1 Monday, 17 June 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
5 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
7 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.
8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Usher, could we have the witness, please?
9 [The witness entered court]
10 WITNESS: IVAN BAGARIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter].
12 JUDGE LIU: Good afternoon, Witness.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.
14 JUDGE LIU: Did you have a good rest during the weekend?
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, thank you for your interest.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
17 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. Your Honours.
18 Cross-examined by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
19 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
20 A. Good afternoon, sir.
21 MR. SCOTT: Could I ask the usher's assistance, please to return
22 to the witness where we left off on Friday with Exhibit P239.11?
23 Q. We were talking about that a bit, sir, and I think we got so far
24 as you said that in fact, if I understand you correctly, these reports
25 were not in fact regularly kept, for whatever reason, due to lack of
1 perhaps resources or the effort involved or what have you, but did I
2 understand you correctly on Friday that the type of regular reporting that
3 was contemplated in this document, from Mr. Stojic, on the 6th of
4 February, 1993, that that process was never, according to you, really
5 fully put into place?
6 A. Mr. President, can I kindly ask you to assist me when a question
7 is put in this way? Because I don't really know how to answer such a
8 question. The Prosecutor is trying to ask me as the old prophet
9 Propertius [phoen],"ibis, redibis, non, morieris in bello," "you shall go,
10 you shall return, you shall never perish in the war." Depending on where
11 the comma is I have to tell what the question is. I really don't
12 understand the Prosecutor because in one allegation, one allegation
13 contains several questions and several wrong allegations, and then he
14 says; is that correct? Is that the normal way the Court functions? And
15 finally, I would like to know what document, what exhibit, are we talking
16 about? Because I have a number of exhibits in front of me.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, maybe Mr. Scott, you could help the witness.
18 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir.
19 JUDGE LIU: And try to ask a simple question.
20 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir.
21 Q. Sir, I referred a few movements ago and perhaps there was some
22 confusion with the documents, I specifically referred your attention to
23 P239.11, which I believe is probably the first or second document in the
24 bundle that I think I see in front of you.
25 A. I don't know which document you're referring to, before they put
1 it in front of me.
2 Q. Do you have it now, sir?
3 A. Yes. This is 515095.
4 Q. Well, I'm not sure what number you're referring to, sir, I'm
5 referring to a document that has exhibit number on the first page,
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, good afternoon. Thank
9 you for giving me the floor. I would like to assist the Honourable
10 Court. Our Croatian copies do not contain any numbers but the Prosecution
11 numbers in the right, top corner. So this is 01515095. This is the
12 number that the witness has just read to us.
13 JUDGE LIU: I think the witness has already found that document.
14 THE WITNESS: Okay.
15 MR. SCOTT:
16 Q. Now, sir my question to you, forgive me if it was too complicated.
17 I thought it was rather straightforward. Did you tell us on Friday, that
18 despite Mr. Stojic's orders of the 6th of February, 1993, that a regular
19 reporting system on these matters was not in fact implemented?
20 A. No. This is not what I said. Can I please clarify?
21 Q. Please do.
22 A. This order refers to a department which, for a certain period of
23 time, engaged in the research of crimes committed over the civilian
24 population by primarily but also soldiers, those who were detained, and
25 then killed. I believe that this dates to 6th of -- I don't know which
1 month because I can't see very well. This is not the 6th of February. I
2 believe this was either 6th of July or 6 August. So this is a document
3 that originated after an event which took place in the already mentioned
4 Doljani, when the Muslim forces detained 27 or 37 soldiers, among whom
5 there were also ten civilians, and they were all killed. Then we asked
6 for a post mortem to take place of all the civilians who had been killed
7 after being tortured it. We wanted to have the confirmation that that
8 they had indeed been tortured. I already said that this department --
9 that the person in charge of that department was Dr. Brncic, and that
10 something indeed was being done with that regard but I never did -- never
11 did she publish her work on that topic, which doesn't mean that no crimes
12 involving the civilians and the soldiers of the Croatian Defence Council
13 took place. What I said that wasn't done was that she did not write a book
14 on that.
15 Q. Sir, none of those were my questions. I know you're anxious to
16 tell this Chamber about war crimes you believe were committed against the
17 Croats and you have my sympathy in that regard but that was not the
18 question I put to you, sir. Was this information in fact, as ordered in
19 the order of in Stojic, was that information in fact systematically
20 collected by the HVO?
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik?
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe it is not
23 appropriate it to allow the Prosecution to give us their presumptions, why
24 the witness is here. What is clear is that the witness is here to answer
25 the questions put to him. The Prosecution should not be allowed the
1 comments in the way he has just put them, and this is my objection.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think the question put by the Prosecution is
3 very simple. The question is a regular reporting system on those matters
4 was not in fact implemented. The witness has the choice to answer this
5 question, yes or no.
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I do not object to the question. I
7 do not object to the question. I object to the Prosecutor's comments. I
8 don't know whether you have that in the transcript. I believe you do have
9 it. The Prosecutor proposed his comments and the comment was, "You are
10 here to tell us all about the Croatian victims." This was not the
11 question. I object to the comments which I deem inappropriate. I heard
12 these comments loud and clear, and I never objected to the question.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, the Prosecution said that he has "his sympathy
14 in this regard. That was not the question I put to you." I don't think
15 he is improper in this regard.
16 Witness, you may answer the question put by the Prosecution.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll try, Your Honours. This order
18 refers to the units of the Croatian Defence Council in respect of their
19 respective areas of responsibility. The order meant that if a body was
20 found and that if there was suspicion that a crime had been committed
21 involving either a civilian or a soldier, a post mortem should be carried
22 out. I repeat, it doesn't say that here but I know this. This order was
23 issued in order to help this particular person to collect a certain number
24 of data. She is, I believe, a member of the association for victims or
25 human rights centres, with a view for her to publishing a book, and what I
1 said and I repeat, she never published that book. Last time when I said
2 that nothing was done, I didn't mean that post mortems were not done. If
3 you're asking me whether post mortems were done, then I can answer that
4 but the way the Prosecutor is asking me, I cannot answer simply yes or no,
5 because my answer would not be correct. It cannot be either yes or no.
6 MR. SCOTT:
7 Q. Sir, do you know, was this order, to your knowledge, since you
8 were the director of the health care sector or health services of the HVO,
9 was this only to collect war crime information concerning Croat victims or
10 was it also to collect information about Muslim civilian victims?
11 A. I have already said, this order was issued after an event that had
12 taken place in Doljani village. So that is when the need arose for such
13 an order to be issued. I know that this lady doctor wanted to author a
14 book about Croatian civilian victims of crimes. This does not mean that
15 this order --
16 MR. SCOTT: [Previous translation continues] ... I don't want to
17 spend our time talking about this book. It's about the fourth answer
18 we've now had about this book.
19 Q. Let me rephrase the question, sir: Did the HVO ever collect
20 information, make a systematic effort to collect information about the
21 killing of Muslim civilians and collect that information?
