedure was. This was the

    17 procedure: A company Commander would be nominated at a

    18 local level in the village or local commune. This

    19 nomination would reach the Brigade Commander and then

    20 he would forward it to the Operative Zone Commander and

    21 this is how this company Commander would have been

    22 appointed. It would have come through up to the

    23 Operative Zone Commander.

    24 JUDGE JORDA: Do you agree that nothing in

    25 this order alludes to this procedure? There is nothing

  26. 1 in this order which refers to that type of procedure,

    2 do you agree with what I have just said?

    3 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, in no order

    4 which we have reviewed is this procedure transparent.

    5 I am just talking about the practice. This is the

    6 procedure that was followed and Mr. Blaskic was trying

    7 to organise the army.

    8 JUDGE JORDA: The time we were working on

    9 documents, you also had documents during direct

    10 examination, do you have an additional question about

    11 that, Mr. Kehoe?

    12 MR. KEHOE:

    13 Q. My question by way of clarification is,

    14 Brigadier, so your answer is no, that the municipal

    15 authorities had no veto decision or veto power over

    16 this decision; is that correct?

    17 A. The municipal authorities did not have a veto

    18 authority, but they had to get approval from the local

    19 commune.

    20 JUDGE JORDA: Very well. But it's not in the

    21 document. We would have thought that would have been

    22 in the document. That has happened on such and such a

    23 date, having consulted the representatives of the

    24 municipality, you agree that that is not there?

    25 THE WITNESS: Yes, that's correct, Mr.

  27. 1 President.

    2 JUDGE JORDA: It's possible that the Defence

    3 counsel will bring the written proof of that type of

    4 procedure that must have been established at staff

    5 headquarters. I suppose one party must have acted

    6 pursuant to certain type of procedures. But for the

    7 time being, we're noting that no reference is made in

    8 this order to any type of consultations. Would you

    9 please continue Mr. Kehoe.

    10 MR. KEHOE: Let's go to the last document in

    11 this series which is 456/57.

    12 Q. Now, again, Brigadier, this is an order

    13 signed by the accused, Colonel Blaskic, is it not?

    14 A. Yes.

    15 Q. It's dated the 30th of March, 1993. And

    16 Blaskic --

    17 A. Yes.

    18 Q. Excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt there.

    19 I'm sorry. This should be 67, Judge. The transcript

    20 reads 456/57, it should be 456/67. Is it this

    21 document? That's the document. That's the document on

    22 the ELMO. Thank you.

    23 Now on this document, again Blaskic calls

    24 upon his powers in Article 31 and has delegated

    25 authority and he actually appoints Mr. Malbasic and

  28. 1 takes him from the Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade and

    2 transfers him to the Bobovac Brigade in Vares. Do you

    3 see that?

    4 A. Yes, I do see it.

    5 Q. Now, how far away is the Stjepan Tomasevic

    6 Brigade from the Bobovac Brigade in Vares?

    7 A. The Stjepan Tomasevic Brigade was in

    8 Novi Travnik and the Bobovac Brigade was in Travnik.

    9 Mr. Bobovac was born and lived in Vares with his

    10 family.

    11 Q. Now, again, with regard to Mr. Bobovac, did

    12 the municipal authorities have to approve his

    13 appointment to the chief of the artillery Brigade --

    14 excuse me, to the chief of the headquarters in the

    15 Bobovac Brigade?

    16 A. The municipal authorities did not need to

    17 provide approval for the chief staff of the Bobovac

    18 Brigade because this was again not a command position.

    19 Q. How about the position on No. 2 for the chief

    20 intelligence in the Bobovac Brigade, Mr. Mijocevic?

    21 Did the municipal authorities have to approve that?

    22 A. No, they did not. This is another duty in

    23 the command and it is not a command responsibility or

    24 duty, it is an expert position.

    25 Q. Would your explanation be the same with

  29. 1 regard to Position No. 3 in the anti-aircraft defence

    2 regarding Mr. Jorgic?

    3 A. Yes, it is the same. It's another expert

    4 position, and not a command position.

    5 Q. Now, if we could just go back with, --

    6 Mr. Usher, if I could give the witness again Exhibit

    7 456/64, which is the order of 20 November 1992.

    8 Now, turning our attention back to 456/64,

    9 you just stated in the transcript that this order is

    10 unique. There are no multiple examples of this kind.

    11 I think I quoted you correctly from the transcript

    12 concerning this. The transcript will reflect it, but I

    13 think that's your quote.

    14 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, the witness said

    15 that there are no other orders of this kind. That is

    16 the only type of this type.

    17 JUDGE JORDA: Continue, Mr. Kehoe.

    18 MR. KEHOE:

    19 Q. You also noted that there were no orders of

    20 Blaskic dismissing Brigade Commanders without the

    21 approval of the municipal authorities. Isn't that your

    22 testimony?

    23 A. Yes, the Commander, General Blaskic, could

    24 not dismiss a Brigade Commander without the approval of

    25 municipal authorities. He could have sent an order,

  30. 1 but I know that in practice such orders were not

    2 carried out. I know an example of that kind.

    3 Q. Well, let's talk about that. Let's go to

    4 Exhibit 456/22. This is also a Defence exhibit,

    5 counsel. I am not sure, but if we could -- I know it's

    6 in 456/22.

    7 Now this is a battle order that, I think, was

    8 discussed. I know it was discussed during your direct

    9 examination with Mr. Nobilo. It is a battle order

    10 signed by the accused and authorised by the accused. I

    11 am not positive that is his signature, but you

    12 authenticated this document in your direct.

    13 Nevertheless, it's dated the 17th of April, 1993, at

    14 23.45 hours. Do you remember this order, Brigadier?

    15 A. Mr. President, I do remember this order. The

    16 text of the order was written by me upon orders from

    17 General Blaskic, and I signed it upon his authority.

    18 Q. Now, this battle order gives instructions to

    19 the Ban Jelacic Brigade and it -- and turn to number

    20 three, it gives particular instructions to Fojnica;

    21 isn't that right?

    22 A. Yes.

    23 Q. It says, "To Fojnica, must secure your left

    24 flank and launch an attack on Dusina or break through

    25 to Sebesic"?

  31. 1 A. Yes, that is what it says.

    2 Q. Now, let me give you another order and this

    3 is a new document.

    4 THE REGISTRAR: This is 487, 487A for the

    5 English version.

    6 MR. KEHOE: Again, Mr. President, these will

    7 all be translated into French, we just don't have them

    8 at this point through translation.

    9 Q. Now, Brigadier, this is yet another order

    10 written on the 18th of April, 1993, at 01.40 hours that

    11 was written by you, wasn't it?

    12 A. According to the initials and the text of

    13 this order, I do remember writing it upon permission

    14 from General Blaskic.

    15 Q. It goes to the Commander of the Fojnica HVO

    16 battalion, does it not? That's the instructions to

    17 it?

    18 A. Yes.

    19 Q. Who was the Commander of the HVO battalion in

    20 Fojnica?

    21 A. I remember the sir name, Mr. Tuka.

    22 Q. His first name was Stjepan Tuka, wasn't it?

    23 A. I think it was Stjepan, I am quite sure it

    24 was Tuka, Stjepan Tuka, yes.

    25 Q. Now tell us about this, Brigadier, this was a

  32. 1 particular order for the Fojnica battalion to support

    2 the Ban Jelacic Brigade on the Ban Jelacic's Brigade

    3 left flank; isn't that right?

    4 A. From the assignment defined here, yes.

    5 Q. Stjepan Tuka refused to comply with this

    6 order, didn't he?

    7 A. Yes.

    8 Q. That caused significant problems in the

    9 Central Bosnia Operative Zone headquarters, didn't it?

    10 A. Yes, it caused problems because at the time

    11 the document was written on the 18th of April, there

    12 were very fierce battles in Busovaca, Vitez and

    13 Kiseljak and that was the reason why that order was

    14 addressed to the Commander in Fojnica, to link forces

    15 so as to defend the territories of Busovaca, Vitez and

    16 Kiseljak.

    17 Q. Brigadier, the Commander, Tuka,

    18 insubordination was very well known within the

    19 headquarters, wasn't it?

    20 A. Yes. The commander of this battalion refused

    21 to carry out the order.

    22 Q. In a time of war, that is a significant

    23 matter; isn't it?

    24 A. In the situation we were in, it is a very,

    25 very bad thing that he did.

  33. 1 Q. Now, when this order was issued, there was no

    2 fighting going on in Fojnica, was there?

    3 A. No, there were no battles in Fojnica, but

    4 assistance was coming to the BH army forces, who were

    5 waging the war in Busovaca, was coming through there,

    6 and there was a threat of Busovaca, Vitez and Kiseljak

    7 falling.

    8 Q. The assignment given to Tuka and his

    9 battalion, in part, was to secure the village of

    10 Dusina?

    11 A. Yes, yes, to secure the village of Dusina,

    12 and to advance towards Busovaca stables and link up

    13 with forces defending Sebesic. I can show this area to

    14 you on the model.

    15 Q. Just to clarify the point, Brigadier, the

    16 Dusina that is reflected in your order to commander

    17 Tuka is not the Dusina that is in the Busovaca

    18 municipality, lest the record should confuse the two;

    19 isn't that right?

    20 A. Yes, yes, Dusina is a village in the

    21 territory of the municipality of Fojnica.

    22 Q. Now, after this order and Tuka's refusal to

    23 comply, -- let me turn to the next document, Mr. Usher

    24 -- you issued another order or drafted another order

    25 for Colonel Blaskic.

  34. 1 THE REGISTRAR: This is 488, 488A for the

    2 English version.

    3 MR. KEHOE:

    4 Q. Again, Brigadier, in the lower left-hand

    5 corner are your initials; are they not?

    6 A. Yes, I do remember the text of this document.

    7 Q. This is sent in what fashion?

    8 A. It should have been sent by packet.

    9 Q. Well, you would agree with me, Brigadier,

    10 that the order sent on 0140 hours that we talked about,

    11 as well as this order sent on the 19th at 1800 hours,

    12 was sent by packet, and they deal with the combat plans

    13 for the Fojnica battalion; don't they?

    14 A. The order that we have here is a warning to

    15 the commander of the Fojnica battalion that he has to

    16 comply with the orders that he receives from his

    17 superior command.

    18 Q. Well, suffice it to say that you were giving

    19 combat orders over the packet system where you

    20 specifically told the Fojnica battalion where to deploy

    21 the HVO troops; isn't that right?

    22 A. In the absolutely impossible situation that

    23 we were in at that time, when the situation on the

    24 battle front was so grave, we sent only the minimum

    25 amount of information by packet that we had to send to

  35. 1 the unit commander for him to be able to carry out his

    2 assignment.

    3 Q. The bottom line, again Brigadier, is that in

    4 the order that we were talking about, you sent over the

    5 packet system an order for Tuka to deploy his troops

    6 towards Dusina; isn't that right?

    7 A. To deploy his forces towards Dusina, and to

    8 control the area towards Sebesic, which is at least 20

    9 kilometres away; so there isn't much precision there.

    10 JUDGE JORDA: Go directly to the question,

    11 please, Mr. Kehoe. There is an order that was sent to

    12 the Fojnica battalion, we understand that. We are not

    13 contesting it. There is the order of 19 April, what

    14 connection are you making? What is the argument that

    15 you want to bring out in order to allow the witness to

    16 answer?

    17 I would like to finish up, before we take our

    18 break I would like to finish this theme, having

    19 appointments and dismissals of officials with or

    20 without authorisation; otherwise we're going to stop

    21 this and move to another subject. We can go a little

    22 bit longer, but not much more.

    23 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, with regard to the

    24 appointment and dismissal of people, we have a ways to

    25 go on that, especially on this particular subject. But

  36. 1 before we go on with that, I would like to clarify a

    2 series of questions that was set up, asked by

    3 Mr. Nobilo, if I may, Mr. President, and then if that

    4 is a convenient time for a break.

    5 Q. During questions by Mr. Nobilo you told

    6 Mr. Nobilo that --

    7 JUDGE JORDA: I still haven't quite

    8 understood what was the purpose of these two documents

    9 487 and 488. What is the question? I haven't got the

    10 question. We were talking about Dusina, whether this

    11 was the real or the wrong Dusina. I would like this to

    12 be clear. You presented this document, 487, it's an

    13 order given to Stjepan Tuka of Fojnica, and then you

    14 took out 488. What is the question? Before you

    15 respond to Mr. Nobilo, if you don't clarify that, we're

    16 not going to understand anything.

    17 MR. KEHOE: Sure.

    18 Q. With regard to this document on the 19th of

    19 April 1993, that you have before you, Brigadier,

    20 another reminder was sent to the commander of the

    21 Fojnica battalion, Stjepan Tuka, to comply with the

    22 orders issued by the commander of the Ban Jelacic

    23 brigade; isn't that right?

    24 A. Yes.

    25 Q. Tuka refused to comply again with this

  37. 1 reminder; didn't he?

    2 A. Yes, he refused.

    3 Q. What did Blaskic do when Tuka refused to

    4 comply both with the first order on the 18th to move

    5 towards either Sebesic or Dusina, or his refusal to

    6 comply with the 19th reminder order? What did Blaskic

    7 do?

    8 A. Because of the seriousness of the situation,

    9 we were at the time in Busovaca, Vitez, and Kiseljak,

    10 General Blaskic issued an order to dismiss that

    11 commander.

    12 Q. Because of the seriousness of the situation,

    13 because Blaskic viewed this as serious, he dismissed

    14 Tuka; didn't he?

    15 A. General Blaskic issued an order on dismissal,

    16 and I will explain how it all ended.

