1 Friday, 9
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case number
6 IT-95-14/2-T, the Prosecutor against Dario Kordic and
7 Mario Cerkez.
8 JUDGE MAY: The record should note that the
9 Court is fully constituted for the legal argument which
10 follows. There are two issues with which we have to
11 deal. The first relates to the expert evidence of
12 Dr. Schrader and the second to some affidavits which
13 the Defence have produced.
14 We will begin with the argument in relation
15 to Dr. Schrader. We have before us, first of all, his
16 report. Secondly, the document setting out the
17 Prosecution's objections and application to rule the
18 report inadmissible, and finally, we have a reply by
19 the Defence.
20 Now, having had the objections and reply in
21 written form, is there anything that anybody wants to
22 add to what's in these documents?
23 Mr. Nice, you've seen the Defence reply is
24 there anything you want to say about that.
25 MR. NICE: Yes. The Defence reply, which is
1 one of three documents recently served in a form and
2 with a style that I find personally unhelpful and,
3 where it intends to be, offensive, needs to be
4 dissected to some degree in order that one can see
5 what, if any, substance there is in the argument being
6 advanced and what is, in reality, likely too obscure.
7 And if one looks at the first paragraph of
8 the opposition to our motion, line five reflects an
9 attempt by the Defence to set this argument in a
10 different and entirely false context describing John
11 Elford as a quasi-expert, a phrase already deprecated
12 in this Tribunal, and not reflecting the fact that the
13 Tribunal who heard all these had accepted his evidence
14 which was of an entirely different nature and partially
15 entirely responsive to the Chamber's request but, in
16 any event, an exercise built on the analysis of
17 documentation about true dispositions.
18 And so this is not a question of, as it were,
19 pitching Schrader against Jonathan Elford and indeed a
20 moment's consideration of the Schrader report shows how
21 different it is in every conceivable way from the
22 material provided by Mr. Elford.
23 If one goes to the next paragraph, we find as
24 much as can be found in this document to justify
25 calling, as a witness, somebody who is, it appears, a
1 historian, a military historian to do the Chamber's job
2 for it. It's sought to be established, line three of
3 the second paragraph, that he has performed a
4 meticulous study of the testimony and documents for the
5 purpose of explaining the military significance of
6 facts that might not be apparent to a layman.
7 The phrase "military significance" is not
8 itself further explored, and it does not respond at all
9 to the proposition that we made clear. Namely, that
10 there is no identification in the document of the
11 expertise relied upon or how that expertise can react
12 upon source material to provide an useful form of
13 evidence for the Chamber.
14 The curriculum vitae is set out, and indeed
15 we'd already set it out in the sense of a summary way,
16 and nothing there is of particular relevance. The very
17 high point can be found on the next page, page three of
18 the document right in the middle of the page, where, in
19 an unquantified and unqualified way, he has apparently
20 taught military history and strategy, but not being
21 quite clear whether it's historical strategy or current
22 strategy, and that's all that's said about it.
23 It's also said, at the foot of the second
24 paragraph, that he has extensive military
25 qualifications in a variety of military specialities
1 and in the following paragraph has published in a
2 number of areas related to military strategy and
3 military tactics.
4 The Chamber will, in due course, if it wishes
5 to contrast that with the entirely specific Balkan --
6 substantially Balkan based expertise of Dr. Cigar. The
7 fourth page contains the distracting terminology with
8 second line in and continues to inject, and I just
9 observe that the suggestion that the use of
10 documentation in the Defence case is in some way wrong
11 or improper again obscures the reality.
12 The Prosecution case here has been built, not
13 only on contemporaneous accounts, for they are the
14 valuable accounts, but on contemporaneous documents
15 that support those accounts and all too frequently
16 confound Defence witnesses.
17 It then says in the middle of this paragraph
18 five lines down, "The Prosecution called numerous
19 experts or quasi-experts of its own, including
20 virtually every one of the numerous military
22 I don't challenge, of course, that from time
23 to time and in a sensible and permissive approach taken
24 by these Chambers, witnesses of all kinds may speak
25 from some limited expertise, but there is no question
1 that this has been quasi-experts or anything of that
3 What it is, then, that Dr. Schrader's report
4 given that there is no association of expertise in
5 conclusion, what is it that it does? The next
6 paragraph reveals it, line three, "He presents an
7 overview," that's the Chamber's job. He's providing a
9 We then see that at page five, they attempt
10 to deal with the criticisms we make to which they
11 respond by saying that the testimony from the Blaskic
12 case will be introduced as transcript evidence. By no
13 means is that necessarily the case, it hasn't even been
14 advanced that such transcript will be sought to be
16 And then we return to a relevant phrase,
17 dribs and drabs. The witnesses identified in paragraph
18 eight of its papers will be witnesses whose transcripts
19 we'll seek to introduce.
20 It categorises in the next paragraph, quite
21 improperly and without any support, Dr. Cigar as a
22 spy. It's not the position at all.
23 Spies gather intelligence. Dr. Cigar is a
24 person whose has expertise and training to work on
25 material of all kinds, much of it open-source material,
1 and to draw from it particular conclusions.
2 JUDGE MAY: Yes.
3 MR. NICE: And then finally in the
4 "Conclusion" paragraph, we return again to, as the
5 Chamber will see and I don't seek to dignify it by
6 reading it out, the sort of terminology in lines 3 and
7 4 that they regard as helpful to their case.
8 Now, if one, at random effectively, for
9 that's all I did this morning, opens the Schrader
10 report -- I chose initially page 40 and I'll just go
11 through a couple of pages -- one can see, and this is
12 beyond what I've already drawn to your attention in our
13 motion, I think I highlighted here footnote 179, a
14 reference to the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff
15 publication, which defines "active defence".
16 Now, this is rather interesting, because not
17 only is this document of Dr. Schrader's, which is very
18 substantial and must have been in preparation for a
19 very long time, not only has it relied extensively on
20 very recent Defence evidence that has been given which
21 has either been incorporated or was forecast, but we
22 see here, interestingly, given the witness who's
23 currently under cross-examination, a particular term of
24 art, "active defence", which this non-military witness
25 who is just before us has sought to use as a term of
1 interpretation, having no military experience. That's
2 a tiny point, but it just occurred to show what may be
3 going on here.
4 If we then go on to page -- and again
5 examples only -- 42, footnote 193, we see this: "Some
6 details of the events in Busovaca in January 1993 are
7 derived from an interview by the author with Ante
8 Juric, former commander of the 1st Battalion of the
9 Zrinjski Brigade." It's not available to us, not
10 suggested that it's going to be available to us at
12 Let's look at the following page, page 43.
13 The last paragraph, this comment about one of the
14 witnesses who has been before the Chamber: "With a
15 typical rush to judgement, Lieutenant Colonel Stewart
16 misread the situation, opining that --" it makes
17 reference to his diary. That's not a judgement for an
18 expert. That is entirely a judgement for the Court.
19 So that is exactly the sort of observation that you
20 find throughout this document.
21 If you go, for example, to page 46, it's
22 another reference to -- and these are all just what I
23 turned up this morning in addition to those that I've
24 already cited in our document -- page 46, another
25 reference and summary from Colonel Stewart.
1 "He testified he didn't expect the outbreak
2 of a major conflict in the Lasva Valley. However, the
3 HVO authorities, having been caught flat-footed by the
4 probing attack of the ABiH in January, were not
5 surprised. The targeting of the ABiH for intelligence
6 purposes began soon after the 20/21st January attacks,
7 and on the 25th of March, Zeko, the intelligence
8 officer of HQ OZCB, issued an intelligence estimate."
9 This is all built, as we now see, on footnote
10 214, a document not yet produced, and, of course as
11 we're going to know from elsewhere, evidence of Zeko in
12 the Blaskic case.
13 This is -- and one can go on until one
14 reaches the entirely extravagant conclusions which I
15 think I did draw to your attention; for example, at
16 page 53 about Ahmici. He asserts the facts are
17 unclear, as are the interpretations; portrayed as an
18 unprovoked massacre. "The best explanation seems that
19 a justifiable HVO spoiling attack on Muslim forces went
20 out of control." It asserts that it was a legitimate
21 military target. All matters for the Trial Chamber.
22 And then I think I already made reference in
23 the -- perhaps it's worth having a look at 86, page 86,
24 because it's another example of the sort of unsupported
25 or entirely partial conclusions that the witness seeks
1 to draw.
2 On page 86, we have the Convoy of Joy. What
3 do we see at line 5? "The refugees then spontaneously
4 attacked and took over the convoy, killing several of
5 the drivers." Where is there, in his analysis of the
6 material, any reference? And just as an example of the
7 evidence going to suggest that, in fact, far from it
8 being spontaneous, it was orchestrated.
9 If you would look at footnote 461, you see,
10 for example, Mark Thompson, a quoted article:
11 "Thompson's credulity and uncritical reliance of
12 Muslim sources is blatant, and his accuracy regarding
13 the facts is contemptible."
14 This is an astonishing document, as one can
15 find, of course, in the opening paragraph at page 2,
16 where the game is, in a sense, given away. At page 1,
17 I beg your pardon, paragraph 2. What he says there is
18 that: "It's one of the most basic rules of the
19 historian, indeed of the police detective and others
20 who seek to reconstruct past events" --
21 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow
23 JUDGE MAY: You're asked to slow down, and
24 perhaps you could come to a conclusion, Mr. Nice, given
25 the time.
1 MR. NICE: Yes. Well, the point that is
2 clear here is that he's simply seeking to do your job
3 for you, but he's seeking to do it on testimony that
4 isn't here, on interviews with anonymous informants who
5 we aren't in any position to explore. He makes
6 sweeping conclusions without any analysis of all the
7 evidence, and he does all that without any relevant
8 supporting expertise.