22 A. That, I don't know. This is not within my scope of authority, nor
23 I personally was involved in that. So I don't know. I don't have any
24 such information.
25 Q. So what you're telling the Chamber, sir, is that as the most
1 senior medical officer in the HVO, you have no knowledge of any systematic
2 effort by the HVO to collect -- to collect information on Muslim civilian
3 war crime victims?
4 A. I really sometimes wonder about what you're saying. You're
5 talking about somebody who was in charge of health care, whose task was to
6 organise that health care, for whom? For everybody and everywhere. This
7 is what we can talk about, and I can provide you with any possible answer
8 and I can, because I know the answers. Now you're asking me things that
9 have nothing whatsoever to do with me and you're asking me to say either
10 yes or no, but this was beyond my authority and I was not involved in
11 that, in the main medical headquarters, there was a department which was
12 in charge of the fallen members of the HVO. It could, of course, not look
13 after the fallen members of the Army of BH, because the opposition side
14 never sent us any information about their fallen soldiers. At that time,
15 we were the ones who collected such data because nobody before us
16 endeavoured to collect them. And we wanted to do that in order to monitor
17 or to be able to provide people with data, to monitor where somebody was
18 wounded, when -- where somebody was treated. So in answer to your
19 question, whether somebody systematically collected data on the Croatian
20 victims besides us, I really don't know, and I particularly don't know
21 whether anybody was in charge of collecting data on the fallen Muslim
22 soldiers or civilians. That I really don't know. That was not my job.
23 That was not what I was authorised to do.
24 MR. SCOTT: Could the witness please be shown Exhibit P601.2?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I go back to that
1 previous question? Because something has just occurred to me with regard
2 to it my previous comment.
3 JUDGE LIU: I believe you have answered this question already but
4 if you have something to add, please.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this order that I have just seen,
6 and that I never saw before, I know where this order came from, and since
7 I was Dr. Brncic's superior, I asked the minister to send that order to
8 the field, and I can see here that what it says in this order, that in
9 case a crime had been committed involving civilians, that people should be
10 referred to our pathology department. What I would like to say here is
11 that we did not have a pathology, and throughout the war, we did not have
12 a single pathologist in Mostar. Unfortunately the clinical hospital in
13 Mostar to this very day does not have a pathologist. These individual
14 cases, when they were found, as many as were found, I know they referred
15 to the pathology department of the clinical hospital in Split and this I
16 claim with certainty. And that is the end of my answer to that question.
17 MR. SCOTT:
18 Q. To follow up on that, sir, this is Split in the Republic of
19 Croatia, correct?
20 A. Your Honours, I am referring to the city that I already mentioned
21 on my -- on the first day when I started giving my testimony. Split was
22 an institution which looked after all the Croats, Muslims and Serbs which
23 we couldn't treat. So this is the city, i.e. the clinics that admitted a
24 number of thousands of people from Bosnia and Herzegovina and their
25 pathology department provided the service that is they could provide when
1 needed. So when a body was referred to them.
2 Q. Now, going to 601.2, if you look at that for a moment, sir, and
3 can you tell the Chamber, are you familiar with that kind of -- type of
4 report, not only this particular document but with this type of report,
5 reporting wounded and dead soldiers?
6 A. Your Honours, if you will allow me to take a look at this
7 document, because there are several pages in this document.
8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, before the witness
9 starts giving the answer, I would kindly ask my learned friend to tell us
10 the source of this document because the date is 16 September, and the
11 reports were sent on the 17th September, 20 September, and the document
12 was issued on the 16th of September. How is that possible? The report
13 was issued on the 16th of September and the data referred to the 17th and
14 20th of September. Maybe there is some magic involved here and maybe
15 somebody knows in advance who is going to be killed and where.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?
17 MR. SCOTT: First of all the source of the document that's
18 indicated on the B/C/S original is the Zagreb archive. You can clearly
19 see the marking of the stamp in the upper right-hand corner of the first
20 page of the original document. As for the dates, Mr. President, I cannot
21 answer that. This document purports to have been created by there
22 witness. It's over his signature, bearing a stamp. So perhaps the
23 witness can tell us it may have been a mistake. It maybe any number of
24 things but it's not for me to say and I object to counsel getting up and
25 going into this before the witness is ever given a chance. This is a
1 recurring problem we have been through this week after week after week.
2 The defence gets up before the witness has a chance to answer and makes
3 objections or talks about the document. We object to that procedure. And
4 we will continue to object to it.
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, if you have some objections, you may
6 save it until the witness answers the question. We understand that this
7 document was signed by the witness. Maybe he could shed some light on
8 this very issue. But do not -- but do not give any hint to this witness
9 before he answers the question.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not giving
11 instructions to my witness. What I'm asking from this Honourable Court is
12 to disallow the abuse of the cross-examination. The witness has to be
13 informed about the data from the document in a proper way. The witness
14 must not be cheated and the document has not been signed by the witness,
15 and why do we always create this confusion? This document was not signed
16 by the witness. We know only too well what is a person's signature and
17 what is somebody's name typed. I'm just trying to object to the abuse, to
18 the cross-examination being abused.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I don't think it's a proper way for
21 you to make this kind of objections at this time. There should be some
22 rules for this. If the witness denied this document, he has the full
23 right to say it, to explain it, to this Tribunal. There is no need for
24 you to tell the witness that he does not sign this document, there is some
25 strange dates in this document, and et cetera. If you have objections
1 after we hear the witness, you also have the full right to object. But do
2 not give any hint to this witness before he answers the question.
3 Yes, witness, you may answer this question. Have you read this
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, it is very difficult to
6 read such a long document, but, yes, I'm now acquainted with the document
7 and that is enough. I would like to ask the Honourable Court that not to
8 be defended by either the Prosecutor or the Defence counsel because I
9 don't need that. I just need your protection and when I say that, I mean
10 for you to allow me to talk. There is no question that I cannot answer
11 here, and there is no question that I will not try to answer. I will
12 never say, "I don't know." I will always answer. The document that I
13 have in my hand, I can't recall, because we had a number, hundreds, of
14 papers, every day. So this could be one of them. The proof that this
15 paper most probably originates from the Defence department is my
16 signature, not my signature, but my facsimile, so if this document is
17 not forged, I don't know whether it is or not, but if it is not a forgery,
18 then it can only originate from the institution where I worked. So this
19 is the confirmation of the thesis that I mentioned a little while ago, and
20 confirms the existence of that department, that look after the dead and
21 the wounded. We had women working at the computer and entering data.
22 That means that I did not have to sit beside them. They received
23 information from the field, about those who were either killed or wounded,
24 and they inputted the data into the computer. What I find very strange
25 about this document is the following: For which purpose was this paper
1 used? We never had any printouts that were their own purpose. Whenever
2 we had to print such a document, it would be to send it to somebody. This
3 paper doesn't give the addressee's name or address. If I were to send it
4 to somebody, then I would have certainly signed it personally. I believe
5 that without my signature, that my name was on the -- on this paper is
6 possible because my name was in the computer, in the computer programme.
