1 Friday, 21 September 2001
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.35 a.m.
6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, Madam Registrar.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is Case
8 Number IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Martinovic and Naletilic.
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik, before we start this morning, I think
10 yesterday you tried to tell us something.
11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Good morning, and thank Your Honour
12 for giving me the floor. And I apologize for having stopped you when you
13 were leaving. I thought that there was something very urgent. We have,
14 meanwhile, resolved the issue. I don't want to belabour it any longer.
15 We just were able to resolve the issue after you left the courtroom
16 yesterday. Thank you.
17 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. But I have to warn you that when
18 the Judges are rising, you should not interrupt.
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I am aware of this now, but I
20 apologised right away. The point is that because we don't have enough
21 communication with my client, I usually get little notes and I know what
22 is going on with my client. So I am aware that I should not rise after
23 the Court has adjourned, so I apologise one more time.
24 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Mr. Scott, are you ready?
25 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed.
2 WITNESS: RALF RUDIGER MRACHACZ [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Examined by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
5 Q. Good morning, Mr. Mrachacz.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, before we return and just to refresh the memories of
8 all in the courtroom, we were talking about the shelling of a mosque in
9 Mostar at the end of the day yesterday. However, before we pick up with
10 that again, I'd like to go back, please, to two other topics briefly.
11 Let me direct your attention, first of all, please, back to the
12 incident where the tanker truck was placed into Mostar that you told us
13 about, which exploded, and which you talked to the driver afterwards and
14 were told that this was done on Tuta's order. Can you tell the Chamber,
15 please, did you ever know other instances where Tuta used a similar
16 practice or tactic, the use of fuel or gasoline as a weapon, if you will?
17 A. No, I wouldn't know of any instances that these things would have
18 been used.
19 Q. Well, let me see if I can refresh your memory to a time with the
20 attack on the Velez hill in 1992 against the Serbs. Do you remember
21 gasoline being used on that occasion?
22 A. We had a lot of losses, and the Serb units had withdrawn to their
23 station. But Tuta only made a mention of the possibility that this bunker
24 could be exploded by pouring gasoline in, but it was not practised.
25 Q. Well, the final question on this point: Is it true or can you
1 help the Chamber, is that something that Tuta discussed on a number of
2 occasions? And by that, I mean the use of an exploding fuel, or gasoline,
3 or a tanker, as something that he frequently discussed as a potential
5 A. No, that's not correct.
6 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, you have extensive knowledge of the structure and
7 workings of the Convicts' Battalion, its command and its component parts,
8 don't you?
9 A. [No audible response]
10 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, did you hear my question?
11 A. Yes, I heard your question, but I don't know what you mean by
13 Q. You have extensive knowledge -- based on your long association, in
14 fact, as an officer of the Convicts' Battalion, you have extensive
15 knowledge of the structure and workings of the Convicts' Battalion and its
16 components. True?
17 A. No, one couldn't say so. I am not informed about all the things.
18 I had not been employed with the headquarters, so many things are just
19 beyond my knowledge.
20 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, and Mr. President, I'm going to submit that you
21 demonstrated in your testimony yesterday an extensive knowledge of these
22 topics, and I'm going to ask you if you recall -- based on that knowledge,
23 do you recall anything more that you can tell us this morning about a
24 component of the Convicts' Battalion that was based in Mostar City, if you
25 will, not the Heliodrom, but based in Mostar.
1 A. No, I have no information about anything in Mostar itself, because
2 I usually stayed in Siroki Brijeg. And I had no information and insight
3 in what was going on there.
4 Q. You signed a written statement on the 17th of February, 1998, did
5 you not?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Might that refresh your memory, sir?
8 A. The only thing I am aware in Mostar, that was the expelling of
9 Muslims into the other side of Mostar. But how this has happened, I
10 cannot make any statement. Members of our unit told me the very next day
11 that they had participated in this action, but who was in charge of that
12 and who gave the orders is beyond my knowledge.
13 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, I appreciate that clarification. I truly do. But
14 my question to you at the moment is: I am probing your memory about the
15 basing of one of the other Convicts' Battalion components in the city of
16 Mostar. So please, listen to my questions.
17 You made a statement on the 17th of February, 1998. Correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And concerning -- my apologies to Interpretation.
20 And concerning this component in Mostar, if you reviewed your
21 February 17th statement, 1998, might that refresh your memory, sir?
22 A. In principle, I cannot remember. I do not know what the statement
23 was on that date. And what I remembered was based on hearsay, and,
24 therefore, I cannot say whether this is completely in line with the truth
25 or not.
1 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Usher, I'm going to ask you to provide this
2 statement to the witness.
3 Counsel, I am referring to Mr. Mrachacz's written statement taken
4 on the 17th of February, 1998.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, there are two things. First one is if we could
6 get one, too.
7 MR. SCOTT: Of course.
8 JUDGE LIU: And the other thing is that I saw Mr. Meek is
10 Yes, Mr. Meek.
11 MR. MEEK: May it please the Trial Chamber, I believe that the
12 Prosecutor is now attempting to impeach his own witness by putting forth
13 to him statements that were allegedly given three years ago. I do not
14 believe it is appropriate for the Prosecutor to impeach his own witness.
15 There is no mechanism that I am aware of in this Trial Chamber or in this
16 Tribunal to have any witness declared to be a hostile witness, number
18 Secondly, I don't believe that this witness is a hostile witness.
19 This witness has been attempting to answer questions to the best of his
20 knowledge. Now the Prosecutor would like to put in front of this witness
21 a statement allegedly given on the 17th of February, 1998, also
22 distributing that statement to this Trial Chamber. This witness has
23 already testified that he does not remember what he said, and his memory
24 today would not be in line, perhaps, with that statement.
25 In the fundamental principle of fairness or due process, the
1 Defence is not able to cross-examine a document such as a statement of
2 February 17th. And if you allow this procedure, the Defence will be
3 prejudiced as we will not be able to confront the accusers against our
4 client. We cannot examine or cross-examine a statement, and that is what
5 you will have us in the position of. We will be put in that position if
6 you allow this procedure.
7 We object strongly to this procedure. This is not a hostile
8 witness in any fashion. This witness is trying to truthfully answer the
9 questions put to him, and it is unfortunate that the Prosecutor does not
10 believe that the answers are what he desires. But just because the
11 answers are not as he desires does not make this witness a hostile
12 witness. And in fact, to allow this procedure would seriously damage the
13 rights of this accused, my accused, Mr. Naletilic, to a fair trial. Thank
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, I think probably you could take your
18 witness step by step rather than jump to that statement directly. You may
19 ask a few questions whether he made the statement or not; and later on,
20 you just take your witness to where it should be.
21 And Judge Clark wants to make an intervention.
22 MR. SCOTT: I would like to be able to state -- we haven't been
23 afforded the opportunity of stating either our position or theory yet. I
24 would appreciate being able to do that at some point. Thank you.
25 JUDGE CLARK: I agree entirely with the President. In the
1 interests of justice and in pursuance of the rules of evidence, Rule 89,
2 the Trial Chamber can admit or exclude any evidence which it deems to be
3 unreliable. At the moment, we simply do not know. This witness may
4 indeed not be of any assistance either to the Defence or to the
5 Prosecution. But in the interest of justice, we feel that you ought to
6 ask this witness, first of all, did he make the statement, and are the
7 contents of that statement true? Depending on what he says there, I'm
8 sure you'll take your own courses as to whether you wish to proceed at all
9 with this witness. But that's a matter entirely for you, Mr. Scott.
10 But in relation to you, Mr. Meek, you are concerned that this
11 witness's evidence is being impugned. It's only a step to ascertain
12 whether this should be so. And I know this hasn't come up in other
13 cases. It's unusual. Most trials proceed without it happening, and it's
14 in the interests of all of us to see just where we stand with this
15 witness. Thank you. We just have to be a little patient with new
17 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I strongly disagree with my learned
18 friend on the other side, and I must also disagree with the Chamber's
19 statements. No one so far has properly stated our position or the
20 position in which we are offering this evidence. And since we have not
21 been heard yet, I would submit that it would be the more appropriate
22 procedure that the Prosecution be heard and its position stated before
23 further instructions are given.
24 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Scott, give me one moment.
25 MR. SCOTT: Yes.
1 [Trial Chamber confers]
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, at this moment I think there should be no
3 translation to the witness, because we are doing legal argument concerning
4 the Rules of Procedures rather than factual matters. So that's somehow to
5 meet the request of Mr. Meek the other day. But that will be very
6 extraordinary occasions, because we look into the Rules of Procedure and
7 we look into the precedent of the Trial Chamber, as well as most of the
8 practices in the world, if not all. There's no such kind of rules for
9 barring the witness hearing the objections concerned with a leading
10 question. But when the Trial Chamber is dealing with the legal issues,
11 the witness should not be allowed to hear the contents. You understand?