9 The Chamber simply will not be assisted by
10 this document, which will take some time to deal with
11 in cross-examination, if he's called, but that
12 shouldn't be a problem. It won't be assisted by this
14 If this document should be admitted, as we
15 say, then so should be the report of Dr. Cigar; not
16 necessarily in all parts, because the Chamber expressed
17 concerns about Dr. Cigar's expression or views on the
18 final issues -- well, it wasn't actually the final
19 issues, because the final issues here are the crimes.
20 But as we suggested at the time, it would always be
21 possible for the Chamber, in Dr. Cigar's report, to
22 say, "Well, thus far, but not the next paragraph."
23 But it would be quite wrong, quite unfair, to
24 take this evidence, particularly given the way this has
25 been prepared, and to exclude the evidence of a real
1 expert, a Balkan expert and an analyst who, much more
2 than Schrader, sources every conclusion he reaches by
3 accessible material of one kind or another.
4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
5 Yes, Mr. Sayers.
6 MR. SAYERS: Mr. President, I do not have
7 very much to add to what we've presented in our fairly
8 short response. And I apologise for the shortness of
9 it, but we only had overnight to prepare it.
10 Our response sets out our position. We take
11 the view that we have the right to present relevant
12 expert testimony. Obviously, it's for the Trial
13 Chamber to decide whether the testimony is relevant and
14 helpful. We think that the testimony is relevant and
15 it is helpful.
16 The expert is a real expert, as we have
17 outlined. He is a military historian, but he has
18 extensive practical experience teaching on a wide
19 variety of military subjects. He's an instructor, as
20 we've outlined, in the Department of Unified and
21 Combined Operations of the United States Army Command
22 and General Staff College. He was the first acting
23 director of the Combat Studies Institute in Fort
24 Leavenworth. He has been a curriculum director for the
25 NATO Defence College in Rome. So his experience goes
1 beyond merely the experience of the American military,
2 but he does have extensive military experience, having
3 spent 23 years in the United States Army. He's
4 extensively published.
5 And just in conclusion, one comment that we
6 made in our papers and I would like to draw to the
7 Court's attention is this: In a war crimes case, it's
8 hard to imagine testimony that would be more relevant
9 and helpful than that of a military expert, and --
10 THE INTERPRETER: Could you slow down,
11 Mr. Sayers, please.
12 MR. SAYERS: My apologies to the
14 We've had a variety of opinions offered in
15 this case over the course of the last 15 months, Your
16 Honours, as you know, and, in the Prosecution's case, a
17 wide variety of military opinions offered by military
18 people, microcosmic military opinions with the
19 exception of Mr. Elford, who gave some very
20 broad-ranging testimony.
21 We think that we have the right to present an
22 alternative view, the Defence's view, of what happened
23 in the combat operations that took place in the Lasva,
24 Lepenica, and other valleys in Central Bosnia from 1992
25 to 1994. Dr. Schrader does exactly that, and we think
1 his opinion would be helpful to the Court.
2 I don't have anything to add. Thank you.
3 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
4 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Mr. Sayers,
5 while you are on your feet, I have several questions to
6 ask you about this report which I have just glanced
7 through. Was it compiled expressly for this case?
8 MR. SAYERS: Yes.
9 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] And who
10 ordered it, who asked for it?
11 MR. SAYERS: I did, in all candour, me and my
12 colleague Turner Smith, the lead trial counsel for
13 Mr. Kordic.
14 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 I think it is quite natural that the Tribunal be kept
16 abreast of all the aspects if it is to pronounce
17 itself. Was he paid for this report?
18 MR. SAYERS: Initially, he was.
19 Circumstances, I'm sure, cannot have escaped the
20 Court's attention recently, and he has not been paid
21 for preparing the last one third to one half of this
22 report. He has actually volunteered his services in
23 that regard, since he has been working with us for some
24 time. So we're very grateful to him for doing that.
25 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 Has Mr. Schrader ever been in the field during the
3 MR. SAYERS: You mean Central Bosnia, Your
5 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes.
6 MR. SAYERS: Yes. Not during the conflict,
7 but he has been in Central Bosnia after the conflict,
8 performing on-the-field visits to battlefields and so
9 forth so that he can inform himself of the terrain
10 features, and lines of communication, and things of
11 that sort that are necessary to present an informed
12 opinion of military operations in the area.
13 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Yes, so he
14 went out into the field so as to prepare his report,
15 that was part of the preparation of his report.
16 MR. SAYERS: Yes. And, in fact, if I might
17 just add this it would be hard to imagine, at least
18 it's hard to imagine for me, any military expert who
19 purports to offer opinions of any utility who isn't
20 familiar with, so to speak, the lay of the land.
21 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you,
22 Mr. Sayers.
23 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
24 JUDGE MAY: Earlier in this trial, the
25 Chamber had to deal with the report of an expert,
1 Dr. Cigar who was to be called by the Prosecution. To
2 this, the Defence objected essentially on the grounds
3 that what Dr. Cigar was doing, although it was an
4 extensive report, was giving evidence on the ultimate
5 issue in the case, which it was a matter for the Trial
6 Chamber to determine, and the Trial Chamber upheld
7 those submissions.
8 We now have before us the report of
9 Dr. Schrader and the Prosecution, this time, make the
10 same objection. We have had the opportunity of reading
11 the report.
12 We have considered the arguments, written and
13 oral put forward by the parties, and we have come to
14 the conclusion that this report should not be admitted
15 for the same reasons as we excluded the report of
16 Dr. Cigar. Essentially, this report purports to deal
17 with the ultimate issues in the case.
18 In this case, the ultimate issue is whether
19 crimes were committed throughout Central Bosnia, who
20 was responsible for the attacks on the various
21 villages, for instance, was the village of Ahmici a
22 justified target, was it defended or was it pure and
23 simple a massacre.
24 Now, those are issues which are very much
25 matters which the Trial Chamber has to decide. In
1 relation to the other villages, those near Kiseljak,
2 for instance, similar arguments have to be decided.
3 Finally, the village of Stupni Do, in which
4 many people were killed, is a matter in which the Trial
5 Chamber has to consider and to determine how it came
6 about that these deaths occurred.
7 Dr. Schrader is, in our view, an advocate and
8 not an expert. He was entitled to be paid, of course,
9 for his report but, nonetheless, we have to look at it
10 and ask ourselves: Is it the report of an independent
11 expert which will assist us in a relevant way?
12 We've come to the conclusion that it's not
13 relevant. It's not helpful because what it simply does
14 is to set out the Defence case. And that is a matter
15 not for an expert, but for the lawyers in the case.
16 It's a matter for counsel to set the case to make their
17 submissions which is what this report is essentially
19 A minor objection is that it relies in part
20 on what would be hearsay from witnesses who are not
21 apparently going to give evidence referred to by
22 pseudonyms in some cases to whom the expert spoke with
23 apparently during his visit to Central Bosnia.
24 The matters can be illustrated fairly
25 shortly, pages 35 to 55, for instance, are, in our
1 judgement, essentially advocacy dressed up as military
2 expertise using the materials in the case, the reporter
3 doing that and then subbing them to argument.
4 For instance, the treatment of the village of
5 Ahmici refers at page 53 as it being a legitimate
6 military target for a spoiling attack. Precisely, as I
7 said, the issue to which we have to determine. That
8 is, to give a brief indication of the tone of the
9 report, that may be the way that Ahmici may be dealt
11 The way that Ahmici is dealt with may be
12 contrasted with the description of the ambush of
13 Mr. Totic and the killing of his body guards, they are
14 described as being brutally killed and Totic himself
15 disappearing without a trace.
16 On the other hand, that strong language may
17 be contrasted by the language about Ahmici. That is,
18 of course, a small point, but the matter may also be
19 illustrated by the conclusion at pages 102 and 103
20 which I have to say, speaking for myself, reads like a
21 sustained advocacy and not the independent report of an
23 Therefore, because it deals with the ultimate
24 issues which the Trial Chamber has to determine.
25 Because it is argument rather than expertise, and
1 because the Trial Chamber finds the report relevant and
2 not -- irrelevant, I should say, and not helpful, it
3 will be excluded.
4 The next matters with which we have to deal
5 and I hope we can do so as rapidly as possible are the
7 MR. NICE: Yes.
8 JUDGE MAY: Just let me get the papers
10 In this connection, we have the affidavits in
11 relation to Mr. Zoran Maric's evidence; Petrovic,
12 Jovic, Bilanovic, Stipac and Hodzic and we have a table
13 setting out the objections.
14 MR. NICE: If I -- may I speak to the table
15 and do so very briefly.
16 I note the response of the Defence to our
17 document. I don't think that needs any further
18 observation unless the Chamber requires it of us.
19 Before I come to today's table, may I remind
20 the Chamber as we are not sitting next week.
21 Theoretically, the seven day rule would be offended by
22 later consideration of any affidavits whose power is
23 spent. In respect of witnesses already served, may be
24 in accordance the practice we've developed over the
25 last two sessions; deal at a convenient time in the
1 next sitting week or possibly the week after with
2 affidavits that will fall for consideration having
3 whatever extensions are necessary by then.
4 JUDGE MAY: I think we have three affidavits,
5 Mr. Pervan, Ukic and Galuza.
6 MR. NICE: They may not be spent yet in the
7 sense that they may be in support of others to come
8 and; I see Mr. Sayers nods.
9 JUDGE MAY: We'll extend the time.
10 MR. NICE: Thank you very much. We've
11 tabulated these witnesses in a different order than
12 that read out by Your Honour, but I'm not going to make
13 particular argument save in respect of two witnesses.
14 As far as our basic and primary position is one of
15 objection, but I move on.
16 Nothing about Hodzic in particular. We've
17 identified for the Chamber's consideration where
18 matters are corroborative in form and where they're
19 not. We have no particular observations to make in
20 relation to him.
21 JUDGE MAY: Yes, we'll allow that affidavit.
22 MR. NICE: Stipac, we do object to. An
23 absolutely essential witness, and I have in mind the
24 observation made by His Honour Judge Robinson. Also
25 this is a person who witness Cicak said he was fitting
1 into the category of those who would be a mastermind of
2 the attack at the time.