    17 MR. HAYMAN: Can the witness explain, Mr.

    18 President?

    19 MR. KEHOE:

    20 Q. You're welcome to explain, Brigadier.

    21 A. Mr. President, after the commander of the

    22 Fojnica battalion failed to carry out the military

    23 orders he received from General Blaskic, and because of

    24 the seriousness of the situation, General Blaskic wrote

    25 an order to dismiss him.

  38. 1 The drafting of that order was done upon

    2 consultation with political representatives who exerted

    3 their influence on political representatives in Fojnica

    4 for this dismissal. However, the dismissal didn't take

    5 place immediately.

    6 As far as I am informed, they held meetings,

    7 they had talks about it, whether it should be done or

    8 not; and after pressure on the part of top politicians

    9 and the leadership of Herceg-Bosna was brought to bear

    10 on political officials in Fojnica, only then did the

    11 replacement take place, and after this procedure Tuka

    12 was dismissed and replaced.

    13 MR. KEHOE: Well, Mr. President, we will get

    14 into that after the break, with the Court's permission.

    15 JUDGE JORDA: Very well, we will have a break

    16 until 11.40.

    17 --- Recess taken at 11.20 a.m.

    18 --- On resuming at 11.47 a.m.

    19 JUDGE JORDA: Please have the accused brought

    20 in.

    21 (The accused entered court)

    22 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe.

    23 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President.

    24 Q. Talking about Mr. Tuka and Blaskic's order to

    25 dismiss Tuka, let us take a look at 456/52. And before

  39. 1 we get to that, if we can give this particular document

    2 first, give that to the witness and we will hand out

    3 another exhibit, because we will be using them at the

    4 same time.

    5 THE REGISTRAR: This is 489, 489A for the

    6 French version and B for the English version.

    7 MR. KEHOE: 489, again, Mr. President, has

    8 yet to be translated into French and will be so. I

    9 take that back, we have accomplished the French

    10 translation. I apologise, Mr. President.

    11 JUDGE JORDA: You are so used to there not

    12 being a French translation, it is becoming an automatic

    13 reflex. You see, I actually have a French translation

    14 here.

    15 MR. KEHOE: The translation section is about

    16 to kill us all.

    17 Q. Let us start first with the new exhibit

    18 before we move to Blaskic's order, and this is a letter

    19 from Stjepan Tuka. Have you seen this letter before?

    20 A. I haven't seen this letter from Stjepan Tuka

    21 before.

    22 Q. Do you recognise Mr. Tuka's signature?

    23 A. I do recognise. No, I do not. I'm sorry --

    24 the interpreter didn't understand it. Was it yes or

    25 no.

  40. 1 Q. You do not recognise? There was some

    2 confusion in the interpretation.

    3 A. I do not recognise Mr. Tuka's signature.

    4 Q. Let's just read this letter briefly, and I

    5 think it's on the ELMO. The 20th of April, it comes

    6 from the Busovaca Nikola Subic-Zrinski Brigade, the 3rd

    7 Fojnica Battalion, to the attention of Commander

    8 Tihomir Blaskic.

    9 "Dear Colonel: I feel obliged to respond to

    10 your warning to comply with orders. Two years ago when

    11 I took on the obligation to organise to protect the

    12 Croatian people in the municipality of Fojnica, I was

    13 aware of what I was getting into. I, therefore, always

    14 kept in mind the preservation of peace in the region

    15 and thereby the lives of the people and their property.

    16 "I am prepared to answer for everything I

    17 have done so far and accept any punishment, regardless

    18 of its gravity; but I want the Croatian people to try

    19 me, and not some, 'saviours', of the Croatian people.

    20 "I cannot blindly carry out some of the

    21 orders which directly introduce war into Fojnica and

    22 which have been imposed on us without prior

    23 consultation with those of us who best know the

    24 situation here.

    25 "I know that you get information from Fojnica

  41. 1 from people who portray a completely different picture

    2 from the real one. I implement the orders which I am

    3 able to carry out, and do the best I can to execute

    4 orders which are impossible to implement.

    5 "Please do not take my response as

    6 justification for not implementing some of the orders.

    7 I request you to urgently carry out your threat

    8 regarding replacement and appoint someone capable of

    9 carrying out all orders.

    10 "As for the responsibility, I have already

    11 mentioned that I am prepared to accept it, as well.

    12 However, I am not prepared to bring misery to the

    13 people I am responsible for and to answer for that

    14 either to my conscience or to the very same people."

    15 Now, let us turn our attention to Exhibit

    16 456/52. Do you see that exhibit, Brigadier? If I

    17 could put that on the ELMO, 456/52. It is on the

    18 ELMO. Okay.

    19 This is an order from Blaskic dated 20 April

    20 1993. Do you have that, Brigadier?

    21 A. I do, I do, I have it.

    22 Q. It is sent to the commander of the Nikola

    23 Subic-Zrinski Brigade of Busovaca, the commander of the

    24 3rd Fojnica Battalion of the Nikola Subic-Zrinski

    25 Brigade in Fojnica.

  42. 1 "Command: I hereby dismiss Mr. Stjepan Tuka

    2 from the post of commander of the 3rd Battalion of the

    3 Nikola Subic-Zrinski Brigade in Busovaca because of his

    4 failure to carry out his combat missions and appoint

    5 Mr. Drago Simunic from Fojnica in his place.

    6 I am authorising Mr. D. Simunic fully with

    7 regard to the running and commanding of the 3rd

    8 Battalion. The deadline for the execution of this

    9 command shall be three hours after its receipt. Every

    10 act contrary to this command shall entail criminal

    11 responsibility. Mr. Stjepan Tuka, the previous

    12 commander of the 3rd Battalion and Mr. Drago Simunic,

    13 the new commander of the 3rd Battalion, shall be

    14 responsible to me in case of failure of execution of

    15 this command."

    16 Do you recall this order, Brigadier?

    17 A. I do recall that this order was written in

    18 this way and sent to the address indicated.

    19 Q. It says that Mr. Tuka is dismissed

    20 immediately; doesn't it?

    21 A. Yes, that is what it says, and I said that

    22 because of the person's failure to comply with orders,

    23 the commander issued this order on his dismissal.

    24 Q. Let us turn to 456/54, which is an order that

    25 is written by Blaskic some 25 minutes after the

  43. 1 dismissal of Tuka, again, on the 20th of April 1993 at

    2 12.05.

    3 A. I apologise, Mr. Kehoe said after Tuka's

    4 replacement, but it should be after the order was

    5 issued on his replacement.

    6 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, this is an

    7 example when the question contains an allegation that

    8 is not correct. Mr. Tuka was not replaced for a whole

    9 month-and-a-half after the order was issued; so that

    10 the question should not contain allegations which

    11 simply are not true.

    12 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe.

    13 MR. KEHOE: The fact of the matter is, the

    14 Court will be able to make that determination when we

    15 complete the review of the documents that we are about

    16 to go through, and whether or not Tuka was replaced,

    17 and when he was replaced, and the powers of Colonel

    18 Blaskic to dismiss him and replace him.

    19 MR. HAYMAN: Your Honour, Mr. Kehoe knows

    20 what the underlying facts are, he has an ethical

    21 obligation not to misrepresent or mislead the Court in

    22 that regard.

    23 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, the documents will

    24 speak for themselves. The documents coming up will

    25 dismiss Tuka, clearly will dismiss Tuka, and the Court

  44. 1 can cull from the documents and make the factual

    2 determinations.

    3 This particular document that we are turning

    4 to, Exhibit 456/54, is simply written 25 minutes after

    5 the dismissal order for Tuka is written. That was the

    6 lead in from one document to the next document, when

    7 and where and what happened in Fojnica. I leave it to

    8 the Court to decide after the review of the documents.

    9 JUDGE JORDA: I suggest we not waste any more

    10 time, Mr. Kehoe, continue.

    11 MR. KEHOE:

    12 Q. In exhibit 456/54, after the dismissal order

    13 of Tuka was issued, Blaskic puts the 3rd Fojnica

    14 Battalion, which was in the Nikola Subic-Zrinski

    15 Brigade in Busovaca, and subordinates it to the Ban

    16 Jelacic commander in Kiseljak; doesn't he?

    17 A. Yes, he does. If I can explain the

    18 circumstances under which this document was created.

    19 This order on subordination of this battalion

    20 to the Ban Jelacic Brigade was due to the gravity of

    21 the situation and the fact that it was cut off and our

    22 inability to directly have contact with them. This is

    23 why the commander of the Operative Zone, at the date

    24 and time indicated here, issued the order which we have

    25 before us.

  45. 1 Q. Now, sir, let us turn to Exhibit 456/53.

    2 Mr. Dubuisson, just for clarity sake, in the

    3 record, was there a French copy of 456/53?

    4 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, I think there should be

    5 one.

    6 MR. KEHOE: If not, I have copies of that. I

    7 am not sure when 456 was introduced into evidence. All

    8 the French copies are there, if not, we have them.

    9 JUDGE JORDA: All right. Give me the French

    10 version, please. In any case, if you read it, it will

    11 be interpreted and everyone will understand what's

    12 going on. Go ahead.

    13 MR. KEHOE:

    14 Q. Now, this Document 456/53 is a document

    15 written by Stjepan Tuka to the Ban Jelacic Brigade on

    16 the 20th of April of 1993.

    17 It says, "Information on the replacement of

    18 the 39rd Fojnica battalion Commander. With reference

    19 to the strictly confidential order of the Commander of

    20 the Central Bosnia Operative Zone, 014417/93 of 20

    21 April 1993, regarding the replacement of a current

    22 present Commander of the 3rd Fojnica Battalion

    23 Commander, Mr. Stjepan Tuka, son of Augustin and the

    24 appointment of a new Commander, Dragan Simunic, son of

    25 Ante, we hereby inform you of the following:

  46. 1 A meeting of the 3rd Battalion Command will

    2 be held on 20 April, 1993, at 1600 hours at which the

    3 Commander shall be replaced. You will be informed of

    4 the results of the meeting in due course."

    5 Now my first question, Brigadier is, do you

    6 recognise that stamp? And do you recognise the

    7 document?

    8 A. This document did not arrive at the Central

    9 Bosnia Operative Zone command, but I can explain this

    10 document, if I may? The Commander of the Fojnica

    11 Battalion, which was subordinated to the Ban Jelacic

    12 Brigade, and was under the direct orders to work

    13 together with him, is reporting on the actions that he

    14 is taking with respect to the dismissal on replacement

    15 of the Battalion Commander. It refers in the last

    16 paragraph to a meeting which shall take place. And

    17 then in the end he says, "You will be informed of the

    18 results of the meeting in due course." What happened

    19 in that meeting was that the replacement did not take

    20 place.

    21 Mr. President, this is a very good example of

    22 how, in practice, the civilian authorities did have

    23 influence on the appointments of Commanders and the

    24 amount of influence which they had in appointments and

    25 dismissals. Mr. Tuka, himself, should not have taken a

  47. 1 decision not to carry out the order and we saw from his

    2 letter that he knew what the situation was and what

    3 they were supposed to do in the territory of their

    4 municipality, but the municipal authorities had

    5 exercised pressure on him and they supported him in his

    6 refusal to carry out the order.

    7 JUDGE JORDA: We have to find a way out of

    8 this, Mr. Kehoe. These are two completely two

    9 different interpretations. Either it is the last

    10 meeting he attended before he gave his position to his

    11 replacement or, as the witness is saying, things

    12 happened differently. We have to go forward and see

    13 what happens next. All right show the next document,

    14 if you will, please.

    15 THE REGISTRAR: This is 490, 490A for the

    16 English version.

    17 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, I won't be

    18 categorical on this, but I don't think we have a French

    19 copy translation on this one.

    20 JUDGE JORDA: It doesn't matter, go ahead.

    21 MR. KEHOE:

    22 Q. Now you were just discussing, Brigadier, the

    23 meeting that took place and is this document a

    24 reflection of that meeting that was held on the 20th of

    25 April, 1993?

  48. 1 A. Could you please allow me just to read

    2 through it because I have not seen it before.

    3 Q. Certainly, certainly.

    4 A. From the text you can see that the decision

    5 was taken as a conclusion of the meeting which was

    6 referred to in the previous document.

    7 MR. HAYMAN: I want a note for the record,

    8 Mr. President. We've never been given this document.

    9 We've repeatedly made motions for violations of Rule

    10 68. That is the Prosecutor's duty to give us

    11 exculpatory information. The Court has never imposed a

    12 sanction based on those motions. It is incredible that

    13 we have never been given this. I want to say that for

    14 the record.

    15 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, counsel can argue

    16 all he wants whether or not he thinks this is Rule 68

    17 material. I want the Court to make a full decision

    18 concerning Tuka and what Blaskic did on Tuka and

    19 whether or not the Court considers this particular

    20 document exculpatory, but I reject categorically, the

    21 statements by counsel concerning any Rule 68

    22 applicability order to this document.

    23 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, Mr. President,

    24 here in the HKD Napredak, is the culture association of

    25 Croats in Fojnica and they and the unit command are all

  49. 1 rejecting and this is the crown document proving that

    2 the chain of command was broken.

    3 JUDGE JORDA: Do you have the exact

    4 translation of this document, please? I would like

    5 someone to read it and it will be interpreted. I would

    6 like to hear all of the nuances that are in this text.

    7 MR. KEHOE: I will read it, Mr. President.

    8 MR. HAYMAN: Could we have the original

    9 read? And read from the --

    10 MR. KEHOE: Give it to the translators and

    11 the translators can read it, that would be fine.

    12 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, I think that's how it

    13 should be done. All right, Mr. Nobilo, read it. And

    14 as you're reading, I'll get a specific and exact

    15 translation of all the details of the document and then

    16 we can respond to the comments that were made. Go

    17 ahead, Mr. Nobilo.