12 MR. MEEK: I understand and I agree, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Scott.
14 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour. May it please the Court, the
15 Prosecution is not attempting to impeach this witness. There are a number
16 of steps that can be taken with the witness, as the Chamber will know, at
17 least in the practice that I'm familiar with. We all come from different
18 practices, and I believe the Rules of Procedure and Evidence in this
19 institution might be described as broadly inclusive, rather than
20 exclusive, to admit the maximum amount, I would say, of allowable and
21 probative evidence for the professional Judges of this Chamber to
22 ultimately receive and consider and give weight to. There is no Rule
23 against leading questions. There is no Rule against hearsay. There is no
24 Rule against impeaching your own witness. The Rules provide a broad
25 philosophy, if you will. Of course we want the proceedings to happen
1 fairly and in a way that maximises the effective presentation of
2 evidence. Absolutely, you would have no disagreement from the Prosecution
3 on that.
4 Having said all that, again I can only draw -- all of us, to some
5 extent, can draw only on our past experiences, modified to the extent
6 necessary to this institution, and sometimes very different practices than
7 where we come from. Certainly, there is many different practices here
8 than where I practise in the United States. But those are the practices
10 In refreshing the witness's recollection, as we got into the other
11 day and unfortunately there was an unfortunate misunderstanding, sometimes
12 where I come from, if there is an evidence issue of recollection and the
13 possibility of refreshing recollection, the judges will often give counsel
14 some leeway to lead the witness, to see if the memory can be probed or
15 refreshed. That's what I was attempting to do, which led to apparently
16 some confusion on that point.
17 Secondly, a witness's testimony can -- through various devices,
18 the Prosecution or the Defence, if properly done, can seek to refresh the
19 witness's recollection. It has nothing to do with impeachment. It is
20 again called, where I come from, "refreshed recollection," and that is
21 what I'm attempting to do. I did ask - the record will show this very
22 clearly - I asked the witness first if he had made a statement, if he had
23 made a statement. And he said, yes, he did, on February 17th, 1998.
24 That's where we were and that's as far as we had gotten when Defence
25 counsel took his feet and, before the Chamber, intervened.
1 So I will try to go forward, try to follow at least the proper
2 procedure that I'm familiar with. If the Chamber ultimately disagrees
3 with that, you can certainly exclude it, you can certainly tell me not to
4 pursue it. But that's what I'm trying to do, according to the procedure
5 that I'm familiar with. I'm not seeking to impeach the witness. I'm
6 seeking to refresh his recollection of the past statement.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I saw Mr. Par standing up.
9 MR. PAR: [Interpretation] Your Honour, a comment on what my
10 learned friend from the Prosecution has just said. I would like to make a
11 comment about what he said, refreshing the recollection.
12 I know that in some situations, the Prosecutor needs to refresh
13 the witness's recollection, but I think here we have a case of exerting
14 pressure on the witness. We did not have any refreshing of recollection
15 here, because the Prosecutor tried, with several questions, to get there
16 but was unsuccessful. Following that, he asked the witness whether he had
17 given some kind of a statement, and now he was going to show him, this
18 witness -- and will show to the witness what he had said; in other words,
19 to exert certain amount of pressure on him. I believe that if the
20 intention of the Prosecutor was to refresh the witness's recollection,
21 that there were ways to do so through questions. And he should have asked
22 him first what he had stated in that statement, and then if there is some
23 kind of discrepancy there or something, then he needs to put his statement
24 to him and try to clarify matters. Here we had a case when the witness
25 was immediately given the statement and so that he could read it and so
1 that the answer which had been in the statement would be repeated by him.
2 So in order not to belabour the point more, we believe that this
3 was an undue pressure exerted on the witness, and I request that this
4 manner of questioning be disallowed. I believe that the Prosecution has
5 other ways of refreshing the witness's recollection, if they need to do
6 so. Thank you.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott. Do you have anything to add?
8 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. Your Honour, this was explored
9 exactly as Mr. Par, my learned friend, just indicated, yesterday. And I
10 went through these steps. There were questions about this component, and
11 at that time he did not recall anything more. I took those preliminary
12 steps. And once again, I've only been allowed so far to ask him if he
13 made a statement. I haven't asked him to read anything. I haven't asked
14 him to say anything. I haven't compelled him to say anything. I'm simply
15 following a procedure, based on his testimony yesterday, the exhaustion of
16 his recollection on this point, and tendering a document to see if it
17 refreshes his recollection. And that is the procedure that I'm seeking to
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.
20 MR. MEEK: Yes, Mr. President. My objection to that has already
21 been noted. But the procedure logistically, I believe, is inappropriate
22 if the Prosecutor, Mr. Scott, gets to the point where he needs to tender
23 this alleged statement that was made three years ago to the witness to
24 allow him to review it, to refresh his recollection. My issue and my
25 point is that if that statement is given to the Trial Chamber at the same
1 time it's given to the witness, and the witness is unable to remember
2 making that statement, the Trial Chamber then has that statement, has read
3 that statement.
4 And again, I believe, as Judge Clark indicated, there are other
5 ways in which to ask this witness and refresh this witness's recollection
6 short of submitting the document to the witness. And further, again,
7 submitting the document to the witness is one thing, but simultaneously
8 submitting the same document to the finders of fact is a wholly different
9 matter, in my opinion. Thank you very much.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, there should be an end to this
11 debate. I've given you lots of chance to express your view.
12 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 I can state that I'm in full agreement with Mr. Meek on one point,
14 and that is I agree that, with all respect, the Judges shouldn't have the
15 statement, and that would also be the practice where both Mr. Meek and I
16 come from. It is not a matter of evidence. The document is not admitted
17 into evidence. It is simply used as a memory-refreshing device. It is
18 not evidence. And it does not go to the trier of fact. In my
19 jurisdiction, it would not go to a jury and it would not go to a judge.
20 And I would agree with Mr. Meek that you should not see it.
21 It either refreshes the witness's memory or it does not. If he
22 says no and has nothing further to add, that is the end of it. If it does
23 refresh his memory, he will tell us whatever else he remembers. That is
24 the procedure according to the book, as I recall it, again, from where I
25 come from. If the Chamber decides it does not want to allow this practice
1 to be done, I suppose that's your prerogative. I would think that would
2 be the wrong position, but I think it's certainly your prerogative. Thank
4 [Trial Chamber deliberates]
5 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, after hearing the arguments from the both
6 sides and after consultations among the Judges, we have decided that you
7 may show the witness the statement he made three years ago to refresh his
8 recollections. But I hope that the statement will be tendered into
9 evidence at a certain stage if -- if -- if we find some probative value
10 from the statement as well as the testimony by this witness.
11 You may proceed, Mr. Scott.
12 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 Q. Now, if you have the statement in front of you, sir -- and
14 actually, I'm going to --
15 MR. SCOTT: Again, it would be our position it should not be
16 tendered to the Chamber, but that's up to you, Mr. President.
17 Mr. Usher, I'm going to have to ask you, please, to recover that
18 statement from the witness stand for the moment, please. Again, in all
19 these steps, some of the steps have gotten a bit out of order.
20 Can I ask the Registrar to give that a temporary identification
21 number, please. This is a number only for identification purposes, for
22 the record, Mr. President. It's not an indication at all that the
23 document will be admitted or offered into evidence, but simply to identify
24 it for the purposes of the record.
25 THE REGISTRAR: ID Number 1.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, madam.
2 Mr. Usher, could you please tender to the witness what has been
3 marked only for identification purposes ID1.
4 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, the first thing I want you to do, please, is turn
5 your attention to the fourth page of the document, and not necessarily --
6 the pages may not -- I think it does turn out to be the numbered page 4,
7 also physically page 4 in the grouping of pages.
8 Do you see your signature on that page?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. What is the date under your signature, please?
11 A. Yes, the same.
12 Q. But what -- is the date the 17th of February, 1998?
13 A. 17th February, 1998.
14 Q. And above your signature on that same page also has your initials,
15 does it not?
16 A. Yes, correct.
17 Q. And in fact, you do recall, don't you, that this statement was
18 taken from you on the 17th of February, 1998, and that you signed it?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. And I take it, sir, when you signed this statement, you believed
21 that the statements made therein were true and correct, to the best of
22 your knowledge and ability?
23 A. I hope that this is correct. All it is written in English, and I
24 do not know what it says exactly. So it would be better for me to ask me
25 a concrete question so that I can give a complete answer, because
1 otherwise I would not know what you are referring to and where they belong
3 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, that's exactly what I intend to do. I would point
4 out, though, so there's no misunderstanding about this, as you signed in
5 the witness acknowledgment immediately above your name on page 4, you
6 confirmed that this statement has been read over to me in the German
7 language and is true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
8 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Meek.
9 MR. MEEK: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours.
10 I believe that before Mr. Scott, my learned friend, gets into this
11 questioning, he must lay a proper foundation. The proper foundation would
12 be, Does this witness recall making this statement, number 1. Where was
13 this statement made? What were the conditions when the statement was
14 made? Was he under the effects of any alcohol or drugs at the time the
15 statement was made? Who was there to take the statement from him? Was it
16 voluntarily made? These are all foundational issues which I think must be
17 laid before the Prosecutor can ask any specific questions.
18 Thank you.
19 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, you may lead your witness step by step.
20 MR. SCOTT: Thank you. And I must say for the record, I disagree
21 with counsel. None of those are necessary steps where I come from.