7 So whatever was inputted into the computer my name would be put on the
8 bottom of that document. So that is not disputable. What is disputable
9 about this document is that there is no addressee. I recognise some
10 brigades, I recognise some units, and I can tell that this document
11 mentions only the dead and the wounded soldiers of the Croatian Defence
12 Council. Another thing that surprises me, can be found on the last page,
13 on which it says, "Wounded civilians or killed civilians." I don't know
14 who these civilians are, whether they were wounded in Mostar or elsewhere,
15 and then brought to our hospital. I don't know. And I also don't know
16 the breakdown of these people, who they belonged to. In one place here, I
17 can see on page -- just a moment, please -- on page 5 of this document, it
18 says, killed soldiers on 16 September, 1993. 3rd Brigade. So this is a
19 report which speaks about that. I expect further questions and I --
20 because I don't know what the question is. We did have a database
21 containing the names of the killed and wounded members of the HVO.
22 Whether anybody else was inputted into that data base, I don't know. I
23 couldn't control that. That was not my task. We had women who were in
24 charge of that, who were experts, working on computers, and -- but I do
25 believe that this paper does originate from the health department. It
1 does not give the addressee's name and I don't know why it was printed.
2 Why would the women print the document if it wasn't to be sent to
4 MR. SCOTT:
5 Q. Do you know how this information was collected, sir, about the
6 number of soldiers wounded or killed. Looking at the first page of
7 Exhibit P601.2 it lists in the first section for 16th of September, 1993,
8 ten persons, starting with one name Slaven Martinovic. Can you tell the
9 Chamber, please, I'm only using this particular document as an example of
10 one which you can tell us could have been one of many of a similar type of
11 report that was prepared, and my question to you is: How would that
12 information be collected?
13 A. Thank you very much for a clear and fair question. That is a
14 question in which I do not see that you are trying to make me say
15 something that was not correct. And that could possibly be against
16 somebody. And that does not exist. So my congratulations. The
17 information that we collected, all information that reached us in relation
18 to this point that we are discussing now, came from doctors on the ground,
19 and I will now try, Your Honours, to explain briefly one thing, so that it
20 doesn't happen again that the Prosecutor asks me how regularly did they
21 come, how frequently, who did you send reports to. So let me clarify
22 that. So, we had physicians across Bosnia, in Posavina, Zepce with which
23 we had no communication whatsoever, in Novo Selo [phoen] with whom we had
24 no communication whatsoever and let me not enumerate further. I do into
25 the want to wear you down. But we had the packet link and at times it
1 worked, at times it didn't. I consider that in the health care, we
2 maintained better communication with the ground than others, because we
3 are, if nothing else, doctors. We are more educated. So that we did not
4 introduce all the information that we received from different sides.
5 Needless to say, at that time, neither I nor anyone else could check on
6 every single individual. So what we received from physicians on the
7 ground, we put in. It wasn't I who did that. I repeat. It was those who
8 were responsible for them. What we didn't, we didn't. And that now was
9 used exclusively as a data base, as a data base so that we could use it in
10 case, for instance, when somebody came to us and started looking for his
11 kin, be it wounded or killed, and if they come and give their name, then
12 they type this name, feed it into the computer and then this girl sitting
13 at the computer tells us, yes, this or that happened on that, on such and
14 such date. That was the purpose of this.
15 Q. So, in reference to the first section on the first page of P601.2,
16 when we see on the first list, number 6, we can conclude, then, that this
17 person, this soldier, was a member of the Convicts Battalion, who was a
18 casualty on the 16th of September, 1993; is that correct?
19 A. I do not know if that is correct, Your Honours, because nobody
20 checked this information. I have already said that. This means, when we
21 received information from the ground, that is our workers, they would type
22 it in as they had received it, whether this is correct or not, I guarantee
23 that nobody can say, nobody can tell that. And I repeat, I do not
24 understand the purpose of this document, who are we sending it to? And I
25 have to observe another thing, Mr. Krsnik was right, that is I do not
1 understand how could the document be signed on the 16th and then we have
2 woundings on the 17th, on the 19th, on the 20th, and so on. So let me
3 come back to the question. Let me be specific. I do not know, just as I
4 do not know the largest number of these people, and I cannot know them and
5 I cannot know whether this man was indeed a member of the Convicts
6 Battalion or not, and who and where, who he belonged to or whether he was
7 wounded at all. Because nobody checked that, and that was not our
8 priority, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, would you please try to give us concise
10 answers? If the Prosecutor needs more information, he will ask you some
11 questions. I think the answer could only be put as "I don't know."
12 That's a very simple answer. Yes, Mr. Scott.
13 MR. SCOTT:
14 Q. Sir, was it not true, is it not true, that the HVO, as any other
15 military organisation, was interested in collecting information about its
16 casualties, wounded, dead, what have you? That's information that the
17 army would want to know, correct?
18 A. The HVO is not military formation, structure. It was both
19 civilian and military. Number 1. Number 2, I repeat, this information
20 that we collected had to do where -- were intended only to follow up on
21 the wounded and I was not interested in any other aspect, nor did anyone
22 ask me or use it to make, I don't know, some estimates of the combat
23 preparedness of the army or anything, but simply so that we could have
24 some files about the wounded.
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... can be answered yes or no.
1 Was the HVO as a military organisation, the military side of the HVO, and
2 you know quell what I'm talking about, was that organisation interested in
3 collecting and recording information about its casualties? Yes or no.
4 A. I wanted to know that. I do not know about the HVO.
5 Q. And as the senior medical officer in the HVO military
6 organisation, sir, isn't it true that the collection and recording of that
7 information fell, if not entirely, largely to the section or unit, what
8 have you, the department, under your control?
9 A. The filing and collection was my last priority during the war. My
10 first question was the organisation of health care and that is my -- that
11 is my answer. That is my answer. Listen to me. I will really ask to be
12 protected. My interest was to treat people and to look after that, at the
13 same time, if it was to monitor the wounded and killed in that direction,
14 then I did it but for no other reason. So that is my answer.
15 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, please cool down at this moment.
16 Understand during the cross-examinations, both parties are hostile to each
17 other. The Chamber will judge by ourselves. So if there is an answer --
18 if there is a question, you just answer that question and don't get
20 Yes, Mr. Scott.
21 MR. SCOTT:
22 Q. Sir, in the collection of that information, this -- these type of
23 documents, such as 601.2, would not necessarily have to be addressed to
24 anyone, would they? They would simply be a collection and a record of the
25 information collected, correct?
1 A. I think that it is almost correct. That is correct. It was
2 gathered so that one could be able to take stock of the situation if
3 doctors came or something. I do not remember if we ever notified anyone
4 about this.
5 Q. While I understand that you can not vouch for the accuracy of any
6 particular entry in these records, you and your department were certainly
7 interested and wanted accurate information, correct?