    18 MR. NOBILO: I am reading the header:

    19 "Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatian Community of

    20 Herceg-Bosna, Croatian Defence Council, command of the

    21 3rd battalion of the Ban Josip Jelacic Brigade." The

    22 reference number I am not going to read.

    23 "Date: 20 April 1993. Defence military

    24 secret and strictly confidential. It is addressed to

    25 the Vitez Central Bosnia Operative Zone command and Ban

  50. 1 Josip Jelacic Brigade command in Kiseljak. And the

    2 text runs as follows:

    3 "With reference to your Order No. 01-4-417/93

    4 of 20 April 1993, the command of the 3rd Fojnica

    5 Battalion has reached the following decision:

    6 "Your Order No. 01-4-417/93 of 20 April 1993

    7 is being completely rejected due to the entire work

    8 being accomplished so far and the complexity of the

    9 current situation in the 3rd Fojnica Battalion. The

    10 Croatian people of Fojnica support per say. This

    11 unanimous decision is supported by the Croatian people

    12 of Fojnica." It was signed by 3rd Fojnica Battalion

    13 command. That is the first signature. The second,

    14 Fojnica HVO, which is the executive body of the

    15 municipality. Three, Croatian Democratic Union, which

    16 is the political party. Franciscan monastery, that is

    17 the church. Napredak. This is the HKD, issues of

    18 Croatian Cultural Association called Napredak.

    19 JUDGE JORDA: Thank you, Mr. Nobilo.

    20 Mr. Kehoe.

    21 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, let's

    22 continue through the balance of these documents.

    23 JUDGE JORDA: Yes.

    24 MR. KEHOE:

    25 Q. The next two documents, if I may hand these

  51. 1 out.

    2 Now the first document -- I'm sorry.

    3 THE REGISTRAR: The first document -- the

    4 first document is 491, 491A for the French version and

    5 B for the English and the second is 492, 492A for the

    6 English version.

    7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

    8 MR. KEHOE:

    9 Q. Now the first document, Brigadier, is a

    10 statement that came from the Fojnica Municipal Assembly

    11 and we'll read it as follows. This is Exhibit 491.

    12 "At a meeting held on 20 April 1993, during

    13 which the current military and political situation, and

    14 the situation in the region of Central Bosnia were

    15 discussed, as well as the recent order of the command

    16 of the Central Bosnia Operative Zone regarding the

    17 replacement of the Commander of the armed forces of the

    18 Fojnica HVO, Mr. Stjepan Tuka, we hereby issue the

    19 following statement:

    20 "In view that Mr. Stjepan Tuka's contribution

    21 so far in maintaining peace and a common existence of a

    22 Croatian and Muslim peoples, as well as the dignity of

    23 his own people, we give full support to Mr. Stjepan

    24 Tuka and all those supporting the policy of a

    25 legitimate representatives of a Croatian people in

  52. 1 Fojnica. We hope that the Croatian people will be at

    2 the same level as their political and military

    3 leadership, and that with their support, and by

    4 recognising the opinion given in this statement, and by

    5 understanding the gravity of a current situation they

    6 will continue to build the joint life which can only

    7 contribute to the well being of both peoples.

    8 Signed, President of the Municipal Assembly,

    9 President of the Fojnica SDA, Commander of the Fojnica

    10 Municipal TO. The Fojnica Islamic Community and

    11 chairman of the Preporad KDM."

    12 In conjunction with that, we turn to 492, the

    13 press release on this meeting. Which reads -- and if

    14 we could put that on the ELMO. It is also dated the

    15 20th of April.

    16 "Following unpleasant occurrences in the

    17 region of Central Bosnia, we raise our voices against

    18 any crime perpetrated in the name of an ideology and

    19 people against any human being. The living determine

    20 and direct history. Despite all those who claim that

    21 the Muslim and Croatian people cannot live side by

    22 side, we state that according to our life and

    23 experience so far, a life together is possible and

    24 without such a life there is no future. We warn all

    25 those responsible that they will be held immediately

  53. 1 responsible before the people in history. If they do

    2 not cease this pointless conflict immediately,

    3 therefore, we beseech all those who are concerned about

    4 our souls not to defend us from ourselves."

    5 Again the notations are of the Fojnica

    6 Municipal Assembly, the representatives of military

    7 units of both people. The Fojnica Franciscan

    8 Monastery, the Fojnica Islamic community and two lines

    9 that just say, "Fojnica, Fojnica Cultural Association

    10 and the Islamic Cultural Association."

    11 Now, my first question, Brigadier, is: Did

    12 you see these documents and were they forwarded to the

    13 headquarters?

    14 A. I did not see these documents, and from the

    15 contents of the documents, I see that there are no

    16 reference numbers which we would have placed on them if

    17 they had arrived at the Operative Zone command, so I

    18 cannot say that they have ever arrived there.

    19 Q. Blaskic responded to all of this, didn't he?

    20 A. I do not know whether General Blaskic

    21 responded to this, but on 20 April, and due to the

    22 serious situation and fierce attacks in Busovaca,

    23 Vitez, he was involved in those issues and he contacted

    24 with the HVO top in order to have his order on the

    25 dismissal of Tuka carried out because by that time it

  54. 1 had not been carried out yet.

    2 Q. Well, let's turn our attention to another new

    3 exhibit. Mr. Usher.

    4 JUDGE JORDA: Is this the same subject?

    5 MR. KEHOE: Same subject, Mr. President.

    6 Last document on the subject.

    7 JUDGE JORDA: About Fojnica as well?

    8 MR. KEHOE: Yes, the last document on the

    9 subject, Mr. President.

    10 THE REGISTRAR: This is 493, 493A for the

    11 French version and B for the English version.

    12 MR. KEHOE:

    13 Q. Now, Brigadier, taking a look at this

    14 document, does this document reflect the name and the

    15 Broj number or the number coming from the Central

    16 Bosnia Operative Zone command and that being Commander

    17 Blaskic. I refer you to the No. 01-5 -- 5 being for

    18 the month of May, 167/93. Does that reflect a number

    19 coming from the headquarters of the Central Bosnia

    20 Operative Zone?

    21 A. In that period that was the way things were

    22 registered, so I assume that this was registered with

    23 the Operative Zone command.

    24 Q. Was this a document that was sent in the

    25 packet communication system?

  55. 1 A. By superiors it looks as if has been sent by

    2 packet, but I cannot see who is behind it. It may have

    3 been produced through photocopying, at least that is

    4 the copy I am looking at.

    5 Q. Oh, no doubt. But I am talking about the

    6 actual print, it would appear to be the use of the

    7 packet communications that other orders going down to

    8 the Fojnica command that were used to communicate with

    9 the Fojnica Battalion and to Mr. Tuka; isn't that

    10 right?

    11 A. Based on the number and appearance of the

    12 header, those are the facts which lead me to believe

    13 that this document may have been drafted at the

    14 Operative Zone command. However, there is no name or

    15 signature to see who the actual drafter of the document

    16 was.

    17 Q. Okay, sir.

    18 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, this document is

    19 incomplete. This document is incomplete. Something is

    20 missing here. It has the first and last pages, but

    21 there is something there. It is not in a logical way.

    22 Even if it was received by the packet communication, I

    23 think there is a portion of this document missing.

    24 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe, it's true. The

    25 actual impression of this photocopy that something was

  56. 1 put together here. It is kind as if a collific collage

    2 was made. Yes, Mr. Kehoe, two things were put together

    3 here, were they not?

    4 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, in a private

    5 session outside the presence of the Brigadier, we can

    6 explain where this document came from, how it came into

    7 the possession of the Office of the Prosecutor in order

    8 to authenticate this document and we can pull up the

    9 original that was provided to the Office of the

    10 Prosecutor from the vault should the Chamber so

    11 desire. But if we want to talk about some preliminary

    12 matters concerning this document, and the folds, etc,

    13 we would like to do that in private session outside

    14 with the presence of the Brigadier.

    15 With all due respect, Brigadier.

    16 JUDGE JORDA: You're talking about the

    17 accused or the witness here?

    18 MR. KEHOE: The witness, Mr. President, I'm

    19 sorry.

    20 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, the Defence does

    21 not dispute the authenticity of this document, but we

    22 say that we do not have the integral document. In

    23 other words, we recognise it's authenticity, but

    24 dispute its completeness.

    25 JUDGE JORDA: Is it true, there is a part

  57. 1 missing?

    2 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, this is what we

    3 were provided. If counsel has got the full document

    4 that was sent by Blaskic, then he should provide it.

    5 This is what we have. Once again, I offer to Mr.

    6 President, and Your Honours, I will pull up what the

    7 original is in the vault and provide to it the Court

    8 for review.

    9 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. President, the Defence has

    10 never seen Exhibits 490, 491, 492 or 493 before.

    11 JUDGE JORDA: Well, we understood that, Mr.

    12 Hayman. You are saying that that falls under Rule 68.

    13 But sometimes you've got a very broad interpretation of

    14 Rule 68. It's not because a document has been provided

    15 and that it contradicts a statement of a witness that

    16 it automatically means that it is a document that

    17 should have been provided under Rule 68.

    18 Therefore, for the time being, I was waiting

    19 personally for the end of the sequence and to see

    20 whether Mr. Stjepan Tuka was or was not dismissed from

    21 his post despite the recriminations expressed by the

    22 municipality. I think that is what the discussion is

    23 centring around. Mr. Hayman?

    24 MR. HAYMAN: I won't belabour the point. I

    25 think it would have been profitable, perhaps to show

  58. 1 this series of documents to Brigadier Duncan. To some

    2 of the other professional western military officers who

    3 came in the Prosecutor's case and ask them: Is this

    4 how the unity of chain of command is supposed to

    5 function? Is this how a Commander is supposed to be

    6 able to exercise his powers? Or, rather, is it

    7 something else?

    8 JUDGE JORDA: That's the Prosecutor's work,

    9 Mr. Hayman. Mr. Hayman, don't do Mr. Kehoe's work.

    10 Mr. Kehoe has apparently preferred to submit this to

    11 the witness. Let me summarise things, Mr. Hayman, and

    12 then I will give the floor back to you.

    13 For the time being, what we're talking about

    14 is something very, very specific. We have been talking

    15 about it since yesterday. We are at a very exact point

    16 of knowing whether Colonel Blaskic, who was the

    17 Commander of the Operative Zone, had the power to

    18 appoint or to dismiss operational Commanders with all

    19 nuances that were expressed by the witness and which

    20 have been put into the record. Did he have that

    21 power?

    22 Mr. Kehoe for the past hour has been trying

    23 to show to the witness that a specific case, that is

    24 the dismissal of Mr. Stjepan Tuka, the accused, who at

    25 the time was Colonel Blaskic, did not need and did not

  59. 1 have a legal administrative or military need to consult

    2 with the political municipal authorities. You are

    3 saying the opposite, you are saying, as is the witness,

    4 you said that both the Documents 490 and 91 really

    5 supported.

    6 But you said I didn't want to say anything

    7 because I was waiting for the sequence, the end of what

    8 was going on here. And then afterwards you could draw

    9 any conclusions or arguments you want from this

    10 sequence, but I think it's important for the Judges,

    11 that is that they should have an idea of the answer to

    12 the question and know whether the accused was able to

    13 dismiss Mr. Tuka without having the opinion of the

    14 municipal local authorities. That's what we're talking

    15 about.

    16 Now we have to look at the document. You

    17 raised a new question when you said that this document

    18 is one's whose authenticity we're not contesting, but

    19 you thought it was incomplete. And simply reviewing

    20 this to say that you are right, it is incomplete, and

    21 the Prosecutor admitted that. That's where we are.

    22 Let's try to move forward.

    23 Mr. Hayman, if you're not satisfied with my

    24 summary, although I thought it was clear.

    25 MR. HAYMAN: I think we are speaking past one

  60. 1 another. All we are saying with respect to Rule 68 --

    2 -- JUDGE JORDA: I'm sure that's true.

    3 MR. HAYMAN: The Prosecutor has been urging

    4 the Court, upon the Court, the position that Colonel

    5 Blaskic did not have to consult with political or

    6 municipal authorities in the process of replacing

    7 commanders. These documents speak for themselves. Not

    8 only did he have to consult --

    9 JUDGE JORDA: No, not at all, Mr. Hayman, not

    10 at all. It's not because there was a meeting. You

    11 want me to answer, I really don't like to, but it's not

    12 -- because civilian representatives were there to

    13 discuss things that didn't come to agreement, that

    14 would automatically mean that in the thesis in the

    15 Prosecutor's statement that he didn't have to consult

    16 with the authorities. You have to look at

    17 administrative and legal and military aspects of

    18 consultations. You cannot prevent people from doing

    19 that, and that's why deliberately I was waiting for the

    20 final document.

    21 MR. HAYMAN: For the record, I just, if I

    22 could finish, Mr. President.

    23 JUDGE JORDA: For the record.

    24 MR. HAYMAN: Exhibit 490 is signed by

    25 civilian and municipal authorities. In Exhibit 490,

  61. 1 those civilian and municipal authorities rejected the

    2 decision of Colonel Blaskic to replace Stjepan Tuka,

    3 thereby continuing a process during which the issue of

    4 whether an order would be carried out or not was

    5 resolved some weeks later, a process that involved not

    6 only the military quote, unquote, chain of command, but

    7 civilian, religious, cultural entities. That was what

    8 I wanted to say for the record. Thank you for hearing

    9 us out, Your Honours.

    10 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Hayman, for the record, as

    11 you said it, you are saying that. Please conceive, I'm

    12 not taking sides, conceive there might be another

    13 approach. You cannot prevent a civilian community, I'm

    14 speaking in general terms, you can't prevent civilian

    15 population and its representatives from feeling moved

    16 by a decision.

    17 If tomorrow, for example, an authority in

    18 France or the United States or Egypt or any other

    19 country were to take a decision which does not please

    20 the population, you cannot prevent the authorities from

    21 saying that the decision does not appear just to them,

    22 or it appears illegal to them, you cannot prevent that,

    23 that is not the question.