3 If one looks in what he seeks to say , he
4 goes to some pretty central issues, and casting our
5 eyes down the page on the second sheet number three, in
6 particular, number five, I suppose, critically --
7 critically number six which is a matter in dispute and
8 so on.
9 So that he's a central witness and arguably
10 somebody who was deeply involved in these matters on
11 his own account and it must be highly unpalatable to
12 have as affidavit witnesses those who may have other
13 reasons to absent themselves from the Chamber.
14 And the Chamber will have in mind, in that
15 respect, one point that I draw from the Defence
16 response to our position on affidavits where they seek
17 to say that one of the affidavit witnesses eventually
18 called before this Tribunal, Mario Santic was not moved
19 in relation to central facts.
20 Well, there's a great deal of potential
21 argument for that particular witness, and very many
22 points favorable to the Prosecution, but critically the
23 Chamber will remember that Mr. Scott put to him,
24 although he denied it, it may become the subject of
25 later evidence, Mr. Scott put to him that he was in
1 Ahmici and committing the attack at the material time.
2 And it would have been quite unacceptable,
3 the Chamber may think, for somebody with whom such
4 issues could properly be ventilated to have come in
5 which bay of affidavit and similar conditions apply to
6 Mr. Stipac.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, would you like to
9 respond on Mr. Stipac?
10 MR. SAYERS: Mr. Anto Stipac is 73 years old
11 and in poor health, and that was one of the factors
12 which led us to choose to put testimony by way of
13 affidavit as opposed to calling him as yet another
14 Busovaca witness in person.
15 In our view, he covers almost precisely the
16 same territory as Zoran Maric. He talks about
17 interethnic relations in Busovaca before the war he
18 talks about the Kaonik incident of May 9th. We've
19 heard witness after witness testify live about that.
20 He talks about the municipal HVO
21 administration and the gradual restoration of order
22 after the Kaonik incident. Again, witness after
23 witness has testified about that.
24 He does give some information about --
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE MAY: Yes, I'm sorry.
2 MR. SAYERS: He does give some information
3 about the incident at the Kacuni checkpoint on the 20th
4 and 21st and asserts that only Mr. Kostroman was
5 involved in that incident, but the Court has heard
6 again witness after witness about that.
7 In connection with Mr. Cicak, he gives some
8 evidence about Mr. Cicak not being a stable character,
9 but Zoran Maric testified that Mr. Cicak had even shown
10 him the certificate of mental incapacity that led to
11 his early retirement, thus eliminating any privacy
12 concerns that may have previously been articulated
13 before that concern. But also, Mr. Maric related to
14 Mr. Cicak that had he psychiatric problems and had
15 difficulty controlling himself.
16 But the testimony of Mr. Stipac in his
17 affidavit on that is more general than the specific
18 testimony that Mr. Maric gave on that point. He also
19 gives general evidence about Mr. Kordic which the Court
20 has heard about time and again, and the absence of any
21 policy of persecution; exactly the same thing.
22 So for those reasons, he doesn't offer
23 anything, really significant in terms of specific
24 factual testimony that has not already been the subject
25 of extensive testimony before the Court and through
1 Mr. Maric. He's not opining on issues of centrality,
2 to use one of the Bench's member's words. So that's
3 our position with respect to Mr. Stipac.
4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you. Well, we -- I think
5 this is a witness who should be cross-examined.
6 However, given his age, it may well be that he is a
7 candidate for a video conference. I don't know what
8 the state of play is about video witnesses, but he
9 would seem to be an obvious witness who, given his age,
10 should give evidence by way of doing that.
11 MR. SAYERS: We will certainly consider that
12 and with respect to video conference. I think that
13 there are actually three individuals, perhaps four, at
14 this point, who may have to testify by way of video
16 JUDGE MAY: While we're dealing with that,
17 perhaps you can now be thinking about making
18 arrangements for that to be done because it will
19 require prior notice, clearly, to the Registry and
20 arrangements to be made.
21 MR. SAYERS: Yes Mr. President and I have
22 that in mind and we hope to submit an application on
23 the first day of the next session, June 20th.
24 JUDGE MAY: All right, otherwise communicated
25 through the usually channels.
1 JUDGE BENNOUNA: That means that you are not
2 going to -- he is not going to testify in chief, this
3 will be sufficient for you as testimony in chief or --
4 MR. SAYERS: If he testifies by videolink
5 conference or if we can -- if his health permits, if we
6 can get him here live, my approach would be pretty much
7 the same approach that we've used with respect to the
8 other affidavit witnesses, and to take about three
9 minutes in direct just to have him confirm the accuracy
10 of everything in his affidavit.
11 JUDGE BENNOUNA: [Interpretation] Thank you.
12 I think that the Prosecutor, I believe, in the case of
13 such a witness, the Prosecution should focus on
14 elements which can be of relevance because this kind of
15 cross-examination, I think, should only take a
16 reasonable period of time. Thank you.
17 MR. NICE: Nikica Petrovic is the last one on
18 our list. This is the last of the witnesses that we
19 are going to raise specific points of objection. I
20 will draw the Chamber's attention to the couple of
21 points in other witnesses for its exercise in
22 discretion and judgement, but Nikica Petrovic has three
23 really quite distinct grounds for objection.
24 First, as the table reveals, there's a number
25 of matters offered in his evidence which simply haven't
1 been raised in the evidence of Maric, unless we are
2 wrong in our analysis; two, three, four and five, and
3 so on.
4 The Chamber will note that there is a
5 contrast, this is number 17 in the Maric evidence where
6 what Witness DH said about being looked after by Dario
7 Kordic appears to have been in complete contrast which
8 is what is offered in the affidavit.
9 Second point, Witness J told the Chamber that
10 Petrovic was the only one who could grant permission
11 for the leaving or not leaving of Busovaca. In light
12 of the overall case concerning Busovaca, that's an
13 important position for someone to have occupied and
14 makes him a witness, who on that additional topic would
15 be of great value to the Chamber.
16 Third, not revealed on the document but
17 something I must draw to the Chamber's attention, is
18 this: The Chamber will recall that our policy in
19 relation to witnesses was to use every means of
20 compulsion to get them here or to get their evidence
21 before the Chamber in one of the ways permitted by the
22 Rules. I think we were almost the first case to use
23 the extensive methods of compulsion available to the
24 Chamber, and there is only one witness in respect of
25 whom those methods of compulsion were ultimately
1 entirely a failure, a woman called Enisa Begovic, and
2 she having given a statement significant indeed, in its
3 content, and apparently willing to give evidence, then
4 about faced and refused to give evidence.
5 She offered as explanation to us directly
6 that she was dissuaded from giving evidence and that
7 she was dissuaded by the mayor. And the Chamber may
8 recall I touched upon this in relation to an earlier
9 mayor of Busovaca, and it appears to us quite clear
10 that the mayor with whom a conversation the woman had
11 must have been Petrovic. And it would, of course, be
12 wholly unconscionable for a witness, who may have
13 interfered with the proceedings of this Chamber, to be
14 allowed to give evidence by affidavit when such matters
15 may properly be ventilated with him.
16 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Sayers, yes.
17 MR. SAYERS: With respect to the point made
18 about --
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the
21 MR. SAYERS: With respect to the point made
22 about the lady that the Prosecution identified.
23 Obviously we know nothing and we're not in a position
24 to comment upon that.
25 We had a choice, Your Honours, to bring a
1 chief of police to the Trial Chamber so that you could
2 hear from him what the circumstances were like in
3 Busovaca in regard to the civilian police
4 administration in 1992 and 1993, and we did bring that
5 witness along. That was Witness DG.
6 We see no reason at all to bring along yet
7 another witness to say pretty much the same things as
8 Witness DG said, and that's been our general approach
9 with respect to affidavits. Why bring along two
10 witnesses when one will do and there is an affidavit?
11 Unless the Prosecution can show a specific factual
12 point upon which cross-examination is necessary,
13 ordinarily it's our position that the witness shouldn't
14 be required to attend.
15 Apparently the only basis upon which the
16 Prosecution wants this witness to attend is to conduct
17 yet another roving-commission attack into credibility,
18 and I, for one, don't think that that's a sufficiently
19 substantial reason to require someone to come to
21 I also have in mind this is an interesting
22 exercise in some regards, because the Prosecution, in
23 an earlier part of this case, took the position that as
24 long as there's some evidence on some particular point,
25 then the witness statements which were verified and
1 thus became affidavits, rambling in nature, very
2 discursive, over a very wide period of time, that was
3 sufficient just so long as they touched generally upon
4 a point.
5 And also there was one of those affidavits
6 that specifically mentioned Mr. Kordic, and the affiant
7 was not required to come in to testify, be subjected to
8 cross-examination, notwithstanding contemporaneous
9 objection by Mr. Kordic. That's as may be, though.
10 But just generally speaking with respect to
11 Mr. Petrovic, he really only offers evidence on four
12 things; the Kaonik barracks incident, about which the
13 Court has heard a lot of evidence; the increased crime
14 rate in Busovaca as a result of a variety of causes,
15 not the least of which was the huge influx of refugees
16 from various other areas; he gives evidence again about
17 Mr. Kostroman being at the Kacuni checkpoint and the
18 only person who was apprehended there, Mr. Kordic not
19 being there; and he gives evidence on the lack of any
20 power on the part of the accused in this case
21 Mr. Kordic to issue orders to the civilian police, a
22 topic about which Witness DG testified extensively.
23 So the testimony there is purely
24 corroborative. It's not central to any issue, as far
25 as we can see, and we don't see any reason to require
1 this individual to come to court to experience yet
2 another roving-commission attack on credibility.
3 Thank you.
4 JUDGE MAY: Thank you.
5 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
6 JUDGE MAY: Well, we've considered this
7 carefully. We've noticed that there are some matters
8 of controversy. We also note what the Prosecution says
9 about issues of credibility. However, that's not a
10 reason, in our judgement, to bring the witness here,
11 given the fairly tenuous nature of the allegations.