22 Again, I can only say that. I could show the witness a red piece of cloth
23 if it will refresh his memory, whatever it is.
24 Q. So let me go back, Mr. Mrachacz. I do want to direct your
25 attention now -- I agree with you; again, there's no mystery in the
1 courtroom. The statement that has been put in front of you is in
2 English. I will have to have the assistance of the interpreter, please.
3 And I don't want you to read this out loud. The only thing I'm
4 asking you to do is to read this to yourself. I'm going to direct your
5 attention, with the interpreter's assistance, on page 3, and also for
6 counsel's information, page 3, paragraph number 4, starting with the words
7 "I heard..."
8 MR. SCOTT: I don't know if you want to hear the interpretation or
9 not, Your Honours, for your purposes, but I leave that in your discretion.
10 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Scott, can I ask you a question?
11 MR. SCOTT: Of course.
12 JUDGE CLARK: Is it possible -- just in case this problem comes up
13 again, is it possible that an original witness statement in the original
14 language of the witness is retained somewhere in the Prosecution office as
15 an exhibit as an original and can be shown in conjunction with the
17 MR. SCOTT: It depends, Your Honour, on the nature of the
18 statement. There is no German language statement of this document. It
19 was taken in English, read and explained to the witness in German. With a
20 Bosnian witness, of course, there is a statement in B/C/S. For other
21 languages, if it was a Spanish statement or a German statement, typically,
22 or at least often, there is no original foreign language statement.
23 JUDGE CLARK: So the procedure is not that the statement was taken
24 in German and subsequently translated into English?
25 MR. SCOTT: Not consistently.
1 JUDGE CLARK: And in this situation?
2 MR. SCOTT: In this situation, the statements were prepared in
3 English and explained and reviewed with the witness before he signed them
4 with an interpreter in German.
5 JUDGE CLARK: We should, in fairness, give this witness a little
6 time with the interpreter to interpret it for him.
7 MR. SCOTT: I would appreciate that.
8 A. Yes, that's correct.
9 Q. Now, Witness --
10 MR. SCOTT: And Mr. President, normally I would have the statement
11 withdrawn at this point so there would be no suggestion that the witness
12 is then simply reading what has been put in front of him; but since it's
13 in English, in this case, it probably doesn't make much difference.
14 However, I'm going to ask the interpreter, just to avoid any
15 suggestion, Madam Interpreter, could you assist us, please, if you would
16 just turn the page over so that the text of that page cannot be seen by
17 the witness.
18 Q. Now, Mr. Mrachacz, reviewing that statement, has that refreshed
19 your recollection about some additional information you know about a
20 particular component of the Convicts' Battalion in Mostar?
21 A. I can only say the following: It is true that we operated
22 together with other units, which were supplied with food mostly from us.
23 And in this situation where several units were in combat together and Tuta
24 had the supreme command, that is true. However, what they were meant to
25 do is beyond my knowledge. I just mentioned this statement here that we
1 sometimes were together in several units put together, and that we then
2 had also to fight and to be supplied together.
3 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, I'm not asking to go any further than you are able
4 to go. My question to you at the moment is not about your knowledge of
5 orders given to this unit. So please listen to my question.
6 Based on -- having refreshed your recollection, do you recall the
7 name of this unit, based in Mostar?
8 A. Yes, I do.
9 Q. What was it, please?
10 A. What belongs to Mostar, I couldn't say.
11 Q. Sir, please listen to my question. The name of the unit that you
12 said just now that you operated together with and you took food to, what
13 was the name of that unit?
14 A. I'm sorry, I have -- I just do not know. The only unit which I
15 know from Mostar is the Brigade Bruno Busic, because it was a major unit,
16 and the other units I only know from hearsay and that they participated in
17 some actions.
18 Q. Did you take 800 rations of food to a unit in Mostar?
19 A. We have not taken any supply to Mostar. When we have taken
20 supplies to some places, that was then somewhere in the field. There were
21 the mortar detachments from Posusje and other units, and they were
22 supplied there.
23 Q. Well, did this unit from Mostar come to Siroki Brijeg for
24 supplies, then?
25 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me. I did not understand your question.
1 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, my apologies.
2 Q. Did this unit then -- you said you don't recall going to Mostar.
3 Did this unit come to Siroki Brijeg for the purposes of obtaining
5 A. No, this unit never came there. The point of supply was only the
6 Park Hotel, and only our unit was supplied from this Park Hotel.
7 Q. Do you know, sir, of any ATGs in the Mostar region that were not
8 under Tuta's command?
9 A. As far as the units had the parts of Kaznjenicka Bojna, they were
10 under Tuta's command. All the other units, it depended on whether they
11 were called to us or not.
12 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I am going to continue. I mean I am
13 going to move on. I'm not going to apologise for the time taken for this,
14 because I think it was entirely appropriate. And I think a matter of
15 procedure was important to pursue, but we have done that.
16 Q. Now, Mr. Mrachacz, I'm going to take you back to where we left off
17 yesterday afternoon, and that is to the shelling of the mosque in Mostar.
18 You told us that your Bofors, as you call it, was used in this action, and
19 I ask you: At that time, do you recall other types of artillery, mortar,
20 other than infantry rifles, just to be clear, that were used to execute
21 this order to shell the mosque?
22 A. As far as we have seen, there had been several guns, two Bofors,
23 and an armoured vehicle and the mortars.
24 Q. And can you tell us the steps that were taken by the Bofors to
25 target and fire at a mosque in Mostar at this time?
1 A. I could not say, because we only saw that the mosque crumbled
2 down. But which guns and other pieces of firing were fired on to this
3 mosque, we weren't able to see.
4 Q. All right. Mr. Mrachacz, again I apologise. We don't seem to be
5 communicating today, and I'm sure it's probably my fault. My question to
6 you is not at this moment whether you saw the mosque crumble. My question
7 to you was: The operation of your gun, can you please describe to the
8 Chamber the steps that were taken to operate your gun to fire on the
9 mosque, pursuant to the order that you testified under oath yesterday that
10 Tuta gave? What steps did you take to execute that order?
11 A. I want to repeat that our gun had not fired at any mosque. Our
12 command was that the infantry, which moved into Stari Most or to the old
13 hotel or to the high school where Muslim units were hidden, that they
14 should be fired at. At this fire-fighting with our Bofors, we first hit
15 the wrong target, and only then we were pointed out that we should take
16 another target. And the reason was that we had taken the wrong -- that we
17 had installed the wrong distance into our machine.
18 Q. Well, can you describe to the Chamber -- let's see if we can come
19 at it this way: Can you describe to the Chamber the amount of fire that
20 you observed directed into Mostar following this order to destroy the
22 A. I would not be able to say how much it was. I know that several
23 Bofors, mortars. And where they were distributed, I don't know.
24 Q. You don't recall firing 70 to 80 rounds from your Bofors at that
1 A. Of course they were fired from our Bofors, but not at a mosque.
2 Q. Did you see anything happen -- and you mentioned this, but I'll
3 just take you to this point, then. Did you see anything happen to the
4 mosque as a result of this fire, the fire that you described generally?
5 A. I only seen that the mosque was shot to pieces. But was it by
6 tank grenades or was it by mortars, this is something I wouldn't be able
7 to say.
8 Q. Very well. Mr. Mrachacz, you testified yesterday, in connection
9 with the second action at Doljani, that Tuta gave the order that no
10 prisoners be taken. Do you recall any other instance in which a similar
11 order was given in approximately midsummer of 1993?
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.
13 MR. MEEK: May it please Mr. President and Your Honours, I believe
14 that question misstates the evidence. I don't believe the evidence was as
15 stated by Mr. Scott. Yesterday, I believe the testimony was that the
16 order was that the prisoners did not need to be taken, not that they
17 should not be taken. I think he's misstated this evidence, and I object
18 to the question on that basis.
19 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, maybe you could ask this question to
20 your witness once again to make sure what that means.
21 MR. SCOTT: Very well.
22 Q. Witness, can you clarify? When you gave this testimony yesterday
23 that there should be no prisoners, how did you understand that -- what did
24 you understand that to mean?
25 A. I understood it in that way, that this was a reaction to the loss
1 at Cikota, and that was the only time that this order was given. As
2 mentioned yesterday, it did not happen, because this attack was aborted
3 before it actually had started.
4 Q. All right. I think you answered my question in the course of
5 saying that. But just to be clear, you don't recall a similar order being
6 given in another action later that summer?
7 A. No, this order had not been then.
8 Q. I'll move on. Were you ever at the house or the villa where Tuta
9 lived during your association with him?
10 A. Yes, I used to be there more often.
11 MR. SCOTT: All right. I'm going to ask the usher's assistance,
12 please. I'm showing you two photographs; 25.5 and 25.6, for the record.
13 I mean either way, you can use mine or you can -- Mr. Usher, I suppose if
14 you're not going to use those, I'll retrieve them. Thank you.
15 Q. Now, looking at, well, we can start with 25.5 --
16 MR. SCOTT: Actually, if that can be put on the ELMO as well so
17 everyone in the courtroom can see, unless -- I mean they are in the
18 binders. All these documents, for everyone in the courtroom, would be in
19 Binder 1, but again it's often easier if everyone just looks at the
20 screen, it seems to me.