8 A. Well, God himself cannot answer that question. Commanders, unit
9 commanders, Your Honours, knew which of their men had been wounded or
10 killed, so I didn't have to tell them that. This was kept exclusively in
11 this central part so that we could have information. Therefore I really
12 don't understand what your question is.
13 JUDGE CLARK: Dr. Bagaric, Mr. Scott, can I get this
14 cross-examination back on track? Perhaps it would be easier, Dr. Bagaric,
15 if you were to explain to us and it would help us if you would tell us
16 what was the protocol which you ordained in our hospital for the
17 collection of data in relation to war victims? How did you direct your
18 staff to enter the information?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. This is a
20 good question, and I think that at long last, I see a way out, but I have
21 to clear it up. The -- I apologise but there is no other way. This
22 information, which this gentleman has brought here, this is not the
23 hospital information. This is not the information of a particular unit.
24 This is the information collected at our staff, and the staff was an
25 institution which incorporated all hospitals and all units. So we fed
1 information into the computer on the basis of reports from the field, from
2 the hospitals, that is, from brigades, from places more removed or less
3 removed. Needless to say, every unit also kept its records, so did every
4 hospital, and I do not doubt that but I wasn't the director of a
5 hospital. I really cannot speak about any hospital. But I believe that
6 that was an institution which did its work, proper work, and I do believe
7 they do have protocols, when persons were admitted, whether they were
8 wounded, how they were wounded when they were discharged. So this is my
9 answer and I believe you understand me now.
10 JUDGE CLARK: Well, perhaps you could clear something up for me
11 because I understood that you were the director of the hospital and
12 therefore that you might actually prepare -- but you were the director of
13 the whole service. I see. So did these -- this information come into
14 your computer from a number of hospitals and treatment centres, not
15 necessarily from the Mostar war hospital? Is that what you're saying?
16 JUDGE LIU: And did you want that information as accurate as
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, precisely, quite so. I was
19 the commander of the health care department of the Croat Defence Council
20 so I was above any hospital and whatever hospital. The fact that for a
21 while, I was in the area of the Mostar hospital with my office, that has
22 nothing to do with the Mostar hospital. So what we are talking about now,
23 it was information we received from the ground. What information, how
24 much of the information, how accurate, how complete it is, I really cannot
25 say but what I know certainly especially when it comes to distant parts
1 of Bosnia-Herzegovina that that information was complete because I do not
2 believe that they were from every Bosnian back water we received
3 information about the wounded and killed. Whatever information we
4 received we fed into the computer.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
6 MR. SCOTT: If I could have the usher's assistance, please, to
7 hand you Defence Exhibit D1/381, 371, and 379? Let me repeat that in
8 order, 371, 379 and 381.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise for the
10 way I reacted a moment ago. I really do.
11 MR. SCOTT:
12 Q. Sir, I'm going to direct your attention in order -- if you'll
13 first direct your attention to D1/371, and I'll direct your particular
14 attention and the courtroom's attention to the last page, and that is of
15 the Croatian language version of that document.
16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am -- I can follow
18 both the Croatian and the English version. Please, I see that not every
19 word is properly conveyed. I know that our interpreters are in serious
20 trouble because the witness is very fast but I assure you that 30 per cent
21 of what the meaning of what the witness said has not been included
22 correctly. Of course it is nobody's fault except that the witness is very
23 fast. So could you please warn him to slow down? To slow down his
24 speed? And that is perhaps what gives rise to misunderstanding because
25 the witness is saying one thing and you are receiving a different thing
1 through interpretation.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, that's a very serious allegation you
3 said about 30 per cent of what the witness said is not correct.
4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, no, no, not in that sense that it
5 is not correct but I mean the meaning, because I hear exactly what the
6 witness is saying because I can follow him in Croatian and you are meeting
7 for the first time with this, the way it was interpreted there can be some
8 misunderstanding between your questions and the reactions with regard to
9 what the witness is saying, that's what I said, not that the transcript
10 has lost what was said, no, not in that sense.
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, you see the difficulty in this it
12 Tribunal. Whatever you said has to be translated into two other
13 languages. So when you are answering a question, please make stops after
14 every sentence and please say it slowly so that we could follow you.
15 Yes, Mr. Scott.
16 MR. SCOTT:
17 Q. Exhibit D1/371, the last page, as I look at this document, sir, it
18 has neither a stamp nor a signature, correct?
19 A. It is true that there is no stamp nor signature to this document
20 but it is even more true that I wrote this paper and sent it and signed
21 it. This is just a computer copy. So a moment ago, this paper that had
22 no -- that did not have my signature, I said that as likely as not it had
23 been produced by us, but about this text, Your Honours, I know certainly,
24 because I wrote that word for word, sentence for sentence and this was
25 sent to international organisations which are indicated here as
2 Q. Sir, why is it that it doesn't have your signature and a stamp on
4 A. My signature and my stamp are completely needless here because I
5 left behind works. I left also the signature and the stamp. I can of
6 course try and find the document that I signed at the time. That is, I
7 thought that the deeds were more important. When I wanted to show this
8 and what I have done. Whether some of this has a signature and a stamp,
9 if that is really -- if this document is brought into question, because it
10 lacks a signature and a stamp, then I assure you, Your Honours, I
11 undertake to find this document with a signature and a stamp. And this
12 document can also be found in the UN and the UNHCR, and the ICRC. Ivan
13 Bagaric would not be sitting here telling lies.
14 Q. Sir, did I understand you a moment ago to say that the original
15 letter that was sent out would be signed and stamped but a computer
16 generated copy or a file copy maintained in your office would not be
17 signed and stamped?
18 A. Correct. So a document that I sent was signed, no doubt, and had
19 its stamp. But this document, this document is not possible. I do not
20 understand this technology, when -- how can I sign it while the document
21 is still in the computer. So that's it. It has to be printed first. And
22 this is just one copy of this document.
23 Q. So, sir, wouldn't you agree that any number of documents could
24 fall in that same category, work copies, file copies, non-originals,
25 electronic copies could be completely authentic and completely accurate
1 that would not bear a signature or a stamp?
2 A. Your Honours, this is my document, which I sent to these
3 organisations, and which I signed. It means nothing that it is not signed
4 here. I can find the document which has been signed. And that same
5 document can be found with the international organisations.
6 Q. All right, sir, would you look, please, as Exhibit D1/379? I'll
7 direct your attention -- I'm not going to ask you about the contents of
8 the document, sir, I'm just going to ask you to look at the last page
9 again. It purports to be prepared by someone, forgive me if I say it
10 wrong, Brncic. Would you agree with plea, sir, that there is no signature
11 on that document, or stamp, correct?
12 A. About this document, the same explanation that I can give applies
13 to this document as to the previous document.
14 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... first answer my question and
15 if somebody wants an explanation, we can talk to you about that, it does
16 not bear a sample or signature, correct?