12 In those circumstances, given the balancing
13 exercise which we are performing between the need to
14 expedite the trial and also the need of fairness to
15 both sides, we will admit this affidavit.
16 MR. NICE: As to the balance, I've already
17 indicated that I'm not going to raise particular
18 objections. That doesn't deal with, of course, the
19 Court's exercise of its own discretion, and I said that
20 I would draw your attention to one or two points.
21 In Bilanovic, again you'll see 1 to 4 simply
22 not raised in the evidence allegedly supported. The
23 Chamber will see in all of these witnesses' statements,
24 in reality, central issues are being referred to. Of
25 course, by our not raising specific objections, we
1 aren't in any sense acknowledging the accuracy of the
2 affidavit. We're simply doing what we believe the
3 Chamber wants by way of cooperating in the exercise of
4 its discretion and in accordance with the judgement
5 it's formed on its power under the affidavit rule.
6 There it is.
7 JUDGE MAY: We'll admit those affidavits.
8 MR. NICE: Two other matters, and very, very
10 One. Having referred to Enisa Begovic, she
11 is the only witness who maintained defiance of the
12 Court's orders, and I think I may have said on an
13 earlier occasion that at some stage a decision ought to
14 made about whether any action should be taken; not for
15 now, obviously, but I must remember to deal with it.
16 Second. Now that Dr. Schrader is eliminated,
17 the three days' sittings of the week after next will
18 obviously not be fully occupied by the one other
19 witness, Dr. Jankovic, who is to give evidence. No
20 doubt the Defence will be turning their mind to that,
21 but I should alert them and the Chamber to the fact
22 that the witnesses for the following week can't be
23 accelerated because of the 21-day rule, and in any
24 event we've already made fairly advanced arrangements
25 to be able to deal with them in that week by securing
1 the assistance of our own experts for that period of
2 time, whether here in The Hague or elsewhere. But we
3 wouldn't be able to deal with those other experts
5 JUDGE MAY: The week of the 20th is
6 abbreviated anyway. It's a three-day week.
7 Mr. Sayers, you've got the evidence to --
8 MR. SAYERS: Yes. I think we will be able to
9 fill the week with evidence, Your Honour.
10 Our plan is to produce two fact witnesses to
11 round out the national witness case, if I may use such
12 a term. They are Zoran Buntic, and I would just like
13 to alert the Court that he has written an outline of
14 his testimony which is substantial. I'm not confident
15 that we can persuade him to truncate it, but what I
16 propose to do is just gloss over the material that has
17 already been covered with Mr. Perkovic and to try to
18 accelerate his testimony in that way.
19 But I just want to alert the Court, just in
20 the interests of full information, that there's going
21 to be a fairly substantial summary that comes in for
22 him. But we do not propose to go through it. It's
23 just there to be read, if you wish, but we'll try to
24 avoid duplicating the testimony of other witnesses.
25 The second witness is Zulfo Robovic, and then
1 the third witness will be Professor Jankovic, and as
2 I've previously alerted the Court, I don't think that
3 he will last particularly long, and that may require us
4 to advance some of the other witnesses.
5 I have in mind the objection of the
6 Prosecution, and we will not violate Rule 94 bis.
7 Obviously, we'll try to fill in the time with some of
8 our residual fact witnesses.
9 MR. NICE: I should have said, of course,
10 confidential witness 4 is by no means a witness who we
11 are confident we can conclude today, because we're only
12 sitting until whatever it is, half past 2.00, and
13 there's a lot to be raised with him.
14 JUDGE MAY: Very well. We'll adjourn now for
15 ten minutes for the witness to be called in and also
16 for the Court to be reconstituted. Judge Robinson and
17 I will sit alone, of course, to finish this witness and
18 finish the evidence today.
19 --- Recess taken at 10.00 a.m.
20 --- On resuming at 10.15 a.m.
21 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Scott, since we've had a
22 break, we'll sit now until 11.30, take quarter of an
23 hour then sit until one o'clock, half an hour and then
24 sit until three unless that's inconvenient to anybody.
25 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour, thank you.
1 Your Honour, I have just tendered through the
2 usher and this is highly unusual for me, and I felt
3 after yesterday afternoon that perhaps this was the
4 best way for me to -- forgive me.
5 Your Honour, I have been with the Court's
6 regular counselling to move forward with some
7 efficiency, reviewed my outline and my notes over the
8 evening. I can assure the Court I have deleted a
9 volume of material by simply X-ing it out of my notes.
10 However, I must urge the Court, this is a witness -- an
11 extremely high-level witness. This is Mr. Boban's
12 elbow during the critical time of this case. He is
13 perhaps one of the two or three most senior witnesses
14 the Kordic Defence will call.
15 I hope the Court will note, I don't mean to
16 be unduly offensive towards the witness, but that the
17 witness has not been entirely responsive to many of the
18 Prosecution's questions and it has been somewhat slower
19 than what it might otherwise have been.
20 I must also inform the Court, You Honour, in
21 all honesty, that given today's schedule I think it is
22 highly unlikely that we can possibly finish both of
23 these very important witnesses. These happen to be two
24 extremely important witnesses, probably for both sides,
25 and we cannot expect to finish them I have to submit,
1 Your Honour, today. So, I can tell the Court--
2 THE INTERPRETER Do slow down please.
3 MR. SCOTT: You can see from the outline,
4 Your Honour, on even the reduced outlines, the matters
5 that have not been covered and the Court may wish to
6 tell me at some point, if the Court wishes to, what it
7 would not want to hear about.
8 JUDGE MAY: We will do that, let's move on.
9 MR. SCOTT: I appreciate that, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MAY: Some matters, for instance,
11 looking at this document two you could put very
13 MR. SCOTT: I will, Your Honour. Yes, I
14 appreciate that. Thank you. May it please the Court.
15 WITNESS: SRECKO VUCINA: [Resumed]
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Scott: [Cont'd]
17 Q. Mr. Vucina, when we left off, we were talking
18 about the role, or the title of colonel that was given
19 to Mr. Kordic. Let me put to you, sir, that in fact to
20 the extent this represented some particular point in
21 time that the title 'colonel' was conveyed, sir, it was
22 nothing more than confirming powers that Mr. Kordic had
23 had for a long time, isn't that true?
24 A. I could not agree with such a view because he
25 did not have any military powers at all.
1 Q. It's your position then, sir, that despite
2 what you've told us yesterday afternoon and despite the
3 fact that he used this title, you persist in your
4 position that Mr. Kordic had no military authority; is
5 that what you're telling this Court?
6 A. Yes, as far as I know, yes.
7 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour in the interest of
8 time -- well let me show one, I will cut out a number
9 but if the usher could tender to the witness Exhibit
10 395.1. If that could be placed on the ELMO, please.
11 Q. Let me indicate to you, sir, as the Court and
12 the courtroom orients itself to this document. Sir,
13 there are a number of documents in the record on which
14 either Mr. Kordic is addressed as colonel or which he
15 signs documents or has documents issued in his name in
16 which the title or rank of colonel is used.
17 Exhibit 395.1 is simply one example, sir.
18 This is a document dated the 26th of January 1993, an
19 order by Milivoje Petkovic. Would you agree with me,
20 sir, looking at this, that this is clearly a military
22 A. I cannot assert that. It says, "Military
23 Secret Strictly Confidential" up here. This is a
24 document I see for the first time.
25 Q. Sir, if you look down paragraphs one through
1 seven and I'm going to have to -- the Court's
2 indulgence, if I stray over the line to be offensive to
3 the witness, I'm sure the Court will tell me.
4 Mr. Vucina, I'm going to have to insist that
5 we move forward quickly with your answers and they be
6 responsive, please.
7 If you look through paragraphs one through
8 seven, would you agree with me, sir, this is a military
9 order talking about the disposition of forces, set
10 defensive action, and disposition of HVO units. Would
11 you agree with me, sir, this is a military order; yes
12 or no?
13 A. It says "order" in the heading.
14 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Scott, there's no need to
15 take these points up.
16 MR. SCOTT: Very well, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MAY: It results to argument. The
18 Court can make its own mind up.
19 MR. SCOTT: I will move on, and there are a
20 number of other exhibits which I have cut from my--
21 JUDGE MAY: Help with one thing, have you any
22 evidence or exhibit referring to Mr. Kordic as colonel
23 before December 1992?
24 MR. SCOTT: Off the top of my head, Your
25 Honour, there was one document but there was some
1 question as whether the date of a document was a
2 mistake, to be perfectly honest. I think the Court may
3 be aware of that.
4 JUDGE MAY: That's my recollection of the
6 MR. SCOTT: So that would be my answer, Your
7 Honour. If it turned out that date was for some
8 reason -- the earlier date was correct, then my answer
9 to the Court would be yes, there is that document;
10 however, I think there is perhaps some shared view that
11 the date is probably wrong.
12 JUDGE MAY: Let's move on. You can deal with
13 2A briefly.
14 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, if you will
15 allow me just to finish on this issue because there is
16 another point to Mr. Vucina's involvement here.
17 Q. Let me just finish with this, sir. It's your
18 position that in fact despite the rank, despite
19 Mr. Boban's decision, despite whatever processes were
20 taken which you say you were directly involved in
21 making him a colonel, that he was not, in fact, a
23 Let me suggest to you, sir, you were then
24 involved in perpetrating a falsehood on UNPROFOR in the
25 International Community weren't you? You were involved
1 in holding Mr. Kordic out to UNPROFOR as something that
2 he was not, according to you?
3 A. I can only assert on the basis of some of the
4 experiences that were generally accepted and applied in
5 the Second World War that that is what was done. And
6 if that was a mistake, then I cannot deny it, but this
7 was on the basis of traditions. They existed earlier
8 on with regard to such matters.
9 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'm not going to
10 cross-examine on that. I think it would take us a long
11 time. We don't accept that position, that theory.