21 Q. Can you tell us what's depicted in the photograph marked as 25.5?
22 A. That's Tuta's house.
23 Q. And would you also look at 25.6 and tell us what that is?
24 A. That's the same photograph again.
25 Q. Well, it's not the same photograph, sir. What is it a photograph
2 A. At least it's the same house.
3 Q. All right. Can you tell us approximately how many times you were
4 at that location?
5 A. Perhaps four or five times.
6 Q. Did you ever see persons performing labour, construction, around
7 that property, either on the building itself or around the property in
9 A. Yes, I have seen it.
10 Q. Who did you see doing that?
11 THE INTERPRETER: Who?
12 MR. SCOTT: Who.
13 A. In the house itself, our chap who was in charge of explosions, he
14 opened the ground by explosives. And on a ditch to be dug into the
15 premises, there were prisoners working.
16 Q. And what prisoners were these? I mean from what group or what
17 army? If you can just assist us to identify who these prisoners were.
18 A. I do not know from which army or group they came, and I do not
19 know whether they were Muslim or Serb prisoners. I only know it was a
20 group of workers who had dug a trench or something else to put cables in.
21 Q. And approximately how many of these prisoners did you see doing
22 this work?
23 A. Approximately eight to ten persons.
24 Q. How were they dressed?
25 A. Grey -- grey cloth. That was what the remnants of the Yugoslav
1 army was, because the Muslim units did not have a uniform which was all
2 over the same.
3 Q. And who was this person that you identified earlier that was in
4 charge of explosives. Do you remember his name?
5 A. The person who made the explosives, I only know his nickname.
6 That was Stolac.
7 Q. Directing your attention forward, was the Convicts' Battalion
8 engaged in actions at a place called Rastani in the summer or early fall
9 of 1993?
10 A. Yes, we were also in the surroundings of Rastani.
11 Q. Just to avoid any distractions, the photographs can be retrieved
12 at this point.
13 Do you recall how many times the Convicts' Battalion was engaged
14 in action at Rastani?
15 A. I wouldn't know exactly how often we were used there because this
16 unit was what I would term as a "fire brigade," because whatever problems
17 occurred, this unit was used. It happened that in several areas, we
18 happened to be there three to four times.
19 Q. All right. And to clarify your comment just now, when you say
20 this -- you said, "This unit was what I would term a fire brigade." First
21 of all, which unit are you talking about?
22 A. The Kaznjenicka Bojna.
23 Q. And in what way did you mean they were used as a fire brigade? I
24 take it you don't mean putting out fires.
25 A. No. It was meant that wherever there were counterattacks from the
1 Muslim side or where the lines had been broken through and penetrated into
2 the villages, we were used to beat them back.
3 Q. And as you've just described it, then, the Convicts' Battalion was
4 engaged at Rastani. Is that correct, then?
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. Who was in command of the Convicts' Battalion at the times it was
7 engaged at Rastani?
8 A. When the battalion was in combat, the order -- the power of order
9 was with Tuta.
10 Q. During one of the actions, do you recall where your Bofors was
12 A. We were usually on the hills; and while standing on the hills, we
13 were told which position we were supposed to fire at.
14 Q. Who told you which position to fire at?
15 A. It was said that when fire was replied from the Muslim side, we
16 should point and target at that particular position.
17 Q. Who gave you that order?
18 A. Whoever was at the Motorola and was in charge of the unit. It
19 could have been an officer; and through the interpreter, we got the
20 interpretation, this aim or that aim, and that was so for all of us.
21 Q. And this, again, as you told us yesterday, was an instance where
22 the Motorola radios were used. Is that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you recall during one of these actions that the -- a field
25 headquarters, if you will, was established very near to where the Bofors
1 was located?
2 A. Yeah, there was headquarters there, and the infantry was there,
3 but we didn't come there.
4 Q. You know where Tuta himself was positioned? You have told us he
5 was in command. You know where he was positioned during this action?
6 A. I wouldn't be able to say where he was present because he moved to
7 and fro, and I do not know whether he was present in all the actions. I
8 couldn't leave the position where I was because I had to be on the gun.
9 Q. Well, will you please explain to the Chamber what you just said --
10 what you said just now. How was Tuta moving to and fro?
11 A. It is said that he went to Mostar or to some other place. He was
12 not always present.
13 Q. All right. Did you ever know him -- let me just take your words,
14 however. Did you ever know him to move to and fro during an action or on
15 a battlefield?
16 A. No, I haven't heard anything of that.
17 Q. Do you recall him going down during one of these actions to the
18 infantry attack himself?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Let me direct your attention, just very briefly, to an action
21 around Prozor and Gornji Vakuf at the end of 1994. Just a couple of
22 questions about that before we move to the final part of your
24 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me, please. What was the second place?
25 I don't see it in the transcript.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 MR. SCOTT: One moment.
2 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, Your Honours, number one, this incident
3 to which I think Mr. Scott refers is not included in this indictment, and
4 the question itself indicates the action that took place at the end of
5 1994. The allegations in the indictment against Mr. Naletilic end in
6 January of 1994. This, again, is an action that is not included in the
7 indictment against Mr. Naletilic; and therefore, it is absolutely
9 Any probative value that it might have is greatly outweighed by
10 the prejudicial value as we are not prepared to cross-examine this witness
11 on an issue or an incident which has never been alleged in the indictment,
12 nor to which we have adequate facilities to do so.
13 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott. Could you please inform us where
14 those incidents appear in the indictment? And how is it relevant to this
16 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. Mr. President, it is relevant to,
17 again, two issues in the indictment. One is superior authority, and one
18 is the existence of an international armed conflict. I am reluctant to
19 say more detail in light of the issues that have been raised about saying
20 things in front of the witness.
21 But my questions about this particular action have nothing to do,
22 if you will, with the details of the action, but they simply-- or what
23 happened there, other than the fact of who was in command and the presence
24 of certain units there.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Meek.
1 MR. MEEK: May it please Mr. President and Your Honours, again, we
2 have no documents. We have received no documentation about this action
3 which he wants to ask this witness. And it's all fine and good and well
4 that he tells you why he wants to. But you know, when it comes to the
5 fact that we will not be able to cross-examine this witness about the
6 statement which he makes because we have not been provided the
7 documentation concerning this incident, nor is it alleged in the
8 indictment, it is wholly unfair. It denies Mr. Naletilic the right to a
9 fair and just trial, and we must strongly, strongly object to this
10 evidence coming in. It's improper, completely and wholly improper. Thank
12 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'm going to move on very quickly this
14 morning. To some extent, I regret these procedural issues, but I think
15 they are important to the case, frankly, because it does have to be
16 procedure that is followed.
17 On these issues, Your Honour, they have had these statements.
18 Everything I have asked this witness, everything that has been asked of
19 this witness in the last two days, come from his witness statements which
20 have been provided to counsel years -- months, if not years ago. Now, I
21 don't know of any rule which says you can only ask a question based on the
22 existence of some document that may or may not have been provided in
23 disclosure. It has nothing to do about whether there's a document about
24 the action -- an HVO record somewhere about the action in Prozor or Gornji
25 Vakuf at that time. And I don't think that's the basis for a limitation
1 on questions. I think counsel on both sides can ask questions based on
2 what they believe the evidence is that they want to put to the witness.
3 I don't believe there's anything about, as stated by Mr. Meek, my
4 friend, that some documents have to be tendered about that other than the
5 fact that it is in the witness statements that the Defence has had for a
6 very long time.
7 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Meek, I think there has to be an end to this
9 MR. MEEK: Mr. President, I agree there must be an end. I would
10 just simply say that what my learned colleague says is true, that the
11 Prosecutor gave us voluminous documents about everything spanning a time
12 period of numerous events. But just because he gave us some documents
13 doesn't mean that we would be prepared to cross-examine, because we would
14 have no knowledge that the questions would be put to any witnesses about
15 events that were not alleged in the indictment. And that's our point.
16 It's improper, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE LIU: Did you get the statement of this witness before this
19 MR. MEEK: Yes, we had the statement of this witness before this
21 JUDGE LIU: I think that it is all in the documents that the
22 Prosecutor mentioned concerning these very incidents.
23 MR. MEEK: Yes, Your Honour. The documents that this Prosecutor
24 mentions are not only the 17 binders which have been tendered. There are
25 many more documents than what we have.
1 For example, we have many witness statements that may discuss
2 things that happened in 1991 or in 1995 or in 1994, but that doesn't mean
3 just because we have a witness statement that talks about an event that is
4 not contained in our indictment, that we are going to track down every
5 document that goes to that point because it was not alleged in the
6 indictment. It is not fair to allege certain events in the indictment
7 against our client and then come in to court and have witnesses testify
8 about facts that are not included in the indictment and which we did not
9 prepare for. And that is my objection. Thank you.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, is there any relevance in this witness's
12 statement concerned with this matter?