17 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I remember often your
19 warnings, addressed to me when I conducted cross-examination and you told
20 me very wisely too, if there is a conflict or for instance, a situation
21 which is not improper situation between a counsel and a witness, that you
22 will always blame the counsel, because he is a professional. So we have
23 to take care how we question witnesses. The witness, as I can see, is
24 very garrulous person, a very reputable person and you can see that I also
25 conducted my examination with difficulty. Namely this witness is simply
1 answering in a manner which do not fit into the rules, if I may put it
2 that way. And if he thinks that something needs to be explained, then
3 will this Honourable Court allow him for such -- to it allow him such
4 explanations of course briefly because our time is precious? Will you
5 please warn the Prosecutor to conduct the cross-examination just as you
6 warned me, and of course, it was because of my temperament, of which I'm
7 aware, and you always respected it and I appreciate it. That the
8 Prosecutor will be accountable, will be responsible, if there is a
9 conflict, not the witness. Thank you.
10 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I believe in this instance, the
11 Prosecutor asked a very simple question which everybody knows by looking
12 at this document. That is there is no signature on that document or
13 stamp, correct?
14 All the witness should answer is yes or no. If he needs some
15 explanations, if we are interested in the explanations, we will allow the
16 witness to give an explanation, but here, we only want to hear his -- are
17 there any signatures and stamps? That's a very, very simple question.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honour. You're
19 absolutely right. But this is not the problem. The problem is the fact
20 that the witness wants to explain, the Prosecution does not allow the
21 witness to explain, and the witness does not accept the way the
22 cross-examination is conducted. Not in the way the Prosecution wants to
23 do it. I just wanted to ask you to it allow him that, to give him that
24 concession, in order to avoid conflicts. I'm not objecting to any of the
25 questions. I'm not objecting to the way the cross-examination is
1 conducted. And the witness starts, the situation is like with the
2 previous document, and the Prosecution interrupts him very -- and it is
3 not disputable that there is no signature.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I answer in the
5 way I was asked to answer by the Prosecution? I will, from now on, answer
6 in that way, no matter what that will mean. Although I don't believe that
7 this is a fair way to examine me.
8 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, if the Prosecution asks you a question,
9 first you have to answer that question. Secondly, if you need some
10 explanations, you may do that.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, everybody in this
12 courtroom, everybody in this world, can see that there is neither
13 signature nor stamp. I can't see any of them either. Can I explain?
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Try to do it in a concise way.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My wife also tells me all the time
16 that I am a man of too many words. This document -- I didn't show you to
17 demonstrate that there is no signature. Everybody can see that. But I
18 can tell the Honourable Court this document is authentic. It was signed,
19 and it can be corroborated by the person who signed it. I know what this
20 document is all about. This is another copy from the document, and only
21 the original is signed. You don't sign all the five copies. In this
22 case, the original was sent to the foreign press bureau. I don't know
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
25 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. That was exactly what my
1 inquiry was.
2 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President. That was my inquiry.
3 Q. Sir, is it correct that the Muslim side or the ABiH on a number of
4 occasions also provided medical treatment or health care for Bosnian Croat
5 soldiers and civilians, correct?
6 A. I assume that it is. I believe it is. However, I don't have any
7 specific information from the BH Army doctors. I did not have any offers
8 during the conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina for cooperation. There
9 were no such offers. But I do believe that they also treated Croatians.
10 And I even know that they did so in some parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 Q. All right, so not only do you assume that but in fact you know
12 that to be the case, correct?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. So sir, you and I can agree on this, I hope. Both sides in
15 connection with the Croat-Muslim conflict, both sides on occasion showed
16 thankfully so, acts of kindness to the victims on the other side,
18 A. Yes. This is correct, Your Honours. Can I explain?
19 JUDGE LIU: Do you need to explain that? I don't think so.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you don't think I should, then I
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
23 MR. SCOTT: Can the usher please assist you with showing you
24 Exhibit P171.1? I'm sorry, I think that the problem is, Mr. President, my
25 apology, as of Friday the translation hadn't come in, I think now there is
1 a translation.
2 Q. My question to you, sir, about this document, is, please, you were
3 already in your position or strike that. Were you in your position as the
4 head of the health or medical service for the HVO at or about the time
5 that Minister of Defence Stojic issued this order establishing the HVO
6 detention facility?
7 A. I apologise. I need a translation in B/C/S.
8 Q. Sorry. I assumed you had it.
9 A. I need a translation in Croatian. This is English. I cannot
10 comment upon this before I see the Croatian translation. It is as if you
11 told me that it is in the library somewhere.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I believe that the usher should have
13 headphones. Otherwise, he can't hear that the document is in the binder.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the date of this
15 document is 3rd of September, 1992, and the question, whether -- if it is
16 the question, whether I was the head of the medical headquarters at the
17 time, the answer is yes, on the 3rd of September, I was chief of the
18 medical headquarters and that is the answer to that question.
19 MR. SCOTT:
20 Q. And in connection with the establishment of the Heliodrom
21 detention facility, as the senior HVO medical officer, were you tasked or
22 ordered or directed to set up some method of providing health care at this
24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, could we wait after the witness
25 answers the question? Or are you talking about a procedural matter?
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Procedural matter, Your Honours. I
2 am glad that we are now moving on to the continental law. I'm going to
3 make a note of all my objections and then, when the Prosecution is over, I
4 will just give you the list of all the objections that I have noticed. I
5 believe that within the Anglo-Saxon law, I have to object in advance, then
6 I have to object in advance. Especially if I see that a document is being
7 presented, which can not serve as the base for the cross-examination. If
8 we are going to adhere to the continental law, then I am going to make a
9 list of all the objections and then I will dictate them at the end of the
10 Prosecution. The Prosecutor insists on the detention centre. It says
11 very clearly here, "the central military prison." I apologise for taking
12 more time and this is what I insist on, this is a procedural matter. Can
13 I please ask our learned friend to use the terminology that is in the
14 original document, central military prison is a very, very different from
15 the detention centre. At least in the Croatian. I don't know about the
17 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Krsnik, really, you have to trust the bench here
18 to deal with the procedure. I don't believe you do. We notice things up
19 here, and we take note of things. And your witness, Dr. Bagaric, is a
20 highly intelligent man. He would be the first to notice any
21 misrepresentation included in a question. So really, we are interested in
22 letting this poor witness go home. He's been here a long time. And let's
23 try and get the flow moving and -- the witness can answer questions, I
24 think, quite adequately. He doesn't need anyone's help.
25 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. You're
2 absolutely right. Maybe I have lost trust in -- confidence in my
3 colleague. I apologise both to him and to you.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] First of all, allow me, Your Honour,
5 to thank you for saying that I'm intelligent. I've started doubting it
6 myself. And thank you for looking after my well being. That is something
7 I also appreciate.
8 [In English] Excuse me, what was your question.