12 There's absolutely no details about what these other
13 alleged instances or practices were. We don't accept
14 that but, in the interest of time, we'll move forward.
15 Q. Other than to say, sir, you said yesterday,
16 to finish on this point, this was an important matter.
17 It was not a trivial matter. You said it was a matter
18 of high importance, that the work of this mixed
19 military working group was of great importance.
20 In dealing with the International Community
21 on this point, sir, I put to you again you were
22 involved in holding out Mr. Kordic as something that
23 you say he, in fact, was not.
24 JUDGE MAY: The point has been made,
25 Mr. Scott. You have the answer.
1 MR. SCOTT:
2 Q. Let me just indicate, Your Honour, in moving
3 on, sir, in paragraph 16 of your statement, you stated
4 that the Muslims, "Practically wiped out the Bosnian
5 Croat enclaves in Central Bosnia." And, sir, let me
6 put it to you very briefly that statement is simply not
7 true, is it?
8 A. Your Honours, may I be allowed to say --
9 because a serious term was used. I would like to have
10 a Croat translation of this that I said. I doubt that
11 I said "wiped out". "Wiped out" would have meant that
12 they disappeared altogether, and that is not my style
13 of expression.
14 JUDGE MAY: Yes, well, we have the point.
15 MR. SCOTT: All right, Your Honour. I can
16 only refer again to the language in the English
17 translation is what I'm quoting from.
18 Q. Sir, in paragraph 18 in terms of
19 communications and travel problems between Mostar and
20 Central Bosnia, can you tell us what those were very
21 briefly, please?
22 A. What period, I'm sorry?
23 Q. Well, sir, I'm just -- if you want to refer
24 to it-- referring to your own statement, the period is
25 not indicated in your own statement. It's paragraph
1 18, you simply say, in about the third or fourth
2 sentence, in paragraph 18, "The Presidency itself met
3 infrequently because of communications and travel
4 problems. Dario Kordic..." Do you see that, sir?
5 A. Yes, thank you for having reminded me. This
6 was in the period when tensions grew into open
7 conflicts, incidents and broader, wider war
9 On the other hand, there is a road going from
10 the north to the south of the country, and in the area
11 of Mostar, this was under the artillery and other
12 strong weapons of the Bosnian Serbs and the JNA.
13 On the other hand, it was difficult to travel
14 along other roads because there were checkpoints; HVO
15 checkpoints, BH army checkpoints. On the other hand,
16 there were war operations too, so it was difficult to
17 communicate. Either in the west or along the Neretva
18 River Valley, these were the only communications that
19 were there.
20 To the west, in the area of Bugojno just
21 before the town itself, the army of Republika Srpksa or
22 rather of the Serb army and the JNA, they controlled
23 the road leading from Bugojno to the western part.
24 Q. Sir, let me just ask you it this way then:
25 Is it your position, is it your testimony that there
1 was a substantial period of time in which Central
2 Bosnia was cut off from Mostar by both physical
3 communication, that is transportation, and by telephone
4 or wire or other communications? Was it your position
5 that Central Bosnia was cut off?
6 A. Well, as far as communications are concerned,
7 yes, and also telephones and I don't know about other
8 means of communication.
9 Q. And how long was -- did this period of
10 cut-off continue. When was that and how long did it
11 continue, please, approximately?
12 A. This primarily related to the intensification
13 from January onwards. That is to say the
14 intensification of war operations in Fojnica, Central
15 Bosnia in general, that is to say, the end of winter
16 the beginning of spring. Throughout this area,
17 throughout this longer period of time, things were made
18 considerably more difficult.
19 Without the services of the peace forces, I
20 think that it would have been very difficult for anyone
21 to move about including aid agencies without the peace
22 keeping forces, that is.
23 Q. Sir, let me then try to see if we have it
24 right. Are you telling us, sir, that really this
25 period in which Central Bosnia was cut off from Mostar
1 continued -- started in January 1993 and continued
2 through that year of 1993?
3 A. For the most part, yes. It all depends on
4 the intensity of operations, and that was not the same
5 on every day, on every month, on every week. But for
6 the most part, the answer is, yes, the way you had put
7 it, Mr. Prosecutor.
8 Q. And is it fair to say, sir, -- and tell me if
9 I'm wrong -- Mr. Kordic did not go to Mostar, did not
10 travel to Mostar, was not in Mostar with Mr. Boban at
11 any time during 1993?
12 A. I mentioned that moment I mean, resorting to
13 the services of the International Community, that is,
14 Herceg-Bosna and the implementation of the
15 Owen-Stoltenberg Plan. And then before that, the
16 peacekeeping forces offered their goods and services,
17 and it is only with their assistance that one could
18 communicate and that certain areas were made
19 accessible, and you could move from one area to another
20 that way, yes.
21 Q. Let me ask you then, sir, based on what
22 perhaps you said yesterday, if we can move more
23 quickly, you remind that -- is it correct, then, that
24 the only time that Mr. Kordic, to your recollection,
25 was in Western Bosnia or Herzegovina, in Mostar in this
1 instance, Grude perhaps, was in August 1993 when the
2 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna changed to the
3 Croatian Republic? Is that the only time, sir, you're
4 aware, in 1993, of Mr. Kordic being in either Mostar or
5 Grude? Please, just yes or no, please.
6 A. It is possible. I cannot confirm, though,
7 whether there was a meeting before that and by way of
8 preparations. Possibly then, but I'm not sure.
9 Q. At most, sir, allowing for your memory, two
10 instances; is that correct?
11 A. I think so, at a maximum.
12 Q. And can you tell me, sir, the other way? Can
13 you tell the Court, please, how many times in 1993 was
14 Mr. Boban, to your knowledge, in Central Bosnia?
15 A. I think, as far as I know -- not a single
16 time, as far as I know.
17 Q. You've indicated -- in paragraph 18, you say:
18 "Kordic was not in the high-level decision-making
19 group who Boban consulted." Do you remember that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. In paragraph 23, you say: "Boban never
22 consulted with Dario Kordic in reference to military
23 matters." Do you recall that?
24 A. Yes, and I still go by that.
25 Q. Sir, are you telling the Court -- taking the
1 position that Mr. Kordic, during 1993, was cut off in
2 Central Bosnia and essentially, if I can say it this
3 way, was on his own?
4 A. Rights and responsibilities.
5 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, I didn't get the answer.
6 I don't know if the Court --
7 THE INTERPRETER: "Rights and
8 responsibilities," said the witness.
9 A. Within his rights and responsibilities.
10 MR. SCOTT:
11 Q. I'm not sure -- what do you mean, sir?
12 Let me back up for a moment. Forgive me,
13 Your Honour. I'll come back to your answer, but let me
14 first stay with my current question.
15 Is it your position that Mr. Kordic, then,
16 was cut off in Central Bosnia and essentially left to
17 fend for himself or act on his own during 1993? Is
18 that your position?
19 A. It's not that I'm the only person who
20 believes -- I don't think he was on his own. There
21 were other people with him. But if you are referring
22 to contacts, there were telephone contacts from time to
23 time, and also there were these major communication
25 The position was such --
1 Q. Go ahead.
2 A. -- that these people who belonged to local
3 communities and to various bodies in these local
4 communities could certainly function as well. It was
5 necessary to ensure the functioning of everyday life,
6 even in the hardest of circumstances, that is to say,
7 public utilities, et cetera, and certainly they passed
8 decisions in keeping with their responsibilities.
9 Q. I'm going to cut you off, sir. I'm going to
10 cut you off. One point of clarification. You say, "I
11 don't think he was on his own. There were other people
12 with him." You mean there were other people with
13 Mr. Kordic in Central Bosnia; is that correct?
14 A. Yes, yes.
15 Q. What did you understand was Kordic's
16 position -- when he uses the title"Vice-President",
17 what was he the vice-president of during 1993? In your
18 view, what did that mean?
19 A. Until the Croat Republic of Herceg-Bosna was
20 established, he was, for a given point of time, the
21 vice-president of the Croat Community of Herceg-Bosna,
22 and I think that at one of the meetings he was elected
23 one of the vice-presidents. I imagine that that title
24 was used in that context.
25 Q. What was your view, sir, of what the title
1 "Vice-President" meant? What position was that?
2 A. One should look into the regulations that
3 defined this. I dare say, on the basis of my own
4 experience, that this was rather in nominal terms.
5 This was an important-sounding title, in nominal terms,
6 but basically without any work in the organ concerned;
7 that is to say, on the basis of regulations. So it
8 only had weight in conjunction with others.
9 Q. Is it your position, sir, that this position
10 has been sometimes described as essentially the deputy
11 speaker of the legislature or parliament of
12 Herceg-Bosna, a body which apparently almost never
13 met? Now, is that your understanding of what
14 "Vice-President" meant?
15 A. Regardless of what my understanding is, there
16 was a regulation, a piece of legislation that governed
17 this relationship, and that is the only important
19 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, let me ask the
20 witness to please be shown -- I've skipped over about
21 ten exhibits, but if I could ask the witness to be
22 shown Exhibit 345 and 346. If they could be placed on
23 the ELMO, please.
24 Q. Sir, you have that Exhibit 345 in front of
25 you. This appears to be the appointment of someone as
1 the chief of the defence office in Central Bosnia, to
2 one of those offices, by someone named Anto Puljic, the
3 chief of the Travnik Defence Administration. Sir, it
4 appears to be signed by and approved by Dario Kordic as
5 vice-president, in this instance, of the party. If we
6 can take both documents at once, 346 is a similar
7 appointment, both of them dated in January of 1993, of
8 a different individual again approved by Mr. Kordic as
10 Can you please help us, sir? Given the way
11 you've described Mr. Kordic's role, or power, or lack
12 of power, why would he be required then to approve of
13 the appointment of persons as various heads of defence
14 offices in Central Bosnia?