13 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, and I will just simply say it
14 again. One of the issues in this case that the Defence has not agreed to,
15 and we've asked them to make certain agreements and admit certain facts a
16 number of times --
17 JUDGE CLARK: Sorry, Mr. Scott. Before you go into that, just two
18 simple things and then we'll have a debate that may not be necessary. I
19 think you misunderstood the learned President. The point Mr. Meek is
20 making and the Trial Chamber is making: Is there reference to this
21 incident which you describe in Prozor at the end of 1994 in this witness's
23 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. That's where all this information
24 comes from.
25 JUDGE CLARK: That's what we're concerned with.
1 MR. SCOTT: Yes.
2 JUDGE CLARK: And if we accept and Mr. Meek accepts that reference
3 to it is in this witness's statement, then we'd ask you to address us on
4 its relevance. Thank you.
5 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Judge Clark. I appreciate that
6 assistance. It is in the statement. Your Honour, just to be clear, this
7 witness has provided three witness statements. They've all been provided
8 to the Defence, as I indicated, some time ago. Virtually everything that
9 I put to this witness in the last two days, as I'm sure the Chamber -- I
10 think the Chamber will understand, are based on the statements that he
11 gave, including this incident at Prozor, and Gornji Vakuf and many
13 In response to the second question, Judge Clark: The relevance of
14 it again is that the Defence have put in issue the superior authority and
15 command responsibility of, in this case, Tuta. Now, we are going to put
16 on a lot of evidence -- we're going to try -- we're going to try to tender
17 a lot of evidence to prove his command responsibility for actions
18 committed by the Convicts' Batallion and his subordinates, for which it is
19 and will be the Prosecutor's position that he should be held responsible
20 under Article 7(3) of the Statute as superior responsibility. We have
21 tendered, through this witness, a number of pieces of evidence of what we
22 would submit clearly demonstrates Tuta's extensive command and control
23 over the Convicts' Battalion, and a number of incidents, some specifically
24 named in the indictment, others not specifically named in the indictment.
25 Again, so that there is no misunderstanding or lest the
1 Prosecution be accused of being sneaky in some way, this one is not in the
2 indictment. It's not in the indictment, but it is an incident covered by
3 the time period in this case, which again goes to the fact that Tuta
4 commanded this unit in the field, that he gave orders. That's relevance
5 number 1. Relevance number 2: That there were elements of the army of
6 the Republic of Croatia engaged in this same action. It goes to the issue
7 of the existence of international armed conflict, which is directly
8 relevant to proving the charges of grave breach of the Geneva
9 Conventions. So it's relevant in both those ways.
10 JUDGE LIU: After hearing the arguments put forward by both sides,
11 this Chamber believes that this issue is relevant in the indictment.
12 Firstly, it's concerned with the command responsibilities and, second,
13 that is the international armed conflict which we would like to hear. So
14 long as the Defence counsel has already received the statement of this
15 witness. The objection from Mr. Meek is overruled.
16 You may proceed, Mr. Scott.
17 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
18 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, please listen to my questions, because I'm going to
19 ask you only very specific things about this action.
20 First of all, you do recall, do you not, the Convicts' Battalion
21 being deployed in the area of Prozor and Gornji Vakuf in late 1993; is
22 that correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And who was in charge -- who gave the briefing and gave the orders
25 to deploy?
1 A. The order came from Tuta.
2 Q. And who was in command of that action?
3 A. I do not know who had the supreme command. It was in the
4 surroundings of Vakuf, and it was not only us but there were other units
5 also present.
6 Q. Well, I appreciate that assist. And over all those units - and I
7 don't mean who was somewhere else, someone that was in Mostar, someone
8 that was in Zagreb - who in the field had command over this group of units
9 engaged on the HVO side in that action?
10 A. All units who had come down from the Siroki Brijeg and Mostar area
11 were under the command of Tuta.
12 Q. And do you recall, during that action, whether there were military
13 components from another army who were also present at that time?
14 A. There were units from the HV from Croatia present.
15 Q. Do you recall the names of any of those units?
16 A. I only remember that the Tiger Brigades were there - they were the
17 most known ones - and the units from the area of Prozor. But they were
18 under a different command. That was a former commander of the Legion who
19 was in the power of command.
20 Q. Well, just so the record is clear, who was that for that
21 particular unit?
22 A. I would not know under whose command they were. Some of them even
23 acted independently.
24 Q. Very well. Of the units that you have told us about in the last
25 two days, Mr. Mrachacz, did you ever hear of a unit called the "Vinko
1 Skrobo ATG"?
2 A. Yes, I've heard of that name and of this unit.
3 Q. And do you know who the commander of that unit was?
4 A. No, I don't know.
5 Q. And do you know whether that unit was part of the Convicts'
7 A. This is beyond my knowledge. These units changed permanently and
8 they changed their names. Therefore, I wouldn't know.
9 Q. Did you ever know an ATJ - excuse me - an ATJ -- sorry, Your
10 Honours -- an ATG named "Mrmak"?
11 A. No, I wouldn't know.
12 Q. Very well.
13 A. That's entirely not known to me.
14 Q. Mrmak, that's what -- okay. I just wanted to be clear which
15 question you were then further responding to. Mr. Mrachacz, you told us
16 yesterday that there were two rules or orders that Tuta had given in
17 connection with military discipline. I told you the second one we would
18 come back to. I believe you said - and I'm sure you'll correct me and I'm
19 sure counsel will correct me if I'm wrong - that the second rule was that
20 if someone wanted to leave the Kaznjenicka Bojna and join the Muslim side,
21 that they should be killed. Do you recall that?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. Who gave that order or stated that rule?
24 A. This order came from Tuta and was related mostly to foreigners,
25 because none of the Croats were to desert to the Muslim units, the reason
1 being that by the end of '92, five British changed sides and to change to
2 the Muslim units which were fighting against the Croat units.
3 Q. Did you ever hear of a time when Tuta himself was engaged in
4 executing any prisoners?
5 A. No, I don't know anything about it.
6 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'm going to ask one other question
7 about that. Again, I'm being very clear about what I'm doing to see if it
8 prompts his memory. If it doesn't, then that's the last question I will
9 ask about it.
10 Q. You don't recall any incident in front of or near the Ministry of
11 Defence in Mostar, where two prisoners were killed?
12 A. I know where you are driving at, but I know this matter only from
13 hearsay. And this is why I said just now that I do not know anything
14 about it myself, because I do not pay any attention to hearsay. I haven't
15 seen it myself. And the source who has told me was a gentleman called
16 "Simang," and I do not know whether he told me the correct thing.
17 Q. Very well, then. And in fact that was my only other question
18 was: What you're saying is you heard this from someone named "Simang"?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. Did you know another German mercenary member of the Convicts'
21 Battalion named - and I'll probably say this wrong - "Braunreuter"?
22 THE INTERPRETER: We did not understand the name.
23 MR. SCOTT: Let me spell it, and perhaps you can help me.
25 THE INTERPRETER: It's not spelled out here. B-R-U-A?
1 MR. SCOTT: B-R-A-U-N-R-E-U-T-E-R.
2 A. Yes, "Braunreuter," that's correct.
3 MR. SCOTT:
4 Q. Who is he? Just explain to the Chamber, by way of background, who
5 was this person?
6 A. Braunreuter was an Austrian, a member of our unit, and he was also
7 accommodated in the hotel.
8 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'm going to ask the Chamber's
9 indulgence. I'm about to finish, but I think if we launch into an area
10 now, it will undoubtedly not be completed before the break, and it's
11 something that I would ask not to have to interrupt in the middle of, if I
12 could, please.
13 JUDGE LIU: So do you suggest that we break right now?
14 MR. SCOTT: Please.
15 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. So we will adjourn until 11.30.
16 --- Recess taken at 10.57 a.m.
17 --- On resuming at 11.39 a.m.
18 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, before you start, the registrar has
19 something to tell us about arrangements of the trials for the first week
20 of October.
21 THE REGISTRAR: There has been a lot of speculation and questions
22 about the calendar for the first week of October, so I would just like to
23 confirm that there will be no hearings for the first week of October, and
24 we resume the following week, which is, I believe, the 8th. Let me just
25 check to make sure.
1 The 1st through the 5th, we are not in session, and that's because
2 other hearings have been scheduled, and there's other matters, court
3 maintenance and that sort of thing.
4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, while we are on that topic now, just
5 two things to confirm: Just so there's no uncertainty about that, based
6 on that, please understand the Prosecution, of course, will not arrange,
7 then, for witnesses to be travelling that week. So we will take that as a
8 done deal.
9 Mr. President, secondly, on the week of the 8th, as long as we're
10 on scheduling, we're not objecting to it necessarily, but just by
11 clarification, we are down on the 8th and 9th of October in Courtroom III
12 in what some have called the afternoon or evening session from 2.15 p.m.
13 to 7.00 in the evening. Is that also correct? It doesn't have to be
14 answered on the spot, but it would also be helpful to know that at some
16 JUDGE LIU: Maybe the registrar could give us a proper answer on
17 this issue. I am also wondering about this question.
18 THE REGISTRAR: I'm looking at the most recent calendar, which is
19 the 14th of September. And I see hearings scheduled on Monday,
20 October 8th in Courtroom III, from 9:30 to 4.00 for Monday and Tuesday,
21 and then in Courtroom I Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday, which is the
22 10th, and 11th, and 12th of October, 9.30 to 4.00. And then, of course,
23 on Fridays, you know we adjourn at 1.00.