9 MR. SCOTT:
10 Q. There is no pending question to you, sir. The question that was
11 asked first of all was, were you in your position at this time? Which you
12 answered yes. Then before I think Mr. Krsnik objected, I had started to
13 ask you the question: Were you tasked in connection with the creation of
14 this central military prison, as the document clearly says, and I
15 certainly wouldn't have tried to deceive anyone in the courtroom by my
16 paraphrase when the document is in front of everybody, were you tasked to
17 set some sort of medical provision system in that prison?
18 A. The date here is the 3rd of September. I know nothing of this
19 document, and I don't find it binding in any respect. Two days ago, I
20 told you that I visited that prison on the first possible occasion, when I
21 first learned about that prison, and that was earlier than this date, and
22 that in that prison, I did set up a medical centre, medical service, which
23 provided for the health care of the detainees. It was not on anybody's
24 orders. Nor did anybody prevent me from doing it. As soon as I had the
25 opportunity to do it, as soon as my colleagues had the opportunity to do
1 it, me and my colleagues, we did it. And that, I already told you, and
2 all of that happened prior to the date on this document.
3 Q. So the answer to my question, sir, is no, when the prison was
4 established on the 3rd of September, 1992, no one approached you at that
5 time, according to you, and asked you to set up any mechanism for
6 providing health care?
7 A. I apologise. I made a mistake with regard to the year. What I
8 see here is 1993 -- 1992, and I was talking about 1993. I don't know
9 anything about this document which was made in 1992. I don't know
10 anything about its authenticity, nothing about this document.
11 Q. And I didn't ask you anything about the document, sir. When the
12 prison was established, in 3 -- on the 3rd of September, 1992 and I'll
13 just ask one last time and then I'll go on, did anyone in the HVO
14 hierarchy, such as the Minister of Defence, Bruno Stojic, approach
15 you as the senior medical officer in the HVO about making any provision
16 for providing health care in that prison?
17 A. Your Honours, I'm not going to be able to say either yes or no.
18 And please allow me to explain.
19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, you may.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We are talking about the 3rd
21 September, 1992. That was the time when there was no Croatian-Muslim
22 conflict. That was the time when Mostar was being shelled every day, and
23 Mostar, at the time, was defended jointly by Croats and Muslims.
24 Therefore, I don't have any idea about the establishment of this military
25 prison. I don't know what it could have served. I don't know that at the
1 time something was happening. I could not intervene because nothing was
2 going on, as far as I was concerned. This is the first time I hear
3 about this. That's for one. And secondly, it is not necessary to have a
4 medical service in a prison. If the detainees require medical care, then
5 they are brought to a hospital. But subsequently, we did set up a medical
6 centre due to extraordinary circumstances. There was a number, a huge
7 number, of detainees there, so nobody had to order me anything. I did
8 that have my own free judgement.
9 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I see it's time for the break. If I
10 could just ask one question on this before we break I appreciate it.
11 Q. Sir, you said a moment ago you said that when you did visit the
12 Heliodrom, you took these steps. We can go back in the transcript if
13 necessary where you gave that answer. Can you please give the Chamber the
14 date, the approximate date, when you -- the first and as you told us on
15 Friday, the only time that you were personally at the Heliodrom? When was
17 A. Correct. It was on my return from Canada. This was probably in
18 mid-July. I say that with certainty.
19 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Can the witness just say the year?
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Of course, it was in 1993.
21 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We will break now. We will resume at 4.00.
23 --- Recess taken at 3.34 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 4.02 p.m.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik? Do you want to say something?
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour, very briefly. I
2 have a bad feeling about a misunderstanding that I caused. I believe that
3 I have been misunderstood. I would like to apologise to our
4 interpreters. A little while ago, when I mentioned 30 per cent, I did not
5 mean -- I did not say that the interpreters misinterpreted something or
6 interpreted wrongly what the witness is saying. Whatever the witness is
7 saying is interpreted absolutely correctly. When I said 30 per cent, I
8 meant that the witness loses 30 per cent. I can follow him in the
9 Croatian. But when he wants to say something, 30 per cent of what he
10 wants to say is lost in the English translation. I did not mean by saying
11 what I said that the interpreters were wrong and I believe that I have
12 been misunderstood. I believe that I was wrong. That's why I feel bad.
13 And that's why I would like to apologise to the interpreters.
14 JUDGE LIU: But still, I could not understand what you are saying,
15 Mr. Krsnik.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Well, that's an example. Maybe I
17 am -- I did not express myself well. What I'm saying is that I can follow
18 the witness, and I can follow precisely what he is saying. And he wants
19 to say. But when he speaks fast, and when he can not communicate his
20 message as well as he would want to, then the interpreters obviously
21 cannot convey that meaning. So I blame it on the witness, not on the
22 interpreters. That is why I said that 30 per cent of what he wants to say
23 in his answer we lose because he is too fast. That's what I meant when I
24 said what I said. I did not for a moment want to blame the interpreters
25 for interpreting something wrongly. That's why I feel bad. And therefore
1 I wanted to apologise, because I value their job, I appreciate their job
2 very much. Especially when witnesses speak fast. When I speak fast, I'm
3 sure it is very difficult for them to follow what we say and that is why,
4 for that bad feeling, I wanted to apologise, because I did not mean to in
5 any case -- in any way blame them.
6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
7 Could we have the witness, please?
8 Mr. Scott, I have to say that you have to finish your
9 cross-examination in one hour.
10 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President, I will do my very best. I
11 can assure the Chamber it may not be apparent and some may think as I
12 heard some suggestion that I was prolonging it. I can assure the Chamber
13 that I have taken steps at every break to repeatedly cut my material.
14 Thank you.
15 Q. Sir, in the late summer of 1993 and continuing into the fall and
16 the end of 1993, it was widely known, was it not, that conditions in the
17 HVO detention camps, including the Heliodrom, Dretelj, Gabela and
18 Ljubuski, the conditions there were all far below those required by
19 international and medical norms, weren't they?
20 A. According to the health care standards, the conditions in these
21 prisons or centres were at the highest possible level which we could
22 provide at that moment. Obviously, whatever you may do under such
23 circumstances leaves a lot of room for improvement. But from the point of
24 view of health care, we did everything possible -- I would say that all
25 that was in compliance with humanitarian laws and conventions, and I would
1 also like to say that unfortunately, in comparison to some other centres
2 of this type, we were really well organised.
3 MR. SCOTT: If I could have the usher's assistance in putting
4 before you Exhibit P566.4?
5 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I apologise, I did not
6 want to object to the document. I just want to say that we do not have
7 the Croatian original. We haven't received it. And if my learned friend
8 has it now, can we please have it from him? For this document, we do not
9 have the Croatian original.
10 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. We don't have it either.
11 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I don't think we have that yet. Just
12 apparently as Mr. Krsnik has reminded the Chamber many times, sometimes we
13 don't get the translations as quickly as we would like but there is only
14 one sentence, there is only one sentence which I will read and ask the
15 interpreters to assist, please when we get to it.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the situation here
17 different. We need to have the original, which then needs to be
18 translated. So the original has to be given to the other side. When I
19 have a Croatian original, I give you the Croatian original, and I give you
20 the English translation. You cannot have the translation without the
21 original, can you?