    24 We are discussing whether the accused, yes or

    25 no, had the duty, the obligation to consult with the

  62. 1 civilian authorities. We have recorded your comments.

    2 Now I would like us to go on.

    3 Mr. Nobilo, I'll give you the floor; but if

    4 you're going to take up the same arguments, I'm going

    5 to interrupt you immediately. Go ahead.

    6 MR. NOBILO: It's a different argument, Mr.

    7 President. These documents show that the decision of

    8 Commander Blaskic on going to war and on dismissal was

    9 not carried out. That's all. And they prove that if

    10 he doesn't consult the municipal authorities he cannot

    11 carry them out. Thank you.

    12 JUDGE JORDA: That's your thesis, and the

    13 Judges have noted it, as they will note the thesis of

    14 the Prosecutor.

    15 This is the last document, and we have noted

    16 it is not complete. What is the question that you,

    17 what is your question?

    18 MR. KEHOE: Preliminarily, Mr. President, I

    19 think this is complete, and we will gladly bring up the

    20 original and show it to the Court. Nevertheless, we

    21 will move on.

    22 Q. This is a document that comes from the

    23 Central Bosnian Operative Zone command dated 7 May 1993

    24 at 15.00 hours, and the subject is the announcement to

    25 the commander of the Busovaca Nikola Subic-Zrinski

  63. 1 Brigade to the commander of the 3rd Battalion of the

    2 Fojnica Nikola Subic-Zrinski Brigade.

    3 "On 6 May 1993 we received announcement

    4 number 7-01-170/93, from the legally non-existent HVO

    5 command of Fojnica municipality. The self-proclaimed

    6 commander, Stjepan Tuka, stating that, quote, that the

    7 Fojnica municipality HVO command has made the decision

    8 that the current command of the 3rd Battalion is to

    9 continue to activities in the same composition and with

    10 Commander Stjepan Tuka as its head with regard to the

    11 above mentioned announcements.

    12 1. The institution of the HVO command of

    13 municipalities does not exist within the legal system

    14 of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna. Municipal

    15 Croatian Defence Councils were set up as municipal

    16 civilian authorities with a statutory decision of the

    17 municipal executive authority and the municipal

    18 administration." Citing the official Gazettes of the

    19 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna, number 91.

    20 "The foundations of the armed forces were

    21 laid, and its structure and system of command and

    22 control were determined by a decree on the armed forces

    23 of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna," again

    24 official Gazette number 692, "and the regulations

    25 issued in compliance with this decree.

  64. 1 "Based on the above mentioned regulations,

    2 the Nikola Subic-Zrinski Brigade is active in the area

    3 of the Busovaca Fojnica municipalities when something

    4 is unclear. From the above mentioned it can be

    5 concluded that the civilian and military authorities

    6 are precisely delineated, and the institution of the

    7 HVO command of the municipality is both formally and

    8 legally contrary to the fundamental regulations of the

    9 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna, i.e. it is not

    10 legal, and neither are the decisions it makes.

    11 "Pursuant to Article 34 of the decree of the

    12 armed forces of the Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna,

    13 Mr. Stjepan Tuka is relieved of his position as

    14 commander of the 3rd Battalion of the Nikola

    15 Subic-Zrinski Brigade, and a new person has been

    16 appointed to perform the duties of commander.

    17 "The decision of the so-called HVO command

    18 Fojnica municipality for Stjepan Tuka to continue

    19 performing the duties of commander of the 3rd Battalion

    20 -- next page Mr. Usher, next page -- "Mr. Tuka is to

    21 continue performing the duties of commander of the 3rd

    22 Battalion is a serious violation of the unified system

    23 of command and the obligations to implement decisions,

    24 orders and instructions of the superior command.

    25 "Such activities are particularly serious in

  65. 1 the circumstances of the struggle of the Croatian

    2 people for its existence and identity in historic

    3 areas. Actions and activities of the so-called command

    4 and the self-proclaimed commander give grounds for

    5 disciplinary action to be taken and criminal charges to

    6 be filed with a competent military Prosecutor, which

    7 will be done."

    8 Now, Brigadier, are you familiar with the

    9 initials in the lower left-hand corner, NS, as the

    10 drafter of this document? Or is it not on your copy?

    11 A. I do not see the initials on my copy. But I

    12 know the initials SV, SHV, those are the initials of

    13 the typist, Mrs. Stefica Vinac.

    14 Q. Did you know about the issuance of this

    15 document by Commander Blaskic?

    16 A. I didn't know about the issuance of this

    17 document, and I don't know that it was issued by

    18 Colonel Blaskic.

    19 Q. Well, in this document, this document that

    20 came from the command of the Central Bosnian Operative

    21 Zone, states quite clearly that the HVO command of the

    22 Fojnica municipality is legally non-existent; isn't that

    23 correct? And I direct your attention to the first

    24 paragraph.

    25 A. The HVO command, as far as I understand the

  66. 1 structure as it was at the time, it refers to the

    2 command of the civilian authorities, because reference

    3 was to the command of the battalion, and the battalion

    4 commander.

    5 This is rather ambiguous when it says HVO

    6 command, because you have seen from the documents when

    7 a commander is being dismissed, it is the battalion

    8 commander that is being dismissed and not the HVO

    9 commander. So, the terms are ambiguous.

    10 So, my conclusion would be that this applies

    11 to the civilian authorities, that is what can be

    12 inferred from the context.

    13 Q. Well, Brigadier, let me direct your attention

    14 to paragraph 1. Blaskic quite clearly draws a

    15 distinction between the municipal civil authorities and

    16 the structure and system set up for the armed forces;

    17 does he not? Take a quick read at that paragraph.

    18 A. Yes, I have looked at the paragraph.

    19 Q. And there is a separation, Blaskic discusses

    20 a clear separation of powers between the civilian

    21 authorities and the armed forces, or the HVO; doesn't

    22 he? He cites to the two locations in the Narodni Lists

    23 or the Official Gazettes that support his position;

    24 isn't that correct?

    25 A. Mr. President, I cannot answer this

  67. 1 question. But if I can say, the commander of the

    2 Operative Zone, General Blaskic, knew exactly the

    3 difference between the competencies of the civilian and

    4 military authorities. But he was aware of the

    5 situation, and that is why we had such instances.

    6 This is the first time that he tried to

    7 replace a commander without consultations, and we see

    8 the kind of problems he came up against. That is what

    9 I can say.

    10 JUDGE JORDA: The question was much simpler

    11 than that, Brigadier. It was a very simple question.

    12 It was simply to -- I thought you agreed about

    13 paragraph one, that Colonel Blaskic had made the

    14 distinction between the military and civilian systems.

    15 I don't think we have to go any further than that. Of

    16 course if you don't want to answer, you don't have to.

    17 Continue Mr. Kehoe.

    18 A. Mr. President, I know that General Blaskic

    19 knew the difference between the civilian and military

    20 chain of command.

    21 JUDGE JORDA: Continue, Mr. Kehoe.

    22 MR. KEHOE:

    23 Q. Brigadier, in the next paragraph Blaskic says

    24 that the HVO command of the municipality is not legal,

    25 and neither are its decisions. Do you see that?

  68. 1 A. I do.

    2 Q. And by that, sir, he completely rejects the

    3 authority of this body to issue any legally binding

    4 decisions on him as the commander of the HVO; isn't

    5 that right?

    6 A. Please. It says clearly here that in the

    7 legal structure of the Croatian community of

    8 Herceg-Bosna, and if this is General Blaskic's text,

    9 then, in saying this, he wanted to make it clear that

    10 he would be the one who would decide on the appointment

    11 of commanders. And according to the regulations, that

    12 is how it was envisaged, and that is how I read this

    13 sentence.

    14 Q. In the next paragraph he calls upon his

    15 authorities, in Article 34 of the Official Gazette that

    16 we talked about this morning, which gives him the

    17 authority to appoint and dismiss. Do you see that in

    18 the first line in number 2?

    19 A. I do.

    20 Q. And he relieves Stjepan Tuka of his command.

    21 A. General Blaskic gave the order for the

    22 replacement, in line with the regulations that you have

    23 referred to and the authority that he had. He issued

    24 that order, and he refers to those provisions in that

    25 text, that he was entitled to do that. The General

  69. 1 claims that he has the right to do that.

    2 Q. According to Article 34 of the Narodni Lists,

    3 he does have the legal authority to dismiss Stjepan

    4 Tuka; isn't that correct?

    5 A. Yes, and that is on the basis of what he

    6 wrote the order on his dismissal. But it was not

    7 carried out.

    8 Q. As we move on to paragraph two, he notes that

    9 any challenge to that authority is a serious violation

    10 of the unified system of command; do you see that?

    11 A. General Blaskic was aware of that, and that

    12 is why he issued orders, based on his formal authority.

    13 But I explained what happened on the ground; General

    14 Blaskic knew that there wasn't a unified system of

    15 command, and that military rules were not being

    16 respected; that is why we had so many orders and

    17 appointments that we have reviewed.

    18 Q. Let me clarify this question. Does Blaskic

    19 say in this document that any challenge to his

    20 authority under Article 34 is a challenge to the

    21 unified system of command? Does he say that?

    22 A. We can see from the text what the General

    23 says.

    24 Q. Any challenge, Brigadier, to that authority,

    25 would have been a challenge to his authority prior to

  70. 1 the dismissal of Tuka, or in the appointment or

    2 dismissal of any commanders at any time; isn't that so?

    3 A. Yes, that is so. Any failure to carry out

    4 the General's orders is in direct contradiction with

    5 the authority that he formally had.

    6 Q. And he asserts his authority under Article 34

    7 to appoint and dismiss, categorically, as he sees fit;

    8 isn't that right?

    9 MR. HAYMAN: Your Honour, the document speaks

    10 for itself. We could go over every sentence, but

    11 what's the point?

    12 JUDGE JORDA: I would think that you're

    13 right, but we have to recognise that sometimes your

    14 witness goes as far as he can in contesting some of the

    15 sentences. I would like also to say to Mr. Kehoe that

    16 it is self-evident, so let's go on, move faster.

    17 MR. KEHOE:

    18 Q. The bottom line, Brigadier, is contrary to

    19 the wishes of the municipal authorities in Fojnica,

    20 Stjepan Tuka was dismissed; correct?

    21 A. It is not correct. Let me explain. Stjepan

    22 Tuka was replaced after General Blaskic requested

    23 assistance from the top level leadership of

    24 Herceg-Bosna, the political leadership of Herceg-Bosna.

    25 I don't know exactly whom he addressed, was it

  71. 1 President Boban, to exert their influence on the

    2 municipal authorities, and only then was the decision

    3 carried out.

    4 JUDGE JORDA: But we're trying here to find

    5 the truth, that's what it is about. Was he dismissed

    6 or was he not? It's a clear question. Was he or was

    7 he not dismissed? According to this document, was he

    8 or was he not dismissed?

    9 MR. HAYMAN: It was a compound question, Your

    10 Honour.

    11 JUDGE JORDA: I'm asking the witness the

    12 question, Mr. Hayman. I have the right to ask the

    13 question. I'm sorry.

    14 MR. HAYMAN: Mr. Kehoe's question was

    15 compound. I'm not objecting to your question, but the

    16 earlier question was compound, it had two components.

    17 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe's questions,

    18 apparently, to me it seemed whether or not Tuka was

    19 dismissed. He said first I don't agree, and then he

    20 spoke about commander authority.

    21 So, I turn to the witness and ask whether or

    22 not he was dismissed, or did he keep his command. You

    23 are answering me now.

    24 A. Mr. President, the commander of the Fojnica

    25 Battalion, Mr. Stjepan Tuka, was dismissed after the

  72. 1 commander had issued his order and ensured support of

    2 the political authorities.

    3 JUDGE JORDA: I understood it, it's been

    4 recorded. All right, he was dismissed.

    5 I would like to say to you, Mr. Hayman, that

    6 you do see that when you very frequently refer to Rule

    7 68, you see that a document can, when you refer to Rule

    8 68, which is your right, let me point out to you that

    9 in support of the document, a document can be read as

    10 exculpatory in several ways.

    11 A document can go contrary to a witness

    12 statement and in favour of the accused, and that same

    13 document can go contrary to the accused in favour of a

    14 thesis supported by the witness.

    15 Therefore, I think it's more complicated than

    16 that. The document is a perfect example of what I

    17 said.

    18 MR. HAYMAN: I agree with the Court but the

    19 wording of Rule 68 requires that if a document is

    20 capable of interpretation favourable to the Defence, it

    21 must be disclosed.

    22 JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN: Mr. Hayman, doesn't that

    23 language imply a right on the part of the Prosecutor to

    24 make precisely that judgement? Shouldn't the Court take

    25 the position that, provided the Prosecutor does not act

  73. 1 unreasonably, the Prosecutor is entitled, within

    2 certain reasonable limits, to make exactly that

    3 judgement, as to whether the document is capable of

    4 supporting the case for the Defence.

    5 Now, the Prosecution takes the view, so I

    6 understand the position, that these documents are not

    7 reasonably capable of supporting the case for the

    8 Defence.

    9 What the documents show is that the

    10 municipality, the civilian authorities, mounted what I

    11 would call a political opposition to the implementation

    12 of General Blaskic's order. Civilian authorities did

    13 not take the position that General Blaskic was not

    14 competent in law to issue such an order without prior

    15 legal, prior consultation with the municipal civilian

    16 authorities. I don't see that in the documents. I

    17 don't see that the municipal authorities were taking

    18 this position, that, look, you cannot issue an order of

    19 this kind without prior consultation with us.

    20 If they had taken that position, then I, for

    21 one, would have been prepared to understand and

    22 empathise more fully with the position which you are

    23 taking.