24 JUDGE LIU: Is that clear?
25 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. Thank you very much.
1 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed with this witness.
2 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
3 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, before the break, I asked you about this other
4 mercenary or member of the KB, Convicts' Battalion, named Braunreuter.
5 Did you have a conversation with this man about a person he had killed?
6 A. Yes, I had.
7 Q. And can you tell the Chamber, please, who did he kill and why, if
8 you know?
9 A. What I know is that in Hotel Park, there were rumours that
10 Mr. Braunreuter, together with another French comrade, had killed -- had
11 shot dead a 50-year-old Frenchman, together with another person. But
12 since nothing was to be heard about that in town, I talked to a local and
13 went to the place where we found this dead Frenchman. And whereupon that,
14 I went to Tuta, told him about it, and he said to me that I should keep my
15 fingers out of it. It was none of my business.
16 So that is -- that was all for me, with the exception that I made
17 sure that the corpse was removed because the corpse was lying in the
18 vicinity of a church and a school.
19 Q. Do you know what this killed Frenchman -- and perhaps this other
20 person that was also killed -- do you know what they were doing in Siroki
21 Brijeg around that time or what their role was?
22 A. No. At that time, the French had their own unit, and they had
23 their own commander, and they were commanded by a person who spoke French.
24 Q. Well, they had their own unit where, of what?
25 A. They were subordinate to our unit, but they had their own
1 commander. It was a subunit commander.
2 Q. You're saying, if I understand you, sir, this was another subunit
3 of the Kaznjenicka Bojna?
4 A. No, they were part and parcel of the unit, but they used to have
5 their own commander who had come from the former Croat region with them.
6 Q. All right. Well, the last thing on that point, just to try to be
7 as clear as possible: Are you telling us that just as there were a group
8 of German mercenaries, if you will, there were also a group of French
9 members of the Convicts' Battalion?
10 A. You cannot say exactly like that. This group came as a close
11 group from Croatia, from the -- from Slovenia, where they had operated,
12 and they came down to Herzegovina. And in this group, there were several
13 Frenchmen, four or five of them, and one German, and this group was then
14 distributed to the entire unit. They were not an independent mercenary
16 Q. All right. But they were fighting on the side of the HVO, I take
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. And you're saying just now - and again I'm only trying to make the
20 record as clear as possible - they were disbursed through the Convicts'
21 Battalion, so they were not a unit, as such?
22 A. They were no longer a unit. They were distributed to the various
23 areas, depending on what knowledge they had about weaponry.
24 Q. All right. Now, do you know whether this French person who was
25 killed, was he among this group of Frenchmen?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Yes, he had come with this group. But what else has happened or
2 so, I wouldn't know.
3 Q. Did Mr. Braunreuter tell you on whose order or direction he had
4 killed this Frenchman?
5 A. No, he didn't let me know about it.
6 Q. How long had the corpse in fact been laying near the church in
7 Siroki Brijeg?
8 A. That could have been approximately one week, because the smell was
9 already very sharp.
10 Q. And approximately how long was it between your first hearing about
11 this from Braunreuter to the time that you told us that you went to Tuta
12 about it?
13 A. After it turned out that it was true, that a corpse was lying
14 there, I addressed him immediately.
15 Q. And do you recall, sir, that he said anything to you other than to
16 essentially keep your nose out of it?
17 A. Yes, that was the only thing he says, just, "Keep your fingers out
18 of it. This is none of your business."
19 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, the reason that you are serving a prison sentence in
20 the country where you're serving that sentence at this time, that was in
21 connection with killing two men in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1993; is that
23 A. No, that's not correct. I shot dead only one man, and he was a
25 Q. Forgive me. Did you in fact shoot and kill this man that you just
1 described as a deserter?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. And can you tell the Chamber, on whose orders did you shoot this
5 A. I had to -- I have to rely here on the command given -- on the
6 order given by Tuta, which was: When you have a deserter in front of you,
7 you've got to shoot him.
8 Q. And can you tell us anything more about exactly what Tuta told you
9 to do in connection with this man?
10 A. He himself didn't say anything to myself because I didn't meet him
11 on that day. What was decisive for me was the standing order that when
12 there are deserters on their way to leave our unit, they are to be shot.
13 Q. And did anyone else participate in this killing with you?
14 A. Yes, Mr. Simang was together there with me.
15 Q. What was the name of the man who was killed?
16 A. I wouldn't know any more.
17 MR. SCOTT: If I could just have a moment, Mr. President.
18 [Prosecution counsel confer]
19 MR. SCOTT:
20 Q. In reference to both the Frenchman who was killed that you told us
21 about a few minutes ago and the killing of this man, the man that you and
22 Simang killed, to your knowledge was any member of the Convicts' Battalion
23 disciplined or punished for either of those individuals being killed?
24 A. No, there's nothing known to me.
25 Q. Were you ever disciplined or punished by Tuta for killing the man
1 you killed?
2 A. No.
3 MR. SCOTT: We have no further questions, Mr. President.
4 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. Any cross-examinations?
5 Mr. Seric. Sorry, Mr. Krsnik. I'm sorry about that.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we're just trying to
7 serve the rules, when one lawyer gets up on his feet to object, that he is
8 the one who is to continue. But when it comes to the cross-examination,
9 we shuffle things around.
10 Cross-examined by Mr. Krsnik:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Witness. My name is Kresimir
12 Krsnik. I represent Mr. Mladen Naletilic. I'm going to ask you a number
13 of questions, and I'm going to try to frame them in such a way that we
14 receive very short answers from you. I am going to base them on what you
15 personally have experienced and seen, in other words, your own personal
16 experience, knowledge.
17 So let me start with the first question. The famous statement of
18 17 February, 1998, I see at the top that your Defence counsel was
19 present. He was needed because you were faced with some accusations?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Were these accusations --
22 MR. KRSNIK: Can we please go in the private session, because we
23 happen to know the list of upcoming witnesses, and I want to avoid my
24 learned colleagues objecting, and I don't know what that witness's
25 protective measures are going to be. So for these two questions, can we
1 go into private session.
2 JUDGE LIU: Okay, we'll go to the private session.
3 [Private session]
12 Page 2782 redacted, private session.
12 Page 2783 redacted, private session.
4 [Open session]
5 JUDGE LIU: We are now in the open session.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Will you be so kind and tell me, did someone from among your
8 fellow German co-combatants give any statements to German Television and
9 receive payment for that?
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Were those statements false or were they self-promoting, in terms
12 of people praise their own contribution, and you disagreed with it because
13 you called him up on that?
14 A. Yes, that's correct. He was to give an interview in Berlin in a
15 TV station called "SAT-1," but we insisted that he will bring along a
16 complete cassette where everything had been recorded with all the previous
17 and the aftermath discussions. And from this, it could be seen that he
18 placed this person in the foreground, which led to controversies amongst
20 Q. After this broadcast, the German authorities launched some
21 investigations, didn't they?
22 A. Yes, I was told that it happened and started exactly like that.
23 Q. The person in question, is that the same question that we referred
24 to during the private session?
25 A. Yeah, that's Mr. Falk Simang.
1 Q. This is a person who was given to lies and fabrications?
2 A. When we talk about this report, yes.
3 Q. This person gave a number of false statements to the German
4 police; is that correct?
5 A. I do not know which statements he had made there. I wouldn't be
6 able to give you any information about that.
7 Q. I was referring to the ones that were read out during your trial.
8 A. I can only say the following: Shortly before the trial came to
9 Germany, I came to Germany and I had no real insight in the statements
10 made by Mr. Simang.
11 Q. And they were not read during your joint trial?
12 A. Well, Mr. Simang refused to make statements on that.
13 Q. And your lawyers did not alert you to those?
14 A. Well, this was just a show trial there, this case, and things
15 which I mentioned, for example, that was a regular unit, that was just --
16 I was just blamed of making some protective allegations from my side, and
17 the other statements were rejected.
18 Q. I am not going into the merits of the sentence; I was just going
19 to ask you, because in the materials that I received from this trial, this
20 is what is stated, his statements that he gave to the German police. That
21 is the basis of my question. And that is because in his statement, that
22 is, his statement was part of the basis for the sentence against you,
23 which is life imprisonment.
24 A. Well, I have not received anything of his statement except for
25 those parts which concerned me.
1 Q. Is it correct that you received a life sentence?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. And you said that this was a show trial or that you were framed in
4 some way?
5 A. It had -- one could have the impression. I had not seen any
6 lawyer, for example, until three weeks before the trial started.
7 Q. Can you tell me, did the German police come to Croatia and did an
8 interview there?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Was Mr. Tuta also there with you?
11 A. Yes, he was present.
12 Q. Did he tell you that you had to surrender to the German
13 authorities or that you would be tried in Croatia or Bosnia?
14 A. Tuta had made an application to the German authorities: If they
15 follow up these investigations, they should make an application with the
16 Mostar Ministry of Defence, and they would deal with that there. But I
17 didn't make this application.