22 MR. SCOTT: This is the original, Your Honour. It's an
23 English-language document. 566.4. It's not a translation. It's an
24 English-original document. Mr. Krsnik is saying we must have the original
25 because the original is in Croatian. It's an English document,
1 Mr. President.
2 JUDGE LIU: I see. But you promised us that you will furnish the
3 translation as soon as possible.
4 MR. SCOTT: Of course, Mr. President.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
6 MR. SCOTT:
7 Q. Sir, do you recall being visited by representatives of human
8 rights watch, Ms. Ivana Nizic and Zeljka Markic? I'm looking at the entry
9 Friday for August 20, 1993. On that date, on approximately the 20th of
10 August, 1993, let me ask for the interpreters to assist me, I'm going to
11 read one or two sentences, if you could assist me, at the end of that
12 paragraph for August 20, quote, "We asked permission to visit the Dretelj
13 and Gabela prisons. We asked Dr. Ivan Bagaric of the HZ HB Minister
14 of Health to intervene with the Capljina and HZ HB authorities to visit
15 the camps and were denied. Bagaric conceded that conditions were not
16 satisfactory in these camps."
17 Do you recall that, sir?
18 A. Your Honour, this document calls for an explanation. I apologise.
19 I cannot answer by simply saying yes or no. I want to explain. This is
20 in English. And I do not have anything against providing a comment upon
21 it. I do wish to comment upon this document. These ladies, Ivana Nizic
22 and Zeljka Markic did not visit us. We invited them. That's number 1.
23 Number 2, they talked to Ivan Bagaric, Health Minister. Ivan Bagaric was
24 never Health Minister. Number 3, they did not talk only with me. They
25 talked to a number of other doctors, amongst whom there may have also been
1 the Health Minister, whose first name is also Ivan but his last name is
2 different. At this moment, I cannot remember any particular sentence,
3 because their visit lasted several days. I remember, amongst other
4 things, that they also visited me in my office, but they also visited a
5 number of other people's offices. It says here that the access was denied.
6 I don't know who denied it, because I'm not that fluent in English, and
7 in the last part of the sentence, it says, Minister of Health to intervene
8 in -- intervene and then that this was denied. Was it I who denied it or
9 was it somebody else who denied that?
10 Q. Do you recall, sir, what was about the conditions in Dretelj and
11 Gabela that were "not satisfactory"?
12 A. Well, for Ivan Bagaric, physician, and an active member in the
13 Croat Defence Council, the very fact that these, I don't know, these
14 investigative prisons happened, that very fact makes it unsatisfactory.
15 It is simply had to happen. If somebody was incarcerated, that for me was
16 and is something necessitating additional effort. So I do not know what
17 Mrs. Zeljka Markic and that other lady, that I commented something and I
18 just don't remember it. But what I know 100 per cent, we can call them to
19 testify here, that they were very happy after this visit with us, and
20 after they gained insight into the condition of their wards, whether they
21 visited everybody, I do not know. But I know they went to Heliodrom with
22 our doctors. So my answer, Mr. Prosecutor, is I do not remember what is
23 it that I was not satisfied with at the time. However, I do accept that
24 it is quite possible that in -- as I talked it with them, I possibly said
25 that or perhaps somebody else said that, because it says here, Ivan
1 Bagaric, Minister of Health Care. So perhaps they heard it from somebody
2 else. Perhaps.
3 Q. Sir, I'm not going to argue with you, we don't have time.
4 Minister of Health here is in quotation marks. Can't you understand that
5 to me that may or may not be an exact title? They were referring to you,
6 Dr. Ivan Bagaric, the senior HVO medical officer, correct?
7 A. No, it is not, no. It is not. Because Minister of Health Care is
8 a completely different individual. So Mrs. Nizic did speak with me. That
9 is true. But not me only. She also met with the Minister of Health Care,
10 and with five other physicians who worked in the HVO medical corps. So at
11 this moment, I cannot say this is I. Yes, I am Ivan Bagaric, but I'm not
12 the Minister for Health Care and I do not remember this comment that I
13 made even though I do not want to affirm that I did not comment it in this
14 way. It is possible that I did.
15 Q. Would you look, please, as Exhibit 612.2? Sir, just let me say
16 to save time, I'm not suggesting for a moment that your name appears on
17 here or you signed it or didn't sign it or anything, that's not my
18 question so you need not tell me that. Would you look, though, at the
19 content of this information, points 1 through 8, the question I'm going to
20 put to you is this: Isn't it true, sir, that even as late as the end of
21 September, 1993, the medical care in the camps was still inadequate?
22 A. Can you give me the second part of the document? Because I have
23 only one part of the document. I only have the first part of the
24 document. I don't have the latter part. And there is still something
1 Q. I've given you the entire document that I have, sir, which bears
2 the seal at the bottom of the page, and I've given you everything I have,
4 A. No. This is not the complete document because I remember this
5 document. There is a document which came from the medical corps
6 headquarters. And this is an important document. And there is the second
7 part which is missing and it is signed and I can tell you who signed it.
8 Q. Who signed it?
9 A. It was signed by -- it was signed by my physicians, whose superior
10 I was, whom I had sent to go and supervise the situation. So it is that
11 part of the medical team that I spoke about last time, on the one but
12 last, that we had set up outside the centre one of the medical points so
13 as to organise, carry out and so on and so forth, another thing I take
14 great pride in this document.
15 Q. You say you know who it is. Please give us the name.
16 A. I don't know why you are forcing me to tell you that I won't give
17 you the names now. If I said, why do you interrupt me? I will say
19 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'm doing the best to follow the
20 Chamber's guidance to finish the examination in one hour, so if the
21 answers could please be limited and responsive it will assist me in trying
22 to meet the Chamber's guidelines.
23 JUDGE LIU: Witness, the Prosecutor asked you the question, what
24 is the name of that physician? If you need to protect that person, we
25 would go into the private session for that. But you are obliged to answer
1 the questions put to you.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I understand what you're
3 saying, and I suggest that the Prosecutor should not make haste and not
4 examine me for one hour but as long as it takes because I'm not in a hurry
5 today. Today I'm in no hurry. I am sorry, I don't know about you, Your
6 Honours, but really ...
7 JUDGE CLARK: Dr. Bagaric you gave us the impression last Friday
8 that much as you like the Tribunal, you liked Bosnia-Herzegovina better
9 and you were very anxious to get home and we are trying to facilitate you
10 because we know that you through no fault of your own have had to sit
11 around here for a long time doing nothing and we are trying to allow you
12 to return to your family.