    24 MR. HAYMAN: If I may, just very briefly,

    25 Your Honour, because I think this is a fruitful

  74. 1 question. The position of the Defence, and I think the

    2 testimony of the witness has been, there was a legal

    3 framework for appointing commanders, but there were

    4 extra legal pressures and processes, which were in fact

    5 more important than the legal framework.

    6 These documents, in the view of the Defence,

    7 demonstrate the functioning and coming to bear of

    8 pressures through these extra legal channels and

    9 processes.

    10 To address the question of Rule 68, Your

    11 Honour, Rule 68, I submit, imposes an objective

    12 standard as to whether something is exculpatory or not.

    13 Of course, the Prosecutor makes the, must make some

    14 initial determination himself, but ultimately it is an

    15 objective standard. It is not a decision that can be

    16 delegated, permanently delegated by the Court.

    17 JUDGE RIAD: I would just like to stress what

    18 the President mentioned before, that in any democratic

    19 society, and like the one in Bosnia and Croatia and the

    20 one in the United States, there are organisations,

    21 there are NGOs who can express their opinion. I don't

    22 think that the President of the United States is not,

    23 it does not mean that the President is not entitled to

    24 take a decision if all the NGOs express their

    25 opinions. Organisations can.

  75. 1 MR. HAYMAN: I think that is absolutely

    2 right, and it is an indication in some ways of a

    3 healthy quasi-democratic debate.

    4 JUDGE RIAD: Not legally.

    5 MR. HAYMAN: What is important here, Your

    6 Honours, Mr. Tuka was not replaced during the time

    7 period these discussions, consultations, infighting

    8 were going on. He was not replaced. Our client's

    9 order was not carried out for a period of weeks.

    10 And that, I think, is very, very important.

    11 That's what we're saying. And perhaps my colleague has

    12 something.

    13 JUDGE RIAD: You are right, but these things

    14 were decided. The conclusion was that these

    15 organisations do not have any binding authority.

    16 Whether it took time or not, the result was clear,

    17 apparently.

    18 MR. HAYMAN: But they had the power, Your

    19 Honour.

    20 JUDGE RIAD: To speak.

    21 MR. HAYMAN: Not only to speak, Your Honour.

    22 Commander Tuka was not replaced during this time period

    23 of these dialogues and processes. They had the power

    24 to block the order of our client of 20 April 1993.

    25 JUDGE RIAD: Let's say there was a dialogue.

  76. 1 MR. HAYMAN: But they held the cards, Your

    2 Honour.

    3 JUDGE JORDA: For the time being we're

    4 talking about dismissal of Mr. Tuka, and we may later

    5 argue as to the results. Perhaps during the time there

    6 was a replacement there was another phase, and the

    7 accused was aware there was pressure being brought to

    8 bear. I don't know that, you have to show it.

    9 I think for the time being we will stay with

    10 this point, the Judges have expressed their point of

    11 view. I simply wanted to say to you, Mr. Hayman, that

    12 application for Rule 68 can, for one same document,

    13 support the accused, but not necessarily the witness

    14 statements. Or vice versa.

    15 We usually take our break when people begin

    16 to get excited. I think, then, lunch will calm

    17 everybody down. We will resume at 2.30

    18 --- Luncheon recess taken at 1.00 p.m.








  77. 1 --- On resuming at 2.50 p.m.

    2 JUDGE JORDA: Please resume and have the

    3 accused brought in.

    4 (The accused entered court)

    5 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe.

    6 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Your Honour, ready to

    7 proceed.

    8 JUDGE JORDA: That's true, you can't proceed

    9 without the witness, you're right.

    10 (The witness entered court)

    11 JUDGE JORDA: Do you hear me, Brigadier?

    12 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. President, I can hear

    13 you.

    14 JUDGE JORDA: Mr. Kehoe.

    15 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President, Your

    16 Honours and Counsel.

    17 Q. Good afternoon, Brigadier.

    18 A. Good afternoon.

    19 Q. Brigadier, during your testimony on direct

    20 examination, you gave us some information about orders

    21 that were issued by various Commanders. Before I talk

    22 to you a little bit about those orders, I would just

    23 like to ask you about the training that officers

    24 receive, such as yourself, for reserve officer

    25 training, what type of training did you receive in the

  78. 1 JNA on the writing of orders and what are orders

    2 supposed to contain?

    3 A. I am prepared to answer your question.

    4 Q. Go ahead, sir.

    5 A. Okay. Mr. President, Your Honours, the

    6 training of officers, reserve officers, of which we

    7 have spoken here before, while they are in training in

    8 the reserve officers' school, as I mentioned, they were

    9 trained to be able to command to the units at the level

    10 of platoon or company. In the school, while I went

    11 through the training, I was writing, in other words, I

    12 was trained to write orders at a level of squad and

    13 platoon. This was done in this school and this is what

    14 everybody who was in the school was trained to do.

    15 As far as the JNA is concerned, I cannot say

    16 exactly what was taught in military academy during

    17 those four years with respect to writing orders.

    18 MR. KEHOE: Well, basically, one of the

    19 things that should not be in the order is some language

    20 that you discussed in, I believe it was Defence Exhibit

    21 293, if the assistance of the witness, if the witness

    22 could take a look at that. 293 is an order from

    23 Mr. Cerkez, I believe. If I am not mistaken.

    24 And the -- is that 293? Mr. President, I am

    25 just waiting for the witness to get the document so he

  79. 1 can take a look at it.

    2 JUDGE JORDA: Fine.

    3 MR. KEHOE:

    4 Q. Now, Brigadier, you noted, and I think you

    5 were referring to the first page, the second paragraph,

    6 "Last night Muslim forces constantly conducted

    7 re-grouping in order to realise their sinister plans."

    8 And Mr. Nobilo asked you a question, the question was

    9 on page 12.372, and the question was:

    10 "We have a specific style of writing here,

    11 for instance, reference to Muslim forces sinister aims.

    12 Is this an example of the type of reporting you refer

    13 to in the morning?" Your answer, Brigadier, is "yes."

    14 Excuse me, "Yes, a part of the text in this report is

    15 an eloquent example of the kinds of reports I was

    16 referring to because commanders or members of Brigade

    17 commands, due to lack of military training would write

    18 this kind of combat order using terms which are not

    19 important for military terminology."

    20 Do you recall that, sir?

    21 A. Yes, I do recall, but I have a combat report

    22 here and you have just mentioned combat order and there

    23 is a major difference between the two, so it may be an

    24 interpretation thing, I don't know.

    25 Q. I am just reading what you said and I think

  80. 1 the words counsel was focusing on were the words

    2 "sinister plans" and your opinion that they were not

    3 proper in either a military order or a military

    4 report?

    5 A. Yes. This vocabulary would never have been

    6 used by officers who have a certain level of education

    7 and training in writing documents to their superiors.

    8 But in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, such as it

    9 was, these terms were encountered quite frequently

    10 because the warring sides in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in

    11 all three sides, were using very inappropriate terms.

    12 Let's recall that after Washington and Dayton, the

    13 International Community took a position and said that

    14 the Serbian army has to be called the army of the

    15 Republika Srpska. That the Bosnian army had to be

    16 called the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Croatian

    17 army had to be called the Croatian Defence Council, so

    18 that was a very widespread usage.

    19 Q. Brigadier, let me turn your attention to

    20 Kiseljak and what was going on in Kiseljak in the 16th

    21 or April of 1993 prior to the outbreak of hostilities

    22 on the 16th and 17th of April. Isn't it true that the

    23 ethnic tensions between the Muslims and the Croats in

    24 Kiseljak was very high?

    25 A. That is correct. Because the conflict in the

  81. 1 Kiseljak municipality between HVO and the BH army

    2 started as early as January of 1993.

    3 Q. So, by the time a conflict broke out on the

    4 16th of April, it's fair to say, is it not, Brigadier,

    5 that the tensions between the Bosnian Croats and the

    6 Bosnian Muslims in Kiseljak were very high?

    7 A. I cannot confirm that, that this was the

    8 case, and the reason for it is that after the conflict

    9 of January, 1993, some certain commissions were

    10 established and those commissions were given the task

    11 to lower the tension and carry out the tasks, which I

    12 think we have seen here, and we saw that both the

    13 representatives of both the HVO and the BH army were

    14 members of those commissions.

    15 Q. So, I mean, were the tensions high or low in

    16 April 16th? Were the emotions running very high or

    17 very low in Kiseljak on the 16th of April?

    18 A. In order to fully respond to what happened on

    19 16 April in Kiseljak, I would like to request to be

    20 given the report from Kiseljak from that date in order

    21 to fully recall.

    22 Q. I don't have that, Brigadier. All I am

    23 asking is you just based on what you said before, that

    24 tensions between Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats in

    25 Kiseljak were very high in April of 1993. That's all.

  82. 1 Prior to the outbreak of the conflict. I don't have a

    2 particular report.

    3 A. In my personal view, and this is my personal

    4 conclusion on the basis of my entire insight of the

    5 Central Bosnia territory, I believe that the tensions

    6 were running high and I believe that when we sent the

    7 report on the 16th about what was going on in Vitez and

    8 Busovaca, that we were attacked and that this, I

    9 believe that this information did contribute to the

    10 situation in Kiseljak, because we, that is the

    11 Operative Zone command, issued orders to lower tensions

    12 in order to avoid an open conflict.

    13 Q. Well, prior to the outbreak of hostilities on

    14 the 16th of April, Blaskic made frequent trips to

    15 Kiseljak, travelling in a BRITBAT warrior, an armed

    16 personnel carrier, didn't he?

    17 A. I cannot confirm that or I cannot deny that

    18 either because, again, let me ask you, did he go five

    19 times or ten times? As far as I know, he did not go

    20 there frequently.

    21 Q. Well, based on the documents submitted by the

    22 Defence, and we can pull those out, he was certainly in

    23 Kiseljak the weekend before hostilities broke out in

    24 Vitez. I mean that the document that the Defence put

    25 in says he was there from the 9th to the 12th of April

  83. 1 in Kiseljak, and I think you said in your testimony

    2 that he often went to Kiseljak because his family was

    3 there.

    4 A. Mr. President, General Blaskic would

    5 frequently go to Kiseljak before the conflict in

    6 January, before the road at Kacuni was not cut off at

    7 the length of 11 kilometres. And after the cease fire

    8 was signed --

    9 THE INTERPRETER: Could you ask the witness

    10 to speak a little more slowly, please.

    11 MR. KEHOE: Brigadier, I think the

    12 translation booth, I don't mean to interrupt you, sir,

    13 the translation booth just asked you to slow down a

    14 bit, sir.

    15 THE WITNESS: Yes, I understood. Mr.

    16 President, let me repeat everything I have said.

    17 Before the conflict in January 1993, General Blaskic

    18 did go frequently to Brestovsko, his hometown, and

    19 Kiseljak because this was possible. After the conflict

    20 in January, 1993, after the road between Busovaca and

    21 Kiseljak had been cut off, that is placed under control

    22 of the BH army at the village of Kacuni, when General

    23 Blaskic wanted to go to Kiseljak, he would have to

    24 write to UNPROFOR and ask to be driven to Kiseljak,

    25 which was only accepted if he was going to attend

  84. 1 certain meetings organised by UNPROFOR and UNPROFOR

    2 work representatives would be present there until he

    3 came back. He had to always state why he was going

    4 where and how long he was going to stay there. This is

    5 what I know about these activities.

    6 Q. The fact of the matter is that after the road

    7 was cut off in mid-January, he made frequent requests

    8 of BRITBAT and he made frequent trips to Kiseljak to

    9 visit his troops and visit his family? That's all I am

    10 asking you.

    11 A. He did not go to Kiseljak frequently.

    12 Q. Okay, sir. We'll come back to that because

    13 we'll show you some documents, but at this point you

    14 would agree based on the Defence documents, he was in

    15 Kiseljak the weekend before the hostilities broke out

    16 if Vitez; correct?

    17 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, my learned

    18 colleague is misleading the witness. We would like to

    19 see the document, which the document that he is

    20 referring to, which put Blaskic in Kiseljak on those

    21 days, and this is implicit in the question.

    22 JUDGE JORDA: The Prosecutor did not say

    23 that, Mr. Nobilo. The Prosecutor asked a series of

    24 clarifying questions about the visits to Kiseljak. The

    25 witness and the Prosecution do not agree and they are

  85. 1 in agreement with adverbs like "frequently" or "not

    2 very often." I think the Prosecutor said what he had

    3 to say properly and at the proper time he will show the

    4 document. There is nothing unusual about that. He is

    5 not taking the witness down any wrong path. The

    6 Prosecutor simply noted the witness' answer.

    7 Continue, please, Mr. Kehoe.

    8 MR. KEHOE:

    9 Q. Now, Brigadier, with the ethnic tensions

    10 being high in Kiseljak, Blaskic knew that those ethnic

    11 tensions were high in Kiseljak as well as you knew

    12 that, didn't he?

    13 A. Regarding tensions in Kiseljak, I gave you my

    14 personal view. My personal view is that the tensions

    15 were high not only in Kiseljak, but in all other

    16 places. What General Blaskic's opinion was, I do not

    17 know.

    18 Q. Well, let me show you Defence Exhibit 299 to

    19 start with. Mr. Dubuisson, if we can pull 300 as well,

    20 Defence Exhibit 300, both of those documents, it would

    21 be helpful.

    22 Exhibit 299 is the preparatory order to the

    23 Ban Jelacic Brigade that was introduced by the Defence

    24 that you recognise, that you identified. Isn't that

    25 correct, Brigadier?

  86. 1 A. Yes, this is a document drafted in the

    2 command of the Operative Zone, signed by General

    3 Blaskic, and it is a preparatory combat order for the

    4 tying up of a part of the Muslim forces that are

    5 attacking the HVO. That is exactly how the document is

    6 titled.