18 As time went by, the pressure from the German authorities was
19 becoming bigger and bigger. Then I had a conversation with Tuta, and he
20 told me in this situation, it would be better if I were to give in myself
21 to the authorities; that because of the situation, the man in question was
22 a deserter, that the sentence could not be more than two or three, or
23 three or four years. And that was then after this conversation that I
24 gave myself in to the German authorities.
25 Q. So you confirm the fact that Tuta was one of the key persons, key
1 figures, in your surrendering to the German authorities, because you did
2 that of your own free will, because you eventually went there?
3 A. Yes, that's correct. That is correct.
4 Q. Next question: When you're suspected of such serious crimes, who
5 else can take such decisions except for a Court?
6 A. I couldn't comment on that.
7 Q. Perhaps my question was not clear. What I really wanted to ask
8 is, and in light of the response you gave to my learned friend, could Tuta
9 at all punish such crimes when there is suspicion of such crime, and if --
10 it's a different situation if somebody had confessed. But is this the
11 type of crime that he could have decided on, or was this a matter for the
12 police and judiciary?
13 A. Normally, the judiciary.
14 Q. Can you now say whether you have any knowledge about the man, the
15 Frenchman who was found dead? Do you have any personal knowledge whether
16 there was any investigation conducted on this and whether there were any
17 court proceedings launched against anyone in that regard?
18 A. No, nothing is known to me.
19 Q. Mr. Mrachacz, can you now please tell me, who was present when you
20 gave your statement on the 17th of February and the statement that we're
21 discussing here? And how did this -- how was this interview conducted?
22 Let me ask you first this: Did you sign the English version of
23 the statement?
24 A. I've only signed the English version.
25 Q. This English version was translated to you into German, and that's
1 when you signed it?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. Are you 100 percent sure that everything that you actually said
4 was translated in such manner into English?
5 A. It happened that during translations, only the content was
7 Q. And can you tell me whether some of the questions that were asked
8 of you were made into the text, and then the interpreter incorporated them
9 into your answers?
10 A. No, not really.
11 Q. Can we conclude that everything that you said in German -- that
12 everything that you said in German was directly translated into English
13 and put in the record?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Did you ever take the English version and gave it to your own
16 translator to check on the quality of translation?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Can we conclude that to date, you have not conducted -- carried
19 out a control of your statement in English?
20 A. I relied on what was translated back to me into German. That
21 means I relied on the translation of all the pages which were translated
22 back into German to me.
23 Q. Do the German and English languages have the same structure and
24 same rules?
25 A. I can give you no clue -- I have no clue, as far as this is
1 concerned, because I do not know any English.
2 Q. Now, we have Croatian names, and then you have them translated
3 into German, and then they are translated on into English. Can you tell
4 me how you managed all that?
5 A. Well, as far as the Croatian names are concerned, I of course
6 pronounced them. But whether they have been correctly transliterated or
7 correctly written, that's of course a matter I would not know.
8 Q. The Defence has noticed a number of these mistakes. I'm just
9 going to give you one example. The general in Vrgorac whom you mentioned,
10 you said that his name was "Daidza"?
11 A. Yes, that's correct.
12 Q. You see, in all your statements that you had given to the
13 Prosecution investigators, and in a transcript that is all compiled here,
14 had it not been for the Defence and its clarification of the issue, this
15 person would probably have gone down in history as "Deitscher." And were
16 the Defence not concerned about the truth of the facts here, you would
17 probably have gone on believing that you have met with a person who in
18 fact doesn't exist, a Croatian general who simply does not exist.
19 Mr. Mrachacz, is it clear to you now why I ask you this question?
20 Because in the transcript of your statement with this Tribunal, it states
21 that you went and saw a General Deitscher.
22 A. Yes, I only know that his name was "Deitscher," at least he was
23 called like that; an elderly gentleman, he was more than 70 years old, and
24 he was the commander of that unit.
25 Q. Of course. And in fact his name is "Daidza" or his nickname is
1 "Daidza," D-A-I-D-Z-A. My question to you is: Can you say that the
2 statements that you have given in English are 100 per cent correct, or are
3 they correct at all?
4 A. Well, as I said, I can't read the translation into English and I
5 do not know in which way it is translated, so I have to rely on -- the way
6 it is written is exactly as I have said.
7 Q. I think we have elucidated the matter enough. Can you please tell
8 me now, while we're at it, we're discussing Mr. Daidza, was he a Muslim;
9 that is, was he a Croat of Muslim faith, or was he an ethnic Bosniak?
10 A. I would say he belonged to the Muslim faith, but I could not say
12 Q. Can you tell me about that unit of which he was the commander,
13 this general, and to which you belonged, according to your statement? Did
14 it train Muslims, did it arm Muslims and, together with them, assisted
15 them in 1992 in the war against the Serbs?
16 A. I can say the following on that: This unit was composed 50
17 per cent of Croats and 50 per cent of Bosniaks. There was a second
18 commander, but I would not know this person's name. And when struggling
19 in the -- when fighting in the barracks at Capljina, mostly Croats were
20 used and were in combat and not Muslims. And therefore there was a mighty
21 fight between the two commanders, between Deitscher and the commander of
22 the Croats, so that this unit then separated. The one went to the Bosnian
23 area, and the unit of the Croats then moved to the direction, if I'm not
24 mistaken, between Ljubuski -- anywhere around in the area around
25 Ljubuski. That was a holiday camp which they then used as their bases.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. General Daidza was a general of the Croatian army - and I'm
2 referring now to the State of Croatia - and the unit you just referred to
3 was a unit of the Croatian army?
4 A. Yes, that's correct.
5 Q. And in the war against the Serbs, it was quite natural that the
6 Croatian army would assist Muslims in training, arming, and that they
7 would also die for the cause of liberating this area?
8 A. Well, they had weapons, and they were members of the army.
9 Q. Excuse me. My question did not enter in the record in its
10 entirety. The unit that you referred to, it was quite natural that it
11 fought against the Serbs, and that the Croats would die for the liberation
12 of the ethnic areas inhabited by Muslims to liberate them from the Serb
14 A. Yes. One can answer with yes.
15 Q. Can you now please tell me, if you can, do you know that there was
16 also an agreement reached between the Muslims and Croats about this at the
17 highest state level because at that time, the State of Bosnia did not yet
19 A. Whether there had been agreements, I couldn't tell -- I wouldn't
20 be not in the know about it at that time.
21 Q. Thank you. I am just trying to verify. Perhaps you know, even
22 though in the beginning I advised you that my questions to you would be
23 about your personal, first-hand knowledge rather than something that you
24 know second- or third-hand.
25 Can you tell me, to your knowledge - and we're, again, using this
1 unit because you knew something about that - did the Croatian State arm
2 equally the Croats and the Muslims and train them equally, fed them
3 equally, armed them equally, and that Muslims from different parts of
4 Bosnia asked for assistance on a daily basis?
5 And I'm talking about the aggression of 1992.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
7 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, if I can just inquire, is this witness
8 being asked about Convicts' Battalion, or are these just general,
9 historical matters? I think some foundation would have to be laid if he's
10 voicing opinions about matters beyond the scope of the Convicts' Battalion
11 of which he was a member.
12 JUDGE LIU: I think that that's a reasonable question. Maybe you
13 could clear it up.
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Mr. President, that
15 question would be reasonable if I did not know the indictment and if I had
16 not heard my learned colleague's questions, which went on for over five
17 hours. The question was whether there were taking off HV patches, putting
18 on HVO patches, so they are talking about the Croatian aggression. And my
19 colleague should know at least about the Split agreements. So I am within
20 the ambit of the questions, as my learned friend.
21 Unfortunately, I have a good memory and remember everything that
22 he said, and I know the indictment by heart. And if the Croatian army has
23 carried out an aggression, let's see what kind of aggression that was.
24 Let's ask this witness about it.
25 JUDGE LIU: I think the question is very simple: Is this witness
1 being asked about Convicts' Battalion, or are these just general,
2 historical matters? You have to give some guidance on this issue.
3 And Mr. Scott.
4 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, just what you said. I'm sorry.
5 I'm not questioning -- I have no comments on counsel's memory. But if the
6 question is -- it's not what I said or what's at issue in the indictment.
7 This witness can't talk about every issue in the indictment and what the
8 agreements may have been between Tudjman and somebody else. He was a
9 member of the Convicts' Battalion.
10 I completely agree that counsel is fully entitled to ask him
11 questions about that and the practices in that battalion. Were there
12 Muslims members in that unit? Were they treated fairly? He can ask about
13 those things if it's within his knowledge. But these questions are just
14 simply questions about the war. It could be anywhere in the former
15 Yugoslavia. I don't think it's a fair question.
16 JUDGE LIU: Let's just see where Defence counsel is going to lead
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Prosecutor, if I
19 follow it correctly, asked questions about 1992 for about two-and-a-half
20 hours. That's historical background, and the witness answered to best of
21 his knowledge. The Defence is doing nothing different.