15 A. On the basis of what I have been shown, it
16 says that this is only a proposal of nominations for --
17 JUDGE MAY: It doesn't matter if it's a
18 proposal or not. The point which is being put to you,
19 Mr. Vucina, which the Court would like your answer on,
20 is: Why is Mr. Kordic signing as vice-president? Can
21 you help us with that or not?
22 A. Your Honour, with your permission, in the
23 lower part it says "in agreement", so this is a process
24 of nomination, the HDZ committee, and then it is only
25 him as vice-president. So this is a process of
1 nomination. The HDZ was a legitimate party that won
2 the confidence of voters at the plebiscite in 1990.
3 And then there is a column here that says an
4 agreement --
5 JUDGE MAY: Just, for a moment, concentrate
6 on the question, Mr. Vucina. Why is Mr. Kordic
7 countersigning the proposal, the appointment, whatever
8 you like, as vice-president? Can you help with that or
10 A. Oh, I can, Your Honour, very gladly. I
11 shall. It is signed by the president of the municipal
12 board from which this person comes from, and then the
13 vice-president and also the secretary. That was the
14 procedure, that was the procedure. This is the
15 agreement that was sought according to procedure, and
16 obviously that is the procedure that was involved. And
17 it is signed by the chief of administration, obviously,
18 Anto Puljic. He is the one who signed it and put a
19 stamp there.
20 And this also invokes the provisions of
21 Article 14, et cetera, whatever it says. So in the
22 procedure, this was necessary, and this was what was
23 done in practice as well.
24 JUDGE MAY: Yes, Mr. Scott.
25 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'll move on and
1 come back to it a slightly different way.
2 Q. What is cadre policy, what is the term or
3 phrase "cadre," c-a-d-r-e policy, mean in your
4 political experience?
5 A. Allow me to explain this because I was on the
6 executive committee of the HDZ. In terms of procedure,
7 this is the way it was; we had the right to propose two
8 or more candidates in the nomination.
9 Q. I'm going to interrupt you, sir, what is
10 cadre policy? Just tell us what the two words "cadre
11 policy" mean. Is that about immigration policy? Is it
12 about personnel policy? What is cadre policy? That's
13 my only question to you right now.
14 A. The procedure of proposing candidates for
15 positions of representatives or other positions in
16 temporary government organs according to the
17 requirements that are put forth for positions in
18 various bodies of this nature or others. So the
19 requirements mean what the person's qualifications are
20 for that position and also what his conduct was like,
21 et cetera. So that is what the procedure involved.
22 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Usher, could you please
23 tender to the witness and put on the ELMO Exhibit 631.
24 Q. This, sir, is the record of a meeting on the
25 8th of April 1993 which the Court will be familiar
1 with. I note in light of recent testimony, if you look
2 at the make up of the steering committee, you will see
3 the first person listed is Colonel Dario Kordic, the
4 first attended by Colonel Dario Kordic.
5 Let me direct your attention please to
6 page -- I can only say in the English translation it is
7 page 6 and if you could find, it's the section dealing
8 with initiating activities of the HDZ for BiH, if that
9 helps you, but it should be in the translation around
10 the fourth or fifth or sixth page. If we could put the
11 sixth page on the ELMO, Mr. Usher.
12 The top of that page -- if you can move it
13 down a bit, please. Do you not see here, sir, at this
14 meeting there was a resolution, an action taken that,
15 "The party has to take charge of personnel policy in
16 the municipalities, the army, the police, and the
17 senior authorities of the Croatian Community of
18 Herceg-Bosna," isn't that correct, sir? Wasn't that
19 the policy of Mr. Boban and the policy throughout
21 A. Your Honours, could I please be told exactly
22 what point Mr. Prosecutor is discussing.
23 MR. SCOTT: Well, I will repeat my question,
24 Your Honour.
25 JUDGE MAY: He can't see this document with
1 which --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the judge,
4 JUDGE MAY: He can't see the document. Let's
5 have a look and see what page is it.
6 MR. SCOTT: At the top of page six in the
7 English translation, and I apologise, on my working
8 copy, I don't have a translation in front of me. At
9 the top of page six, it says "The party".
10 JUDGE MAY: Do we know where it is in the
11 Croatian so the witness can see it?
12 MR. SCOTT: Yes, I appreciate that, Your
13 Honour. Your Honour, I've marked and will hand the
14 usher a copy for ease of pointing it out.
15 Q. Will you please direct your attention to the
16 translation that's been pointed out to you, or I should
17 say, the original.
18 My question to you sir: Is that not, in
19 fact, a statement of the policy in Herceg-Bosna that
20 the party essentially had control or veto power,
21 whatever you want to call it, a personnel policy in all
22 these matters including the army, police, and senior
23 authorities of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?
24 Do you see that?
25 A. For the most part, no. I assume that that is
1 why one of these conclusions was put in this way,
2 because quite a few nominations went apart from that
4 Q. Well, let me put to you, sir, and then we'll
5 move on. It was exactly this policy and practice, at
6 least in part, that explains why Mr. Kordic would
7 approve of the appointment of various senior officials
8 to the defence offices, isn't that true?
9 A. I cannot agree with you.
10 Q. Very well, we'll move on.
11 Sir, in your position as the head of the
12 office of the president, did you not issue a statement
13 on the 20th of December 1992 citing that, "The will of
14 the Croat nation, on the basis of which Mate Boban has
15 the mandate to represent it at the highest level, has
16 expressed in the political charter of the
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatian Democratic Community," that
18 is, the political party, "adopted at the second general
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina HDZ assembly held in Mostar on the
20 14th of December."
21 It was your position, sir, that the
22 government of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the
23 constitution must implement the political will of the
24 HDZ political party. Do you remember taking that
25 position, sir?
1 A. I would just like to ask you to precisely
2 remind me of the date.
3 Q. Well, let me do a little bitter than that.
4 If the witness could be shown Exhibit 326.2. I hope
5 copies can be provided of it as well.
6 Sir, this is a statement that was made, there
7 is a reference in the format that is a little tricky in
8 some respects, but if you'll look several centimetres
9 down from the top of the page at the left you'll see
10 "1600 GMT, 20 December 1992".
11 The document then states that -- starts out,
12 "Haina, the Croatian news agency cites a statement by
13 the office of the president of the Croat Community of
14 Herceg-Bosna issued in response to a news conference
15 given by Alija Izetbegovic in Zagreb three days ago,
16 and Izetbegovic replied in the affirmative when asked
17 if Mate Boban has given up the concept of the Croat
18 Community of Herceg-Bosna."
19 When I referred to you earlier, the
20 particular language I just quoted you a moment ago was
21 in the next to the last paragraph on that page
22 starting, "This will of the Croat nation." Do you
23 recall, sir, issuing this statement on about the 20th
24 of December 1992? --
25 A. Honorable gentlemen, evidently my
1 intervention is needed because it says the 20th of
2 December, 1992, not September as I -- it was
3 interpreted to me.
4 Secondly, this is a text of a news agency.
5 This is not an official press release, press
6 communication of any party official.
7 Thirdly, this is a comment on Mr. Boban's
8 statement. Official positions of the Croat Democratic
9 Union, may I remind you, and I suppose this Honorable
10 Court has them, were presented in the declaration by
11 the Croat Democratic Union before this --
12 Q. Sir, let me interrupt you. If you look
13 toward the end of that paragraph that I directed you
14 to, the next to the last paragraph, the next to last
15 and final lines say, "Which is signed by Srecko Vucina,
16 head of the office of the president of the Croat
17 Community of Herceg-Bosna." Now that's you, isn't it?
18 A. Will you please give me the authentic
19 document with my signature, then I shall be happy to
20 comment on it rather than how the -- a news agency
21 transmit conveyed my message. It is their freedom of
22 expression, freedom of media and freedom of every
23 individual journalist how he will interpret it.
24 Q. Well, tell us then how please -- why was your
25 view -- on what basis it was your view that the
1 government and the constitution of the Republic of
2 Bosnia-Herzegovina should be required to implement the
3 political will of one particular Croat political party?
4 A. Because that struck in a plebiscite one trust
5 of the Croat people in the first multi-party elections
6 in Bosnia-Herzegovina held in 1990, and was the only
7 legal and legitimate will of the Croat people. We
8 would have liked others to be in, because it would have
9 made work much easier but, unfortunately, those were
10 the circumstances one could not shun the responsibility
11 gained through the electoral results.
12 Q. Sir, isn't it true that Mr. Boban repeatedly
13 denied the legitimacy, the legality and the legitimacy
14 of the government of the Republic of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, isn't that true, sir?
16 A. Possibly, yes. But had they denied it, he
17 would not have delegated representatives of the Croat
18 Democratic Union under those hard wartime conditions to
19 become members of the government of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina. As far as I remember, Mr.
21 Akmadzic was a member of this government and a member
22 of the HDZ. That is my answer.
23 Q. Did you have extensive dealings with
24 Mr. Akmadzic?
25 A. Could you please clarify what you mean by
1 extensive; frequent, long? If that is what you mean,
2 then no.
3 Q. Frequent then, sir?
4 A. No.
5 Q. But he held this same view, he held the same
6 view that the political will of the HDZ party was, in
7 fact, the superior expression of the Bosnian Croat
8 people and that, in fact, he was anxious to move in the
9 direction of a confederation or annexation with
10 Croatia, wasn't he?
11 A. That there is will is shown by the results of
12 the elections. All the other qualifications or
13 statements I now, since I am under oath, cannot
14 confirm. More than that, I cannot agree with them.
15 This is confirmed by all our official documents. I
16 remind you all our official documents, I do not go into
17 private and personal views of individuals.
18 Q. Sir, I submit that you haven't answered the
19 question, but we'll move on. Is it true, sir, that at
20 a meeting --
21 A. Yes, please.
22 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucina, please don't
23 interrupt. Mr. Scott, you must really bring this
24 cross-examination to a close.
25 MR. SCOTT: Very well.
1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the counsel,
3 MR. SCOTT: Allow me a moment, Your Honour,
4 to edit as I go, please.