    7 Q. In No. 1, the second to last sentence, the

    8 sentence that reads: "In the combats that raged

    9 yesterday." Do you see that?

    10 A. I do.

    11 Q. The sentence reads: "In the combats that

    12 raged yesterday, the enemy used the favourite method of

    13 the Chetniks, pushing women and children in front to

    14 use them as a shield and then to occupy the main

    15 strategic objects." If we move down to 4: "Keep in

    16 mind that the lives of the Croats in the region of

    17 Lasva depend on your mission. This region could become

    18 a tomb for all of us if you show lack of resolution."

    19 Do you see that, sir?

    20 A. I do.

    21 Q. Let's turn our attention to the Defence

    22 Exhibit 300. An order dated 17 April, 1993, which you

    23 not only recognise, but you wrote. Do you see that,

    24 sir?

    25 A. I do.

  87. 1 Q. The order for combat operations, dated 17

    2 April, 1993, at 23.45, that orders combat operations to

    3 begin the following morning at 05.30. In No. 1, under

    4 "Enemy," Blaskic, or you, wrote: "The enemy continues

    5 to massacre Croats in Zenica where Muslim forces are

    6 using tanks to fire at people, mostly women and

    7 children."

    8 Do you see that, sir?

    9 A. Yes, I do. May I provide an explanation for

    10 this statement?

    11 Q. Certainly.

    12 A. On the 17th of April, in the territory of

    13 Vitez and Busovaca displaced persons were already

    14 arriving from Zenica. They were carrying with them

    15 this kind of rumour. In order to check, because we

    16 couldn't go to Zenica, I know that the Commander

    17 contacted UNPROFOR and asked them if he could go and

    18 see what was happening in Zenica. So, the wording of

    19 this text reflects what I have just said.

    20 Q. Well, let me show you another document, sir.

    21 Mr. Usher.

    22 THE REGISTRAR: Document 494, 494A for the

    23 English version.

    24 MR. KEHOE: Your Honour, unfortunately there

    25 is no French version as yet of this.

  88. 1 Q. Brigadier, let me turn your attention to the

    2 document. Do you recognise Colonel Blaskic's

    3 signature?

    4 A. Yes, this is a document signed by General

    5 Blaskic.

    6 Q. With his stamp?

    7 A. Yes, this is the stamp of the Operative Zone

    8 command.

    9 Q. This is again a document -- excuse me, this

    10 is again a document that is written to the Ban Jelacic

    11 Brigade in Kiseljak, dated 19 April, 1993. Time:

    12 18.45. Let us turn to point 5 in this document.

    13 You're welcome, of course, to read the entire matter,

    14 but the questions that I am interested in will be

    15 focused on No. 5:

    16 "The future of all Croats of Busovaca,

    17 Travnik, Vitez and Novi Travnik depends on your

    18 success, whereas in Zenica -- some words are illegible

    19 -- in any concentration camp, in particular, Gornji

    20 Zenica, where our people who fled from the centre of

    21 Zenica are being slaughtered even today. There is a

    22 massacre."

    23 Do you see that, sir?

    24 A. Yes, I do.

    25 Q. Let's go one last document, 456/50, which is

  89. 1 another order being sent to the Ban Jelacic Brigade,

    2 approximately two hours later on the 19th. Hour:

    3 21.40. 456/50.

    4 Do you have that, Brigadier?

    5 A. Yes, I have the document.

    6 Q. It is a document, as I just noted, of 19

    7 April, 1993. Again, to the Ban Jelacic Brigade at

    8 21.40 hours by the packet system, I think you will

    9 agree with me. And let's read No. 3:

    10 "At the moment, the Croatian people of

    11 Zenica are going through a most critical period. They

    12 are literally being slaughtered."

    13 Do you see that, sir?

    14 A. Yes, I see it, and the explanation why it is

    15 worded in this way is as follows: I said that after

    16 the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th, displaced persons were

    17 coming from Zenica, bringing with them such rumours and

    18 reports, and so the Commander in view of the complexity

    19 of the situation we found yourselves in, let me remind

    20 you that on the 19th, were the strongest attacks on

    21 Vitez and Busovaca and according to reports coming from

    22 Kiseljak, he would issue this kind of order.

    23 Q. Now you were asked about this terminology by

    24 Mr. Nobilo during your direct examination, and I am

    25 referring counsel to page 12.407, and you were asked

  90. 1 about why Blaskic used this methodology to send the Ban

    2 Jelacic Brigade into combat. Line 13: "Why did

    3 General Blaskic need to order the Ban Jelacic Brigade

    4 into action in such a dramatic way? Such an emotional

    5 way? Why didn't he just order, go ahead, do such and

    6 such a thing? Why wouldn't that have been militarily

    7 more proper?" Your answer was: "Yes, that's correct.

    8 It would have been more proper in military terms.

    9 However, as I mentioned there were very, very few

    10 militarily educated officers with proper military

    11 training and enough experience."

    12 Do you recall that?

    13 A. I do recall that, and I still think along the

    14 same lines as I said then.

    15 Q. Well, when this was going to the Ban Jelacic

    16 Brigade, Mijo Bozic was the commander of the Ban

    17 Jelicic Brigade; wasn't he?

    18 A. Yes, Mijo Bozic was the commander of the Ban

    19 Jelacic Brigade. But if I may add, because of the lack

    20 of military organisation and lack of understanding of

    21 the seriousness of the situation on the part of certain

    22 commanders, and the difficulties encountered by

    23 neighbouring units in Busovaca, Kiseljak and Vitez, we

    24 had to use this kind of language for people to realise

    25 how serious the situation was because reports coming

  91. 1 from Busovaca and Vitez spoke of the seriousness of the

    2 situation, and that can also be seen if we look at the

    3 model in relief, we see the position of the town of

    4 Vitez and Busovaca, as of the 17th.

    5 Q. Didn't you tell us both in direct and

    6 cross-examination that Mijo Bozic was a graduate of the

    7 military academy, just like the accused, Colonel

    8 Blaskic?

    9 A. Yes, Mijo did graduate from the military

    10 academy; but while he was in Kiseljak he would not

    11 recognise, from an order using the regular language,

    12 how serious the situation was. The commander would

    13 have never used these words if it wasn't so serious.

    14 Because the 19th of April was a day which was decisive

    15 for us, to be or not to be, to defend Busovaca or to

    16 lose it.

    17 So, this is the text of a man pleading out of

    18 despair.

    19 Q. Brigadier, the fact of the matter is that

    20 Mijo Bozic was a trained officer that went to the

    21 military academy and the JNA, and he understood orders

    22 to do things; didn't he?

    23 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, but I think the witness

    24 has answered that question, Mr. Kehoe.

    25 MR. KEHOE: We will move on, Judge.

  92. 1 Q. These orders were sent to the Kiseljak Ban

    2 Jelicic Brigade at a point when ethnic tensions in

    3 Kiseljak were very high; isn't that so?

    4 A. These orders were not sent to Kiseljak

    5 because of ethnic tensions. These orders that went to

    6 Kiseljak were sent there for Kiseljak to engage forces

    7 of the BH army that were attacking Busovaca. They were

    8 not sent there to heighten tensions, under no

    9 circumstances; because the war was already on, it was a

    10 state of war. So, there is no point in saying whether

    11 there was heightened ethnic tensions or not.

    12 Q. Well, when Blaskic writes to the Ban Jelacic

    13 Brigade, Brigadier, and tells them that Croats are

    14 continuing to be massacred in Zenica and being

    15 slaughtered in Zenica on the 19th, that was done to

    16 inflame the passions of the Ban Jelacic Brigade; wasn't

    17 it?

    18 A. No, it was not. The aim of these orders was

    19 to engage the forces of the BH army. This reference to

    20 massacres and slaughtering, I said what my sources

    21 were. Perhaps General Blaskic had some other even more

    22 specific information. But I know that we asked

    23 UNPROFOR to go to Zenica and check whether this was

    24 indeed happening.

    25 Q. And they went to up by Kuber, based on one of

  93. 1 your orders about a slaughter in Jelinak, and they

    2 found nothing; isn't that right?

    3 A. Yes. We had a report that this was happening

    4 at Kuber, as well, and we asked UNPROFOR to go there.

    5 UNPROFOR officers went there, examined the situation,

    6 and we knew that it was not true.

    7 But, if you get a report like that in a

    8 situation of war, you must not, you don't have any time

    9 to speculate whether it is true or not. If you have no

    10 other information, that is the information for you,

    11 until it is proven false.

    12 Q. Brigadier, isn't it true that Blaskic, as a

    13 trained soldier, knew that writing these kinds of

    14 orders about slaughters taking place in Zenica, that it

    15 was clearly foreseeable that it would inflame the

    16 passions of the HVO soldiers in Kiseljak? Isn't that

    17 so?

    18 A. I don't know what General Blaskic had in mind

    19 at the time. But I know that the aim of these orders

    20 was to engage the enemy forces and to ease the pressure

    21 on Busovaca.

    22 Q. Let's move on, Brigadier. I just want to

    23 clarify a couple of things, if we could just check one

    24 thing that you said.

    25 You noted the numbering system on these

  94. 1 documents, and you noted that the numbering system on

    2 the documents, some discrepancies in that regard were

    3 illustrative of the lack of HVO organisational

    4 structure; do you remember that testimony?

    5 A. I said -- I apologise, microphone?

    6 Q. Sometimes you lean on that and it hits the

    7 buttons down.

    8 A. Mr. President, when defining the reference

    9 numbers used in the HVO, if we look at this particular

    10 document dated the 19th of April, at the time we did

    11 not receive any standard instructions as to how this

    12 should be done. We received such instructions towards

    13 the end of 1993.

    14 This kind of numbering was the numbering that

    15 we introduced in the Operative Zone command, and it is

    16 the system that we used; whereas each of the brigades

    17 had their own system of numbering documents.

    18 For example, the number 406, or rather 01,

    19 that means that it is a commander's document; number 4

    20 indicated the month; number 406, that is the number

    21 under which it was registered in the file, and in the

    22 records where record was kept of all incoming and

    23 outgoing documents.

    24 That is how the numbering was done, as far as

    25 I can remember.

  95. 1 Q. Wasn't the formatting of that numbering

    2 system following what had been set out in the Narodni

    3 Lists for formatting these numbers?

    4 A. In this case, and in this period that we're

    5 talking about in April 1993, that was not so. I cannot

    6 remember now, but we had some documents here when we

    7 received instructions from the main headquarters as to

    8 how we should proceed. Then those instructions were

    9 followed, both in the Operative Zone command and all

    10 the subordinate units.

    11 Q. Let me show you a document, sir, from the

    12 Narodni List. Take a look at this, and I would ask you

    13 if this was the format that was followed in the Central

    14 Bosnian Operative Zone.

    15 THE REGISTRAR: Document 495, 495A for the

    16 English version.

    17 MR. KEHOE:

    18 Q. Take a look at these articles, Brigadier. I

    19 ask to you take a look at specifically articles 2 and

    20 3. In those articles, doesn't that article 1 indicate

    21 a numbering system; for instance, 01 for documents of

    22 the HVO, and then reference numbers are discussed down

    23 in article 3? Isn't that the formatting structure that

    24 Colonel Blaskic adapted for use within the HVO Central

    25 Bosnia headquarters?

  96. 1 THE REGISTRAR: Microphone.

    2 MR. KEHOE:

    3 Q. Let me repeat my question. The numbering

    4 system that was set forth in articles 2 and 3; isn't

    5 that the basic numbering system that Colonel Blaskic

    6 adapted for use in the Central Bosnian Operative Zone?

    7 I show you article 2.1, with the documents of

    8 the HVO being 01, and the use of a reference number and

    9 slashes after the figures in the year. Isn't that the

    10 system?

    11 A. No. In April in 1993, until we received

    12 regulations regarding the formatting of the numbers

    13 from the Ministry of Defence, we used the method of

    14 marking that we saw in the previous documents, and we

    15 introduced that method internally within the Operative

    16 Zone.

    17 From article 2 of the Official Gazette, we

    18 can see that the reference numbers refer to ministries

    19 or departments in the Croatian community of

    20 Herceg-Bosna. This applied to the internal

    21 organisation of the government of Herceg-Bosna.

    22 So, on the basis of this Narodni List, the

    23 Ministry of Defence elaborated its own procedure and

    24 defined the system of numbering at lower levels, and we

    25 received those instructions towards the end of 1993.

  97. 1 When we received that document, which was

    2 based on this one, we began marking documents

    3 accordingly.

    4 Q. Well, you would agree with me that in the

    5 lower right-hand corner, or I'm not sure that's true in

    6 your original, that this article setting out the

    7 numbering system was enacted in Mostar on the 14th of

    8 October 1992; isn't that correct?

    9 A. Yes, that can be seen from this document.

    10 But the defence department, for its organisational

    11 entities, of which we were one as the Operative Zone,

    12 elaborated its principles at the end of 1993.

    13 Q. We don't need to belabour this point, the

    14 document speaks for itself. Thank you, Brigadier.

    15 Let's move on to a series of orders that were

    16 introduced by the Defence.

    17 MR. KEHOE: With your assistance,

    18 Mr. Dubuisson, if I could have Exhibit 263, 267, 268,

    19 269 and 270.

    20 JUDGE JORDA: Excuse me, please continue,

    21 Mr. Prosecutor.

    22 MR. KEHOE: Yes, Mr. President, I'm just

    23 waiting for these documents to be given to the

    24 Brigadier, in any event.

    25 MR. KEHOE:

  98. 1 Q. Now, we're talking first, Brigadier, about

    2 Defence Exhibit 263 and the number is 01-4-190/93; is

    3 that right?