22 Remember, I just asked him a moment ago, "if you know," because if
23 I understand it correctly, the gentleman had spent a significant period of
24 time in Croatia. And I am just relying on the part of examination in
25 chief that the Prosecution has conducted. So General Daidza, Vrgorac,
1 Croatian Army, all this was there. And we are trying to also contribute
2 to the full picture of this, because it would not be fair if the Trial
3 Chamber only relied on the picture produced by the Prosecution.
4 JUDGE LIU: I have already given you the leeway to continue. You
5 just pursue that question to make things more clear. Thank you.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Excuse me, Your Honour. I
7 apologise. I thought that I was going to still respond to the
9 Q. We left off at the last question where we corrected the
10 transcript. And let me sort of abbreviate the question.
11 You then gave me the answer in the affirmative, and then I asked
12 you whether there was equal treatment, equal arming during 1992 and during
13 the fighting against the Serbs.
14 A. Yes, the units had the same payment, the same weaponry, the same
16 Q. You lived in Croatia at that time. Did you personally see Muslim
17 refugees who were as a result of the Serb aggression?
18 A. Yes, more than enough. The whole military camp near to Split,
19 Baska Voda, was full with Muslim refugees.
20 Q. The Croatian State cared for them. Is that correct?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. Can you now please answer this: When you talked about your trip
23 to Ljubuski, was this in 1992?
24 A. Yes, that was early '92.
25 Q. Do you know when UNPROFOR appeared in Croatia, in what year?
1 A. No, I couldn't tell you.
2 Q. Can you now please tell me, the General Daidza's unit was named
3 "Tomislav" or "King Tomislav," and it has nothing to do with the town
4 called Tomislavgrad. Is that correct?
5 A. Yes, that's correct. Tomislav is due to the first Croatian king,
6 and the town of Tomislavgrad has nothing to do with that.
7 Q. And while you were in General Daidza's unit, you never went to the
8 town called Tomislavgrad, and this town is in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is that
10 A. Yes, that's correct.
11 Q. Can you now please tell me, in order to be able to tell this Trial
12 Chamber what "HOS" stands for, can you say that?
13 A. HOS is the military wing of the Croatian party HSP.
14 Q. Sorry, Witness, but the Trial Chamber does not know what "HSP"
15 is. It is "Croatian Party of Rights." Let me help you on this.
16 A. I can't exactly translate what it -- what the exact translation
17 is. But at any rate, it is a right-wing party.
18 Q. And HOS was its military wing?
19 A. Yes, that's correct.
20 Q. Now, in that period, 1991 and 1992, did an army exist at all in
21 Croatia by the name of "Croatian army" in 1991, even in 1992?
22 A. There was a Croatian army.
23 Q. Perhaps I did not ask my question properly. Was it in the process
24 of establishment? Before '91, did the Croatian army exist? I thought
25 perhaps we could just go straight to that question.
1 A. Whether that was before 1991, I wouldn't know. What I understand
2 is that at that time, one could not speak of a well-formed army as you
3 would usually have in Europe. At that time, it was just a structurisation
4 that several units of combat units were being tried to be put together.
5 But one could not speak about a structurised army.
6 Q. Were there other military organisations like HOS, if you know?
7 A. No, I wouldn't know about anything else.
8 Q. For instance, let me try to clarify it for you. If somebody had a
9 lot of money and was a foreign donor from the Croatian emigration or from
10 Croatia itself, could they establish their own unit, provided they were
11 able to equip it and arm it?
12 A. If you had enough financial means and if you had the means to
13 equip them with weaponry, yes.
14 Q. Usually such a person would also become a commander of such unit;
15 do you know that?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did something similar also take place in Bosnia and Herzegovina in
18 1992 in the war against the Serbs?
19 A. Whether people formed units privately is the thing I wouldn't
21 Q. In the light of your military experience, can you tell me -- and
22 in the light of these private units, if we can call them that, but in the
23 light of their desire to defend themselves against the Serb aggression,
24 who was in the position to control them at all?
25 A. If the units operated independently, they were then under the
1 command of the crisis headquarters which were established or any other
2 headquarters. One could not say at that moment. Only at a later stage
3 they were structurised, and by that time they just could not operate --
4 they could not work that in such an operative manner.
5 Q. And crisis staffs were established for protection of civilian
6 population and for military self-organisation. They mostly consisted of
7 civilians without any military experience; is that correct?
8 A. Whether they were only civilians, I do not know, because people
9 did not walk about in uniforms, so you couldn't say is the person a
10 civilian or military.
11 Q. Every person who bought a uniform for his own money, or acquired a
12 Kalashnikov or any other type of weapon for his own money, could join any
13 unit, because at that time these units mostly consisted or almost
14 exclusively consisted of volunteers; is that correct?
15 A. Yeah, I would say that that's correct.
16 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge that in Croatia and in
17 Herzegovina, people did arm themselves?
18 A. No, nothing is known to me about that.
19 Q. Can you tell me this: In Croatia during 1992, the HOS became part
20 of the HV, but with significant difficulties; is that correct?
21 A. Yeah, I've heard of that. There was also an explosive attack at
22 the HOS headquarters in Zagreb, near the railway station.
23 Q. All these were attempts to create some kind of an army; was that
24 the objective?
25 A. I would not know, because I had been there only for a very short
1 period, three to four weeks or so altogether.
2 Q. Witness, during that period when you were in Zagreb, did the head
3 of that party, because he was unwilling to subordinate to the Croatian
4 army and was actually opposed to the creation of the Croatian army, ended
5 up in prison and was investigated, and you were his bodyguard or driver -
6 I'm not exactly sure - but you were in the entourage of Mr. Paraga?
7 A. Well, nothing was known to us at that time.
8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you. And again as I advised
9 you in the beginning, I only want to know what you know personally.
10 We have ten minutes left, and I would like to use the time to show
11 the witness a photograph. And I would like cooperation from the Registry
12 and Mr. Usher, if the following exhibit can be placed on the ELMO. Just a
13 moment, Your Honours, if you will indulge me. Exhibit P11, page 17. It's
14 a photograph of the Heliodrom.
15 Q. Witness, you have the photograph in front of you. Can you
16 recognise what is it?
17 A. Yes; that's the Heliodrom.
18 Q. Is this a complete picture of it? Can all structures be seen, or
19 are there some missing?
20 A. No, it's only part of it. It's the building where the ATG were
21 housed. That's the light buildings. And the building in the background,
22 which is also of a light colour, that is where the former training rooms
23 which were not used in my days there, the rooms for training people.
24 Q. Can you tell me, can you see in this picture where you, yourself,
25 were billeted? You said that you were at the Heliodrom. And what period
1 of time was it when you were there?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Mr. Usher has a pointer, so you can use that.
4 A. It was in this building.
5 Q. For the record, could you please describe it.
6 A. What you mean, the building, to describe the building?
7 Q. Yes. For the record, Witness, you see, we only have a picture
8 here. It's an image, and we need words.
9 A. It is a three-storey building that was meant for housings of
10 officers or pilots. That was also usually rooms for one person. They
11 were very well preserved. And that is because of this well preservation,
12 this good preservation, that our units moved in.
13 JUDGE LIU: What is the location of the building in this picture?
14 A. The building is at the -- towards the end of the complex, just
15 short of the hangars and the other buildings which follow in the further
16 direction, in the direction further on.
17 MR. KRSNIK:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Can you tell me the colour, and then the shape,
19 what is it, elongated; is the roof different colour than the walls? And
20 looking from left to right, is it the first, second, third building?
21 These are some of the things I'm asking you to describe.
22 A. From this perspective, it's the building with the white roof on
23 the right-hand side. Then there is a free area and something like a
24 sports ground. And the building I'm describing is the building where
25 we were accommodated.
1 Q. I think that is sufficient to be clear on which building it is.
2 I'm going to try to give you a separate copy in due course, which
3 you can then mark. I do not want to put markings on the Prosecutor's
4 copy, but now we've at least established what building that was.
5 In this area -- and I don't know whether we can see it in this
6 photograph. Perhaps on Monday, we can show you some other photographs.
7 There were several HVO units, several different HVO units that were
8 billeted there; is that correct, throughout the Heliodrom? Is that
10 A. On the entire Heliodrom, there were several units. But in this
11 building completely, there was only one unit of ours.
12 Q. Very well. I understand that. But I'm going a bit wider. There
13 were several units at the Heliodrom. It is clear about this building
14 that -- I think we have cleared up.
15 A. Yes, there were several units there.
16 Q. Were recruits also brought there? Was there any training
17 conducted there, and were the home guards also there?
18 A. Training was also conducted there.
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. I can't see well
20 from this vantage point, but I believe it is 1.00, and I think that I have
21 concluded with this one area of questioning. And I would then continue on
22 Monday, if it's convenient.
23 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. There's two things I want to mention:
24 First, Witness, I have to warn you, as I do with all the witnesses, please
25 do not speak to anybody about your evidence until your testimony has been
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 completed, and do not let anybody speak to you about it.
2 THE WITNESS: It's understood.
3 JUDGE LIU: Thank you. And there are some procedure matters that
4 will be announced by the registrar.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Just to inform everyone, the Vasiljevic case will
6 be sitting in here next, so please take out all of your belongings. Thank
8 JUDGE LIU: We'll adjourn until 9.30 Monday morning.
9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
10 12.59 p.m., to be reconvened on
11 Monday, the 24th day of September, 2001,
12 at 9.30 a.m.