5 Q. Sir, one of a final two questions on this
6 particular point. Is it your position, then, do you
7 agree that it was the position of the party, your
8 political party the HDZ-BiH, that the policies of the
9 party would be realised and were to be realised in
10 collaboration with and in agreement with the HDZ party
11 in Zagreb and in political orientation, the HDZ-BiH was
12 part of -- I stress was part of the HDZ; is that true
13 or not? You can simply answer, yes or no.
14 A. No, it is not true that we are a part because
15 they are different party bodies, different presidents,
16 different presidencies, different central bodies so
17 that we are not a part of that body because there are
18 two different statutes.
19 Q. Sir, in paragraph 16 of your statement, you
20 say -- you mention a cease-fire agreement between
21 Mr. Izetbegovic and Mr. Boban on the 18th of May of
23 President Tudjman was actively involved in
24 those negotiations at that same time, as the Court will
25 recall from a volume of evidence. I ask you, sir, why
1 did you not see fit to include that in your statement
2 when you talk about Mr. Izetbegovic and Mr. Boban? Why
3 didn't you also tell us about Mr. Tudjman's extensive
4 role in those negotiations?
5 A. I should like to thank you for this
6 opportunity, sir. Will you please show this Honorable
7 Court a document to see in what capacity, what
8 capacity, what powers, Mr. Tudjman had.
9 Q. Well, we'll move on, Your Honours. The Court
10 will have that.
11 A. Your Honours, I beg you.
12 Q. Sir, my only question to you, my only penned
13 question pending to you --
14 A. Your Honours, I beg you.
15 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucina, what is suggested is
16 that Mr. Tudjman had an extensive role in the
17 negotiations. Do you agree with that or do you
19 A. Absolutely, Your Honours, and he signed it as
20 a witness. It was the international meeting in
21 Medjugorje. It was not a secret meeting. And we were
22 very grateful, because it led to the end of the
23 hostilities, the signing of a ceasefire. All war
24 crimes were condemned. All the crimes and misdeeds on
25 all sides were condemned. To establish a commission,
1 coordination, that was a crucial moment, absolutely, in
2 the establishment of mutual confidence. That is a very
3 important document, yes.
4 MR. SCOTT: We'll move on, sir.
5 Q. The only question was why you did not see fit
6 to include that in the description of events, but we'll
7 go on.
8 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'm going to skip
9 over what you have as 6A. Let me just say to the
10 Court, in the interests of time, the witness has made
11 broad statements of no ethnic cleansing, persecution,
12 or discrimination against Muslims. Obviously, the
13 Prosecution does not accept that at all. It would take
14 us an extended period of time to go through the
15 evidence on that. We simply don't accept it. I will
16 not go into the Ahmici issue because of time, only
17 because of time, Your Honour.
18 Let me go to the question of Stupni Do.
19 Q. Sir, can you tell us what knowledge and
20 involvement Mr. Boban had in either the, if you will,
21 planning events -- of planning and leading up to Stupni
22 Do or in the events in the aftermath of Stupni Do?
23 Could you please tell the Court about Mr. Boban's
24 involvement in that?
25 A. Sir, I feel the need -- you said wrongly in
1 your statement that I said that it wasn't, and I did
2 not say that. I again guarantee under oath that these
3 are not my words. I said that there was not any
4 measures or any thought, especially in any political
5 body in which I participated, and I once again vouch
6 for this position here.
7 I condemn every misdeed, I condemn every
8 crime, as I did before they happened or whenever they
9 happened, just as I thank the Lord for this opportunity
10 to, before this august tribunal, say that I, Srecko
11 Vucina, state for history that I condemn every crime
12 and every misdeed.
13 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucina, you're here to give
14 evidence, which means to answer the relevant questions
15 which this Court asks of you. Now, with respect, you
16 are not here to make speeches.
17 Let us go back to the question you were
18 asked. The question was this: Did Mr. Boban have any
19 involvement in the events in Stupni Do or in their
20 aftermath? Now, can you concentrate on that question
21 and give us an answer, please.
22 A. Your Honours, I shall be happy to do so, and
23 I shall be very brief. But allow me that the
24 Prosecutor alleged in his statement that I had said
25 something that I had not.
1 I was not familiar with the fact that
2 Mr. Boban participated in any preparations or anything
3 else. Personally, I have no knowledge of that.
4 Personally, I doubt that any qualification of that kind
5 could hold water.
6 MR. SCOTT:
7 Q. Sir, then let me ask you to look at Exhibit
8 1268.3, if that could be tendered and the usher could
9 assist us.
10 While that's being handed out, sir, isn't it
11 true that your office was involved in issuing a
12 statement on the 28th of October, 1993, just days after
13 Stupni Do, in which you denied that HVO soldiers were
14 involved in that event, in the killing of civilians in
15 Stupni Do?
16 A. Before me I again have a text which a news
17 agency transmitted, and I cannot comment on it.
18 Q. Well, sir --
19 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Scott, what is the relevant
20 part of this, you say?
21 MR. SCOTT: This is a report, Your Honour,
22 and there are various references in here as to the
23 fact -- well, let me just say again that the top of the
24 document says: "Report claims HVO did not carry out
25 Stupni Do massacre." It talks about an investigation
1 that was allegedly done, that the military and
2 civilian -- I'm looking at the first paragraph, Your
3 Honour. "The military and civilian bodies of the Croat
4 Republic of Herceg-Bosna" --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow
7 MR. SCOTT: I apologise. -- "have inspected
8 the situation and the events on the territory under the
9 control of the HVO." It goes on a couple of lines
10 below that: "HVO soldiers did not carry out the
11 massacre in the village of Stupni Do, nor did an armed
12 HVO formation enter the undefended village." It
13 states: "The report of the Public Relations Department
14 of the Office of the President of the Croat Republic of
15 Herceg-Bosna." You were the chief of staff or head of
16 the Office of the President, sir?
17 A. Yes.
18 JUDGE MAY: Just a moment.
19 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] Your Honours,
20 this is outside the period when Mr. Vucina was the head
21 of the office of President Boban, so this is two months
22 after that. And besides, I see here that this
23 statement was signed by Mr. Slobodan Lovrenovic, and
24 that is a different gentleman who worked in Mr. Boban's
25 office at that time. So at that time, Mr. Vucina did
1 not work in that office, because he worked there until
2 the foundation of the Croat Republic of Herceg-Bosna in
3 August 1993.
4 Thank you, Your Honours.
5 A. I also feel the need to say that the person
6 who was the spokesman of the office did that, and
7 everybody performed his duties. So it was
8 Mr. Lovrenovic who was the spokesman, rather than
10 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Scott, is there anything else
11 you want --
12 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, if I can just
13 be clarified on that.
14 Q. Had you worked, in fact, with Mr. Lovrenovic,
15 and was he, as is reported here, the -- I'm looking at
16 the last paragraph, Your Honour, on the bottom of the
17 first page. Was he, in fact, the president's public
18 relation advisor?
19 A. I think this was in the beginning -- end of
20 1992 or beginning of 1993 when Mr. Lovrinovic arrived
21 in Sarajevo, and he did that from time to time; press
22 releases and public relations. And after that, I
23 believe, yes, that he officially did that, and after I
24 finished my work in the office.
25 Q. Can you explain to us, sir, why a report like
1 this, which I submit --
2 JUDGE MAY: No.
3 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MAY: It's nothing to do with him.
5 MR. SCOTT: Very well, Your Honour.
6 Q. Isn't it true, sir, and do you have
7 information because of your continued high role -- you
8 were the president of the executive committee, you
9 continued to have very senior positions in the HDZ
10 structure -- isn't it true, sir, that Mr. Boban
11 reported to President Tudjman about what happened at
12 Stupni Do? Do you have any information about that?
13 A. Since this is outside party bodies, I have no
14 knowledge of that.
15 Q. Were you ever involved in a meeting with
16 Mr. Tudjman and Mr. Boban, where it was suggested that
17 some of the same people who carried out the crimes in
18 Ahmici were also responsible for Stupni Do?
19 A. No, I was never at a meeting at which only
20 Mr. Tudjman and Mr. Boban were present. On a couple of
21 occasions, I was at such meetings, but those were
22 plenary meetings involving 15, 20, or perhaps more
24 Q. Did you travel with Mr. Boban to any
25 meetings with Mr. -- excuse me, President Tudjman in
1 the second half of 1993 in Zagreb?
2 A. No. We were at a meeting -- I think it was
3 at about that time , I wouldn't know the month , when a
4 large number went to Split.
5 MR. SCOTT: We'll move on, Your Honour. I
6 would put, Your Honour, if I'm allowed, additional
7 questions to the witness about Ahmici as well,
8 similarly, but -- and certain people involved there,
9 but I won't because of time.
10 Q. Sir, in concluding your cross-examination,
11 let me suggest to you that contrary to the picture that
12 you've attempted to paint of Mr. Kordic, isn't it the
13 case, sir, Mr. Kordic was the number-one HDZ political
14 official in Central Bosnia, and in fact he, if you
15 will, personified the policy and the execution of that
16 policy in Central Bosnia in 1993; didn't he, sir?
17 A. In compliance with the provisions of the
18 statute, he was unquestionably the highest-ranking
19 individual in that part, and under the -- and he
20 unquestionably made the greatest contribution on the
21 basis of the duties he was charged with under the
22 statute and under the peace agreement. That is my
23 position, my personal view.
24 Q. Sir, he was Mate Boban's man in Central
25 Bosnia, wasn't he?
1 A. I couldn't quite agree with you.
2 MR. SCOTT: Your Honours, I'll only refer
3 very summarily to --
4 Q. A number of paragraphs in your statement,
5 sir, we don't have time to deal with them in detail;
6 paragraphs 19, 27, 28. You talk about various
7 assignments that Mr. Boban or others -- others gave to
8 Mr. Kordic; to sell the peace plan, to do difficult
9 things, that he had a difficult sales job.