    4 A. Yes, that is what it says.

    5 Q. Could I ask you, Brigadier, with the

    6 President's permission, could you take the marker to

    7 your right and just write that number on the easel that

    8 is to your left? If could you do it big enough so the

    9 camera can pick it up, sometimes when we write small

    10 it's difficult to see. If you could put your -- all

    11 I'm saying, if you could write it large enough so the

    12 cameras can pick it up. So use your best judgement on

    13 that. If you would just write that number 01-4.

    14 A. (Complies).

    15 Q. Could I ask you one more time if you could

    16 just probably double the size of that so they can pick

    17 it up, so they can pick it up on the cameras? It's a

    18 little difficult to see it that far away.

    19 A. (Complies).

    20 Q. You can take a seat, sir. Thank you.

    21 Now, Brigadier, tell me a little bit about

    22 this numbering system that was employed in the Central

    23 Bosnian Operative Zone.

    24 JUDGE JORDA: Is it 01 or 07,

    25 Mr. Prosecutor?

  99. 1 MR. KEHOE: That's 01.

    2 JUDGE JORDA: To me it looks like 07, because

    3 I am -- we haven't put the right document on the ELMO,

    4 or what? Oh, I see, I apologise.

    5 MR. KEHOE: I think the document on the ELMO

    6 is wrong. I think the original is right.

    7 JUDGE JORDA: Very well, I apologise. Please

    8 continue.

    9 MR. KEHOE:

    10 Q. Brigadier, I think you told us before that

    11 the 01 is an order that comes from Colonel Blaskic, the

    12 number 4 is the month, the number 190 is the number in

    13 sequence, and the year is 93; is that right?

    14 A. Yes, that was the system.

    15 Q. Tell me about the rest of the system. After

    16 this has been signed by Colonel Blaskic or someone on

    17 his behalf and it's given a number, how was it logged

    18 into the records?

    19 A. I will describe it as I remember, though I

    20 didn't keep the logbook. As far as I recall, there was

    21 a book, a logbook, into which all documents were

    22 entered. Those that were being sent from the Operative

    23 Zone command to superiors, and to subordinates,

    24 commands, orders, reports, the entire correspondence.

    25 Also, a record was kept of everything

  100. 1 received, orders from superiors, other reports and

    2 information. As far as I remember, that was how it

    3 functioned.

    4 Q. Now, sir, if we go through these documents

    5 and we move through 267, 268, 269, and I'd like you to

    6 review those before you focus on Exhibit 270; could you

    7 do that for me, please?

    8 A. Could you please repeat the numbers of the

    9 documents so I know I have the right ones in my hands?

    10 Q. Yes, we just discussed 263, and we then go to

    11 267, 268, 269 and then 270.

    12 A. I have looked at these documents that you

    13 have mentioned, the three documents, and I said that

    14 during the direct examination by Mr. Nobilo that I

    15 noticed that these documents do not bear a number, this

    16 reference number is missing. That is the difference

    17 between this document and document number 263.

    18 Q. Well, I want to focus your attention, before

    19 I go on to the other documents, I would like to focus

    20 your attention on Exhibit 270; and that does have a

    21 number, doesn't it? That should be the information.

    22 A. Yes.

    23 Q. And what is the number there, sir?

    24 A. The document is number D270, it has been

    25 entered in the logbook under the registration number

  101. 1 240.

    2 Q. Okay. Could you write that number on the

    3 board underneath the one that you have just written?

    4 If you could take the marker again.

    5 MR. KEHOE: Mr. Usher, if we could just help

    6 him a moment with that. Just write the number.

    7 A. (Complies).

    8 Q. Now, stay there, Brigadier. You would agree

    9 with me, based on the content of that document, that

    10 the 8 is a typographical error and should be a 4; isn't

    11 that right?

    12 A. Yes, this is an error, and there are a number

    13 of such documents. But if you look at the time when

    14 this document was written, it is the morning when the

    15 attack occurred on the territory of Vitez municipality,

    16 it is probably due to haste and panic. I've even seen

    17 some documents where there is an error regarding the

    18 year, though it is obvious from the text that it refers

    19 to another year. So, this is a mistake.

    20 Q. I have no doubt what you're saying. I just

    21 ask if you could correct that, knowing that the date is

    22 a 4, could you put down the 4 over the number 8 so we

    23 know that is in fact an order that was issued in April,

    24 as opposed to in August?

    25 A. (Complies).

  102. 1 Q. If you could stay there Brigadier. At

    2 approximately what time was the 240 order on the 4th,

    3 approximately what time was that issued? I guess it

    4 was sometime after 5.45 in the morning?

    5 A. This order, as far as I can remember, it's

    6 not an order, actually, it's information. There's a

    7 difference. I'm sorry.

    8 Q. I'm talking about when the document was

    9 issued. Approximately what time do you think it was

    10 issued?

    11 A. As far as I recall, it could have been about

    12 9.00.

    13 Q. Okay, could you throw down your best estimate

    14 of 09.00 under that number as the time?

    15 A. (Complies).

    16 Q. Now, if I could just turn your attention back

    17 to, with the assistance of the usher, Exhibit 263. And

    18 if you could put the time down for the order that we

    19 have on the 14th of April 1993, and if you could put

    20 that time down, time and date, if you could.

    21 A. (Complies). I need to indicate the year?

    22 Q. Sure, you could just throw the year in, and

    23 the time, which I believe is 9.30 -- excuse me, 10.30.

    24 Sorry, I can't even read the numbers. 10.30.

    25 One last thing, and the date on the bottom

  103. 1 number, which is 16-4-93. The one, the second number,

    2 I believe you told us was on the 16th, is that right?

    3 I'm talking about 1-4-240, that was issued on the

    4 morning of the 16th. Can you just write down --

    5 A. Excuse me, what am I supposed to write down?

    6 Q. Just write down the date, so we know what

    7 date that number was issued.

    8 A. (Complies).

    9 Q. Thank you, sir. You can have a seat.

    10 Now, Brigadier, based on that, would you

    11 agree with me that between 10.30 in the morning on the

    12 14th of April 1993, and approximately 9.00 in the

    13 morning on the 16th of April of 1993, we had

    14 approximately 50 documents either incoming or outgoing,

    15 coming out of the headquarters -- or outgoing, excuse

    16 me, because the incoming would have their own numbers.

    17 A. The exact number can be found by subtracting

    18 the top number from the bottom number and you said it

    19 was how many?

    20 Q. My math is not the best and take 190 from

    21 240, come up with 50.

    22 A. Yes, 50.

    23 Q. So we have 50 outgoing documents that have

    24 numbers on them during that time frame; is that right?

    25 JUDGE JORDA: Sent and received, Mr. Kehoe.

  104. 1 You said sent and received, I am not sure I understood

    2 that.

    3 MR. KEHOE:

    4 Q. These are numbers that are outgoing, issued,

    5 outgoing. The incoming had their own numbers.

    6 JUDGE JORDA: Yes, I needed that

    7 clarification. Thank you very much. Do you agree with

    8 that, Brigadier?

    9 THE WITNESS: I do not agree with that, Mr.

    10 President. When I said, as far as I recall, that is

    11 the way the correspondence was registered or logged,

    12 the incoming mail, I believe that it was the same

    13 logbook that both the incoming and the outgoing

    14 documents were logged. So there would be a logistics,

    15 personnel, information, public information, anything

    16 that was drafted and anything that was incoming, I

    17 think was locked in there.

    18 JUDGE JORDA: I am just asking a general

    19 question. Are you sure about that? This is the first

    20 time that I see an important civilian military

    21 echelon. That would be only that kind of numbering

    22 system because it would be hard to find one's way

    23 around. All right, let's go on. It just seems a

    24 little strange to me, that the same numbers be used.

    25 Mustn’t be very easy for Colonel Blaskic, all of a

  105. 1 sudden when he wants document number such and such and

    2 someone brings him a document that was received and not

    3 one that was sent. That wouldn't have made things very

    4 easy. But, all right, that's not a problem for right

    5 now. I was just a bit surprised, but I asked for the

    6 clarification because the Prosecution had spoken about

    7 incoming and/or, so I want to be sure here.

    8 MR. KEHOE:

    9 Q. Well, to follow up on the President's

    10 questions, Brigadier, none of the documents that were

    11 presented by the Defence, or had been shown to you,

    12 have a number given to it that is incoming, isn't that

    13 so? All of the numbers that were given to documents

    14 executed in the Central Bosnia Operative Zone, were

    15 outgoing documents; isn't that accurate?

    16 A. I said what I remember, which is that the

    17 same logbook was used to enter whatever was drafted in

    18 the command and whatever was incoming. I am trying to

    19 recall how it worked. This was an improvised system,

    20 Mr. President. It is a system which we instituted

    21 without any particular standards, and the staff that

    22 worked on this did not have any experience in these

    23 activities and I know how the procedure went.

    24 So if a document would come in, let's say it

    25 was received through the packet system, the officer

  106. 1 would look at it and then it would initial it or

    2 something and mark it, and then it would be sent to a

    3 person who would log it. This document would be then

    4 entered and given the next number. Let's say we've

    5 reached number 300, let's say we receive a document

    6 which was just drafted and signed by the Commander and

    7 then this person would just enter it as the next

    8 number, 301. This is how I remember things being

    9 done.

    10 Q. Well, Brigadier, of the documents that are

    11 before you, Exhibits 263, 267, 268, 269 or 270, are any

    12 of these your documents?

    13 A. Let me review them in order. Document No.

    14 263 was drafted by me, and I signed it, and I was

    15 authorised to do so by the Commander.

    16 Q. Excuse me, maybe my question wasn't clear.

    17 Did they belong to you? Did you have them in your

    18 possession prior to coming here to testify? Any of

    19 these documents that we talked about.

    20 A. These documents were shown to me by the

    21 Defence.

    22 Q. Okay. So you did not have them in your

    23 possession before you came here?

    24 A. No. I only reviewed the documents which were

    25 shown to me by the Defence.

  107. 1 Q. Now, Brigadier, in a system -- just following

    2 up on the President's questions -- in order to have an

    3 contract record keeping system, it's important to have

    4 the documents numbered, such as the numbering that's on

    5 Exhibit 263; isn't that right?

    6 A. Yes. There has to be one, but this is what

    7 we have before us is what actually happened.

    8 Q. Now, take a look at Exhibits 267, 268 and

    9 269. That is the order from the 15th of April at

    10 10.00, the order of the 15th of April at 1545 and the

    11 order of the 16th of April at 01.30.

    12 A. Yes, I reviewed the documents.

    13 Q. Now, none of those documents have numbers on

    14 them. Is that correct?

    15 A. Yes, and I pointed it out when asked by Mr.

    16 Nobilo. I asked him why these documents were not

    17 properly numbered, the gentleman from the Defence

    18 should be asked this question.

    19 Q. Well, as a military man, it's important to

    20 have numbers on these documents in order to follow the

    21 sequence of those documents; isn't that correct?

    22 A. Yes, that is important too. But even more

    23 important is what this document refers to and how it is

    24 going to be implemented. But if we did not have this

    25 numbering system, our work would have been completely

  108. 1 disrupted.

    2 Q. Well, Brigadier, you noted during your direct

    3 examination that when you saw these documents in the

    4 headquarters of the Central Bosnia Operative Zone, they

    5 did have numbers on them.

    6 A. I said, and as I recall, it would have been

    7 illogical for such documents not to have numbers.

    8 Q. Let's take a look at Exhibit 268. And I ask

    9 the witness to be shown the French translation as well

    10 as the English translation, as well as the original

    11 Bosnian or BCS versions.

    12 Do you have all of those before you,

    13 Brigadier?

    14 A. I have the Croatian version. I cannot read

    15 French. I believe this could be French.

    16 Q. And I hope English as well. But I sympathise

    17 with your efforts because I can't read BCS.

    18 Now, Brigadier, on the document that you have

    19 before you, 268, it appears that the number has been

    20 removed, doesn't it?

    21 A. I cannot say that.

    22 Q. Well, turn to the French and English

    23 versions, the other two translations of this document.

    24 It would appear that those were copied and the numbers

    25 were removed on those as well; isn't that so?

  109. 1 A. I cannot give you a specific answer to your

    2 question. I can only guess. I see the document in

    3 Croatian. It is clear that there is no number on it,

    4 and I find it illogical that it should not have a

    5 number because I do know this document. I drafted this

    6 document. I put this mark on it, so I do recall both

    7 the contents and form of it.

    8 Q. I appreciate what you're saying, Brigadier.

    9 But I ask you to take a look at the French and the

    10 English versions in the place where the number should

    11 be and it would appear, does it not, that the number

    12 has been removed from those two documents during

    13 copying, doesn't it?

    14 A. It does not seem to me to be that way.

    15 Q. Do you have an extra copy of this?

    16 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, in order to cut

    17 short this debate, we stipulate that there were numbers

    18 here, but they were removed. But Brigadier Marin has

    19 no knowledge whatsoever about it. So, we stipulate

    20 that, there is no need to pursue this.

    21 MR. KEHOE: Well, Mr. President, if that's

    22 the case, then maybe we should talk about this outside

    23 the presence of the Brigadier because this is a matter

    24 that we should discuss. That's the position, with the

    25 Court's permission, the Prosecutor would like to

  110. 1 discuss this.

    2 JUDGE JORDA: All right. We will have a

    3 closed session right after the break. Take a twenty

    4 minute break and everybody can think about this very

    5 significant and interesting question. I suggest that

    6 after twenty after four we resume in closed session.

    7 --- Recess taken at 4.00 p.m.

    8 --- On resuming at 4.30 p.m.

    9 (Closed session)

    10 (redacted)

    11 (redacted)

    12 (redacted)

    13 (redacted)

    14 (redacted)

    15 (redacted)

    16 (redacted)

    17 (redacted)

    18 (redacted)

    19 (redacted)

    20 (redacted)

    21 (redacted)

    22 (redacted)

    23 (redacted)

    24 (redacted)

    25 (redacted)

  111. 1












    13 Pages 13071 to 13091 redacted - in closed session













  1. 1 (The witness entered court).

    2 JUDGE JORDA: Brigadier, you're back with us

    3 after this brief closed hearing, and I give the floor

    4 again to Mr. Kehoe to continue with his

    5 cross-examination.

    6 MR. KEHOE: Thank you, Mr. President, Your

    7 Honours. With the assistance of the office of the

    8 registrar, can I have several documents, and if I could

    9 read them in sequence to be shown to the Brigadier.

    10 They are, should I read them off? D211, D334, D359,

    11 D361 through 366, D376, and D384.

    12 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone.

    13 MR. KEHOE: If the witness could be given all

    14 those documents.

    15 JUDGE JORDA: As soon as I see a document, I

    16 begin to look to the left to see if there is a number

    17 there, or see what the number is.

    18 THE REGISTRAR: As regards the document on

    19 the easel, do you want it to have a number?

    20 MR. KEHOE: Yes, please.

    21 THE REGISTRAR: This will be 497.

    22 JUDGE JORDA: Do we have a copy of it for us?

    23 We have it as a Defence Exhibit, Mr. Dubuisson.

    24 THE REGISTRAR: No, it's a Prosecutor's

    25 Exhibit. It's the one on the easel, the numbers.

  2. 1 JUDGE JORDA: All right.

    2 THE REGISTRAR: It's 497, that is the

    3 document that's on the easel.

    4 MR. KEHOE: Does the Brigadier have all those

    5 documents? I'm sorry.

    6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, he was given everything.

    7 MR. KEHOE: Okay. I would also ask that

    8 these documents be handed out, Mr. Usher.

    9 THE REGISTRAR: This will be 498/1 and then

    10 according to your numbering.

    11 MR. KEHOE:

    12 Q. Brigadier, let me ask you a question: Do you

    13 know Major General Primorac?

    14 A. Yes, I do know Major General -- I do know

    15 Major General Ivica Primorac.

    16 Q. And what is he, sir?

    17 A. I do know Major General Ivica Primorac, and

    18 as far as I know, he works in the defence ministry in

    19 Sarajevo.

    20 Q. Now, let me take a look at the documents that

    21 have been admitted into evidence during the course of

    22 your testimony, Brigadier. If we can compare them to

    23 the orange folder that you have in your hands, and the

    24 first particular insert is a receipt from Major General

    25 Primorac, and I want to direct your attention to tab

  3. 1 2. I would like you to compare that with Defence

    2 Exhibit 211.

    3 Mr. Usher --

    4 A. My apologies. I did not have

    5 interpretation.

    6 JUDGE JORDA: Just a moment. I would like to

    7 understand your question better, Mr. Kehoe.

    8 MR. KEHOE: Well, the question is going

    9 through these documents, and the documents are in tabs

    10 2 through 11. They are the documents that were

    11 provided to the Office of the Prosecutor by

    12 Mr. Primorac. The Defence has introduced those

    13 documents, as I have reflected, in the front page,

    14 D211, D234, et cetera, and a reflection of those

    15 documents will indicate that on each one of the

    16 documents provided by Major General Primorac, there are

    17 no numbers, whereas the numbers that were in the

    18 Defence documents, there is.

    19 JUDGE JORDA: I would like to see them on the

    20 screen. Can we see them on the screen, please? The

    21 interpreters will have problems also if they don't see

    22 them on the screen.

    23 If you have problems, Mr. Kehoe, I will try

    24 to find my document 211, but it has to be on the ELMO.

    25 All right, 211. All right. I have found the Defence

  4. 1 document under number D211 and D211A for the French

    2 version. Now you want us to make a comparison of this

    3 with the documents that were tendered from the

    4 Prosecutor's Office or the Defence? I am lost here.

    5 Could you explain it to me, please?

    6 MR. KEHOE: The Defence.

    7 MR. NOBILO: Mr. President, Ivica Primorac

    8 provided these documents to the Prosecutor and the

    9 Defence provided them with registration numbers.

    10 MR. KEHOE: That's exactly my point.

    11 JUDGE JORDA: Well, I am delighted. For once

    12 we're getting answers even before the questions are

    13 asked. That's really wonderful.

    14 What conclusion are you trying to draw from

    15 this? That is, drawing from your comment. Mr. Nobilo

    16 is saying he has a document which was submitted with a

    17 reference number. I think it's a small "g" next to the

    18 17 March 1993; is that right, Mr. Kehoe?

    19 MR. KEHOE: It is -- actually, that is not

    20 the reference number. If we put the B/C/S number on

    21 the ELMO, you can see on the Defence copy that there is

    22 a number above the 12th or the 17th of March, 1993 --

    23 17th of March. The English translation does not have

    24 that number, but the original B/C/S does.

    25 JUDGE JORDA: What is your conclusion, or, in

  5. 1 fact, what is your question? But for the time being,

    2 this is discussion going on between the Defence and the

    3 Prosecution. I am not sure what is it you want to ask

    4 the witness, I don't know what he is going to say.

    5 MR. KEHOE: My question of the witness is

    6 that with all of these documents that he admitted,

    7 these documents that we listed that had numbers on

    8 them, the documents that we have in Exhibit 498 are

    9 exactly the same, or virtually exactly the same except

    10 for the numbers being deleted, and the ones being

    11 deleted were the documents that were provided to the

    12 Office of the Prosecutor by Brigadier General Primorac

    13 -- or Major General Primorac.

    14 MR. HAYMAN: If the witness is going to be

    15 forced to review and compare these 10 or 15 documents,

    16 we might as well recess for the evening,

    17 Mr. President. But what's the point of asking the

    18 witness to undertake such a review? It's apparent on

    19 the face of the documents that we were able to get

    20 documents with the reference numbers and we've provided

    21 them in this case.

    22 MR. KEHOE: The point is this, Mr. President,

    23 and it's quite clear, that the Office of the

    24 Prosecutor has been attempting to get documents from

    25 the Bosnian Croat side of the federation pursuant to

  6. 1 binding orders since January of 1997, and the point is

    2 that we haven't gotten documents in their total

    3 unredacted form and what we have gotten are documents

    4 such as these, and the point is that the Office of the

    5 Prosecutor wants compliance with all of those documents

    6 and doesn't want this type of response coming from the

    7 office -- from the federation side or the HVO side of

    8 the federation.

    9 Now, the next portion of this is the series

    10 of orders that were handed down by the defence

    11 department for officers, such as the Brigadier, to

    12 gather documents that were in compliance with the

    13 binding order issued by this Court and provide them to

    14 the HVO by a certain date. Now, that's another series

    15 of documents.

    16 The question on that score is: Has the

    17 Brigadier actually been given that order; and if, in

    18 fact, he and anybody else in the HVO turned those

    19 documents over to an archive, who, in turn, has not

    20 turned those documents over to the Court?

    21 Now, this is a particular individual who is a

    22 high-ranking office in the HVO in the one unit, or one

    23 Brigade -- not Brigade, but one large part of the army

    24 left, who should know full well whether the HVO should

    25 be complying with this Court's order. That's where

  7. 1 were going in this regard. Given the fact that this

    2 Brigadier is here, these questions need to be answered

    3 in order for us to ensure whether or not compliance is

    4 ever going to come, whether or not he got this order,

    5 whether or not no one told him about it. There are a

    6 series of questions that must be asked of this

    7 officer in order to find out what exactly is going on

    8 and why this Court's binding order has not been

    9 complied with. It's as simple as that.

    10 MR. HAYMAN: First of all, Mr. President,

    11 that's beyond the scope of the direct examination. We

    12 don't object to a straight question to the witness:

    13 Has he had any responsibilities or obligations with

    14 respect to responding to any orders of this Court for

    15 documents? But let's get to the point, please.

    16 JUDGE JORDA: First of all, you've noted that

    17 the Defence does not object your asking these questions

    18 of Brigadier.

    19 Second comment is, now the Judge speaking, I

    20 would like to know if you're contesting the substance

    21 and authenticity of the order? I think that's

    22 important. And with respect for binding orders, you

    23 know what the opinion of the Tribunal is on this; that

    24 is, the unfortunate order to obey orders from the

    25 Tribunal.

  8. 1 Before I break for session, I would like you

    2 to ask your question clearly. It will be the only

    3 question that you're going to ask and then we will

    4 resume tomorrow morning at 9.45. Don't lose sight of

    5 the essential point, that is, we have an order from

    6 Colonel Blaskic that was dated 17 March, 1993, and

    7 which has a reference number in the Croatian version

    8 with its reference number and I can see that in March

    9 they use the numbers of the official journal contrary,

    10 perhaps, to what he had said a bit hastily before. But

    11 ask your question, and then tomorrow you may, if you

    12 like, contest the substance of the order. Try to get

    13 to the essential point; otherwise, we're going to be

    14 here for a long time this evening and for a long time

    15 after that.

    16 This is the last question then. That is the

    17 last question that the interpreters can interpret

    18 today. Ask the witness the question.

    19 MR. KEHOE: Mr. President, we're dealing

    20 with, in fact, 11 orders. The 11 orders that the

    21 witness has in tabs 2 through 11 of the Defence has

    22 admitted with orders that we have received -- excuse

    23 me, the Defence has admitted with numbers and we have

    24 received from Major General Primorac without numbers

    25 and this witness has identified them, and I would like

  9. 1 to ask him whether or not he sees that they don't have

    2 numbers and that, at the time he saw those numbers in

    3 Central Bosnia, they did, when he saw those orders,

    4 they did, in fact, have numbers. That's the essence of

    5 this particular exhibit, that these numbers have been

    6 removed as well, at least the ones that have been given

    7 to us by Major General Primorac. Now, I don't think

    8 that can be done in one question. I invite the witness

    9 to examine this document overnight and we can answer it

    10 in one question in the morning.

    11 MR. HAYMAN: So stipulated, Mr. President.

    12 Obviously the numbers have been removed. You can look

    13 at the two documents. You can compare the documents.

    14 Obviously the numbers were removed before they were

    15 given to the Office of the Prosecutor.

    16 JUDGE JORDA: Either the Defence are saying

    17 that the numbers were removed, I suppose for the same

    18 reasons that you mentioned a while back; is that right,

    19 Mr. Hayman? This is a public hearing, so we're not

    20 going to go into the details, but the same reasons?

    21 MR. HAYMAN: We were not privy to the

    22 production of these records. This was a secret

    23 proceeding of which we were not involved. We don't

    24 know exactly under what terms they got these redacted

    25 documents or what they were told. All we can say is

  10. 1 what's the point of asking the witness to compare --

    2 JUDGE JORDA: But these were directly

    3 provided to you; is that right? They were provided to

    4 you; is that correct?

    5 MR. HAYMAN: Presented, apparently all the

    6 same documents with registration numbers. The Court

    7 has those now. But what apparently Mr. Kehoe wants to

    8 ask the witness is, one at a time, to compare them and

    9 ask him: Does the number appear on one document and

    10 not the other? We submit that's silly. That's a waste

    11 of time.

    12 MR. KEHOE: It begs the question as to why

    13 the number is removed from all the documents that are

    14 given by the Prosecutor and the Defence seems to have

    15 numbers on all of these documents. That's a

    16 significant question for this Court.

    17 MR. HAYMAN: The question is, what is the

    18 question for the witness? We have a witness here

    19 today.

    20 MR. KEHOE: Exactly, who just identified

    21 every one of these documents as documents that he saw

    22 in Central Bosnia with numbers.

    23 MR. HAYMAN: There you are. It sounds like

    24 the question has been answered.

    25 JUDGE JORDA: Let me turn to the witness.

  11. 1 Brigadier Marin, when you were in office with

    2 the accused, first of all, did you see the documents,

    3 and when you saw them, if you did, did they have the

    4 numbers that are in the version which has been provided

    5 by the Prosecutor? That is for D211, provided by the

    6 Defence without the number and for the document which

    7 is in the 498 --

    8 MR. NOBILO: Excuse me, Mr. President. The

    9 Defence provided all the documents with registration

    10 numbers and the Prosecution provided them without the

    11 numbers and they're now making an issue out of that.

    12 MR. KEHOE: Exactly. Because the ones we got

    13 were pursuant to a binding order coming from this Court

    14 to the Bosnian Croat side of the federation who gave us

    15 these documents without numbers. And the question

    16 remains: Why? Now the person who has identified these

    17 documents in this courtroom as having been executed in

    18 1993 is seated in the courtroom.

    19 JUDGE JORDA: Brigadier, what's the answer to

    20 the question that the Prosecutor asked you? I am not

    21 going to dare ask it again. I am not sure I really

    22 understood it. But you heard what he asked you.

    23 THE WITNESS: Mr. President, before arriving

    24 to testify here, I saw the documents produced by the

    25 Defence, that is, the documents with registration

  12. 1 numbers or reference numbers. Before coming in this

    2 courtroom, I never saw the documents which were

    3 provided by the Prosecution. When these documents were

    4 being produced in 1993, I confirmed that I recalled the

    5 contents of these documents from 1993. Before I came

    6 to this courtroom, I saw these documents offered by the

    7 Defence. These documents, which were offered by the

    8 Prosecution, I did not see before coming into the

    9 courtroom, and I see now that they are without this

    10 registration number.

    11 JUDGE JORDA: We consider that the witness

    12 has answered. I think we're going to suspend the

    13 hearing, and we will see one another again tomorrow at

    14 9.45 a.m.

    15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

    16 5.32 p.m., to be reconvened on Friday,

    17 the 9th day of October, 1998, at

    18 9.45 a.m.