10 My question to you, sir, is: If the HDZ
11 apparatus had a job to do in Central Bosnia, Mr. Kordic
12 was the man they went to; isn't that true?
13 A. In the part in which it said regarding the
14 implementation of the commitments we had undertaken
15 under any peace plan, for instance, when it came to
16 nominations for province governors, then that was my
17 duty as the chairman of the executive board, I mean the
18 nomination of individuals for bodies, executive and
19 legislative, which were at a high level both -- either
20 in the executive or the legislative branch.
21 Q. Sir, in fact in paragraph 27, you equated,
22 you and others that you associated with in the HDZ,
23 equated Mr. Kordic with President Izetbegovic, the
24 president of Bosnia-Herzegovina, didn't you? In your
25 view, he was just as significant and at the same level
1 as Mr. Izetbegovic, and I put to you, according to your
2 own statement, sir, that it was embarrassing. You said
3 it was offensive that Mr. Kordic came to the meetings
4 and his equal, the person at the same level.
5 Mr. Izetbegovic, did not come to some of the same
6 meetings; isn't that true, sir?
7 A. That is what you think. But let me just
8 compare it. It is like the president of the Republican
9 Party meeting the president of the Democratic Party.
10 Q. Go to paragraph 27, sir, the latter part
11 going over on page -- in the English translation, Your
12 Honour, on page 10. You and others were upset, sir,
13 because you didn't feel that Mr. Kordic was being
14 treated the same as President Izetbegovic; yes or no?
15 A. As presidents of two parties whose duty it
16 was to enforce the Washington Accord. I repeat,
17 presidents of two parties.
18 MR. SCOTT: My final two questions, Your
19 Honour. I appreciate very much the Court's indulgence.
20 Q. Sir, isn't it true that in 1992 and 1993, the
21 entire focus -- the entire focus of the Bosnian Croat
22 institutions was on defence, was on military matters;
23 there was no other political life, for all practical
24 purposes, no separate political realm; everything was
25 defence, wasn't it?
1 A. I cannot say none other. For instance,
2 locally in some municipalities, municipal boards,
3 within their rights and responsibilities, tried to make
4 their life go on. Central bodies, after some --
5 Q. Sir, if you would look at paragraph 3 of your
6 own statement and about two-thirds of the way down into
7 the paragraph on the bottom of the first page of your
8 statement --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- I will quote you, simply quote you:
11 "Our whole focus at that time was on
12 defending ourselves through the Croatian Community of
13 Herceg-Bosna, that is, the HZ HB, the HVO, and the
14 Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna institutions. Normal
15 political life had to be postponed until after the
16 Washington Agreement."
17 That's your own statement, sir, is it not?
18 A. Yes, yes, correct. But I should like to
19 complement it with a sentence that during that time of
20 war, the HDZ was not all that active so would you
21 please read the sentence before that.
22 Q. Mr. Vucina, the Court will just have to take
23 that statement for itself on the basis of what we've
24 covered whether the party was not, in fact, active
25 during this period.
1 Let me submit to you in closing Your Honours
2 and to the witness. Sir, your statement is, in fact,
3 correct in this instance, it was the entire focus.
4 In Central Bosnia, sir, there was no other
5 man, there was no other official, there was no other
6 person more responsible for those matters and for the
7 Defence and for military actions and the strategy of
8 the Bosnian Croat people than Mr. Dario Kordic, was
10 A. If that is a question to me, I will say I
11 cannot agree with you and your statement.
12 MR. SCOTT: No further questions of the
13 witness, Your Honour.
14 Re-examined by Mr. Naumovski:
15 Q. Thank you, Your Honours, but very short.
16 Mr. Vucina, a great deal was said today about
17 the HDZ. I have only one question, please. Will you
18 tell Their Honours which political party of the Croat
19 people, that is, Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina was the
20 counterpart of the International Community in the
21 conclusion of all peace agreements from so-called
22 Cutilliero's plan to the Dayton Accord?
23 A. Mr. Boban signed Cutilliero's plan,
24 Vance-Owen Plan and Owen-Stoltenberg Plan, and after
25 him, the Washington Agreement, it was Mr. Kresimir
1 Zubak. The Dayton Accord was initialled by professor
2 -- Dr. Jadranko Prlic, signed by Kresimir Zubak on
3 behalf of the Croat people as the legal and legitimate
4 representatives of the Croatian Democratic Union. --
5 Q. Thank you. Yesterday, you answered to a
6 question that, theoretically speaking, my colleague
7 warns me that the last question was not interpreted to
8 the end, that this part is missing about the HDZ, that
9 witness, Vucina, mentioned but we can do it later,
10 resolve it through our objections to the transcript.
11 You spoke about the theoretical possibility
12 that Mr. Mate Boban, as the president of the Croat
13 Community of Herceg-Bosna and commander in chief, could
14 delegate some of his powers, some of his authority
15 including the military ones to another individual; is
16 that so? Do you remember that?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So my question to you is as follows:
19 Mr. Vucina, did you ever, during all the time that you
20 were in the immediate vicinity of Mr. Boban hear him
21 delegate any of the military authority to any other
22 person including Mr. Kordic?
23 A. No, not even when he was abroad, not even
25 Q. Incidentally, I also need to ask you, please
1 do not hold it against me, perhaps it will sound
2 strangely, but because of some words which were uttered
3 in this Court a long time ago, will you tell us,
4 please, when did Mr. Boban die or perhaps I should ask
5 whether he died because of some rumours, but --
6 A. Yes, it will be an anniversary shortly and we
7 shall celebrate holy mass. I was on my summer holidays
8 and I received the news. It was the 7th or 9th, I
9 returned from the holidays, I attended the funeral at
10 the holy mass and I do it every year.
11 Q. I did not hear you say the year.
12 A. It will be the third anniversary, I think.
13 MR. NAUMOVSKI: [Interpretation] As a matter
14 of fact, Your Honours, I do not have any further
15 questions, too many subjects were broached, but I'm
16 afraid that we shall -- we would spend too much time on
17 that. Thank you very much. Thank you witness.
18 JUDGE MAY: Mr. Vucina, that concludes your
19 evidence. Thank you for coming to the International
20 Tribunal to give it. You are free to go.
21 [The witness withdrew]
22 JUDGE MAY: We'll adjourn now for a quarter
23 of an hour.
24 --- Recess taken at 11.26 a.m.
25 --- On resuming at 11.49 a.m.
1 MR. NICE: I've asked for the witness to be
2 kept out briefly. The same issues arose with
3 confidential witness number three.
4 The Chamber will recall my concerns on behalf
5 of the OTP in relation to witness number three that
6 when witnesses come in these circumstances, we cannot
7 even know why they seek protection.
8 The Chamber will recall that witness number
9 three, when asked by me, gave an explanation what
10 happened when asked the question -- which was
11 unexceptionally revealed that he was frightened of no
12 one, and eventually said, -- when asked why he had
13 sought protection, in the form of a closed session,
14 that if you're given the option of in the form of a
15 closed session, you choose one or the other.
16 We were under very understandable and proper
17 pressure which we respected at all times to have as
18 much of our case in public as possibly could be in
20 The Chamber will recall that I undertook at
21 the beginning to deal directly with every witness. I
22 wasn't able, in the event, to do that personally to
23 ensure that any request for protection was justified
24 and, of course, always made available to the Defence.
25 The Chamber will recall that two of at least
1 of the witnesses came with the forecast of protection
2 then gave evidence in open session. And for this
3 witness, we can see no reason manifest from his summary
4 or from anything we know about him that would justify
5 him giving evidence in closed session and we must
6 object to it.
7 JUDGE MAY: I do not have on hand the
8 documents or the submissions which were made to us as
9 to why this witness should be confidential; however, an
10 application was made, and we ruled on it as a Trial
11 Chamber allowing the witness to be treated as a
12 confidential witness. So part -- I can see no reason
13 to go back on that rule which was no doubt -- which was
14 made for good reason.
15 [Trial Chamber confers].
16 JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Nice, I'm certain you'll
17 agree with the Presiding Judge, and I wanted to say
18 that, as a matter of principle, I don't think the
19 procedure you've adopted is correct.
20 Once the Chamber has made a ruling, that's
21 the ruling. I think if you wish to challenge it, then
22 you should do that elsewhere.
23 MR. NICE: I'm not -- I understand what Your
24 Honour says, but with respect, the point that has to be
25 appreciated and underlined is that in these very
1 particular circumstances, rulings are made ex parte.
2 Whereas in relation to every other witness who seeks
3 protection, the opposing party has a right to be heard,
4 so that we are in no position to justify -- not "to
5 justify". We are in no position to evaluate the ruling
6 that's been made, save, of course, when we ask the
7 witness questions about it.
8 I'm certainly not going to go appeal, on an
9 interlocutory basis or probably at all, such
10 decisions. But it's my duty to draw to the Chamber's
11 attention that the decision that's been made was made
12 ex parte and is one that we cannot at the moment, on
13 the sight of the documents available to us -- if I say
14 "understand", you'll think I'm being offending. I
15 don't mean that. We can't understand, simply from the
16 documents available to us, why that should be the
18 JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, but I don't think
19 that's to be taken up here. That's my point.
20 MR. NICE: As Your Honour pleases.
21 JUDGE MAY: Very well. Have the witness and
22 a pseudonym, please.
23 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] The witness
24 will be DK.
25 MR. SAYERS: While the witness is coming in,
1 Your Honour, let me just alert the Trial Chamber to the
2 fact that he will not be available when the Court sits
3 again on the week of the 20th, and he tells us he's not
4 going to be available until September, which is one of
5 the reasons we wanted to get his testimony completed
7 JUDGE MAY: We'll see how we get on with him.
8 [Closed Session]
13 pages 20886-20990 redacted – closed session
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
22 3.10 p.m., to be reconvened on
23 Monday, the 20th day of June, 2000,
24 at 9.30 a.m.