13 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] You know, you are not answering and
14 you should be aware that you are not answering questions for the
15 Prosecutor or to the Prosecutor but the -- but for the Chamber, for the
16 Judges, and you are bound to cooperate.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, but the Chamber did not ask me
18 any questions. But right, never mind, I'll answer, so this document was
19 signed by the heads of my sectors, Dr. Toni Kolak, and Dr. Ivo Sandrk and
20 I believe one of the locals who were there where they were. Now, I'm
21 continuing the first part of my answer. Yes, I take great pride in this
22 document, because here in the heading, it says, "After upon the completion
23 of the outside investigation and execution of the orders, number such and
24 such, dated 18th of August, 1993, and the 28th of August, 1993, regarding
25 the implementation of provision of the international medication law
1 prevention of infections and diseases and so on and so forth, I order,"
2 which means that this is clear evidence that we supervised the health
3 care, the condition, of the war systematically and that therefore denied
4 the right of anyone, including the Prosecutor, to create any doubts
5 whether he asks such questions, "Didn't you do it this a little bit late
6 in the day?" And I put it to you, Your Honours, Your Honours, the
7 Presiding Judge and you two beautiful ladies, that there is a document,
8 since dated early August --
9 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, will you please warn
10 the witness that he needs to slow down? Thank you.
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, you have to understand that the
12 Prosecutor asked you a question which is very simple one, that is what's
13 the name of that physician? And you answered this question. If the
14 Prosecutor needs more explanations he will ask you the follow-up
16 Yes, Mr. Scott.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] But, Mr. President, before that, he
18 asked me a highly provocative question and I also want to answer that
19 question too.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, it depends on whether we are interested in this
21 question or not, Mr. Witness.
22 Yes, Mr. Scott.
23 MR. SCOTT: I ask the usher to show you please Exhibit P614.1.
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes?
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I indicate that we did not
1 comment on --
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have finished
4 dealing with this document and whilst fully respecting your decision --
5 your decisions, my objections, I will voice at the end, and I will also
6 request an investigation of this document because it shows that certain
7 things were covered and rephotocopied. We here see a part of the stamp
8 from somebody else. We can see a small part in the Croatian original. So
9 obviously, there was some tampering with the photocopying and here in the
10 English one, you will see under 1, it says, "Medical posts," and then it
11 was shaded. So it was either crossed out or a piece of paper was put over
12 it. It says that the source is the Zagreb archive but I keep looking and
13 can't find that stamp on the Croatian original. And since we have for the
14 first file a witness who is confirming the document, saying it does not
15 complete, yes, where is the rest of the document and what is being done
16 with this document? Where is these latter parts of this document? This
17 is not the complete document. We are being shown here the documents today
18 which is obviously not complete and somebody claims they are complete?
19 How many documents of this kind have we had so far.
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much to draw our attention to this
22 Yes, Mr. Scott.
23 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, although admittedly the copy is not as
24 good as we would like it to be, in the upper left -- right corner, in the
25 letterhead, there is the indication of a seal, from the HVO -- from the
1 Zagreb archive. There is a round circle which looks exactly like the ones
2 we have seen on hundreds of documents. I can also verify independently
3 that according to our records, it came from the Zagreb archive. Let me
4 suggest, respectfully, Mr. President, Your Honours, Mr. Krsnik jumps to
5 conclusions for too quickly. The document could have easily xeroxed,
6 perhaps it's never happened to Mr. Krsnik, I suspect it's happened to
7 everyone else in the courtroom. Sometimes in you're copying documents if
8 the documents are not laid flat on the copying machine you get a piece of
9 the last document. I think Mr. Krsnik should not be so quick to
10 claim forgeries and illegalities on the basis of absence of evidence of
12 JUDGE LIU: This Trial Chamber will take into consideration the
13 views expressed by both parties when we are making the decision on the
14 admission of these documents. You may proceed, Mr. Scott.
15 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, sir.
16 Q. Sir, if you'll look next now, it's P614.1?
17 THE WITNESS: Excuse me, is it this document.
18 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, could we have the usher's assistance? We
19 seem to have a lot of difficulty with the witness, it's Exhibit 614.1.
20 THE WITNESS: Thank you. Okay.
21 MR. SCOTT:
22 Q. Sir, this is a communication dated the 29th of September, 1993,
23 where Mr. Stanko Bozic, the director of the central military prison says,
24 "Dear sir, I'm writing to you in order to inform you about the
25 difficulties and problems regarding the medical treatment of certain
1 number of seriously wounded persons, et cetera." Again we have lack of
2 time here. Refers to the inadequate accommodation and the lack of
3 material and medicaments. Forgive me if I've said that wrongly. Sir
4 isn't it true that you're copied CC number 1, Brigadier Ivan Bagaric.
5 Isn't it true, sir, that even by the end of September, conditions at the
6 Heliodrom were not consistent with international or medical norms?
7 A. Your Honours, to answer this question, I need the previous
8 document. That is the document that I had before. Because it is also
9 very important if I'm to it answer this question, the document that I just
10 had, that incomplete document.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may have that document.
12 MR. SCOTT:
13 Q. Of course.
14 A. As they are looking for the document, I'll try to comment on this
15 one. I told you that when, in an organised way, we entered the centre, I
16 told you that it was in an organised way and I told you what we did there
17 and why? Yes, of course, we constantly supervised the situation there and
18 whatever it was, we requested that it be made better, that it be
19 improved. Therefore, --
20 Q. Sir, did Mr. --
21 A. [In English] Sorry, I'm sorry.
22 Q. Mr. President, that was not the answer, I respect that the Chamber
23 always tries to give the witness the opportunity to give a full
24 explanation. The Chamber has given me one hour. This is not the question
25 I asked. I didn't asked what steps were taken to improve the conditions.
1 I said the conditions were not adequate. That was my question, at the end
2 of September, 1993. I believe the witness has answered that question, at
3 least in part.
4 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Witness, you may answer that question.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So we continuously supervised the
6 state of health and the health care in the centres. In the report which I
7 remember very well and which was written before this date, by our
8 physicians, in that report, it says that the medicines are enough, that
9 the state of health, the health, that is the state of health, was good.
10 So that is that if treatment was required, it was provided. I cannot
11 accept the assessment of Stanko Bozic, who is not a doctor and who takes
12 it upon himself to comment on the state of health of the patients. So
13 from that point of view, this document, to my mind, is irrelevant and
14 unimportant, because it shows that Mr. Bozic took care of the wards and
15 this is commendable, but he cannot assess how we had organised the health
16 care. Your Honours, if you like, I can bring -- I don't know, because I
17 didn't know, I didn't know that we will be going into this specific part
18 of the problem, but I can gather the documentation and I'm at your
19 disposal. For the full documentation, not only partial documentation,
20 because from fragmented pictures, who are often the wrong ones, you cannot
21 gain a proper picture. You will go astray. So that is my answer.
22 JUDGE LIU: I think you should answer that the medicines are
23 enough and the state of the health was good. Is that right?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
1 MR. SCOTT:
2 Q. So if the medicine was good and the state of health was good, I
3 take it you have no explanation for why Mr. Bozic on the 29th of September
4 would be writing to you and saying, "The International Red Cross committee
5 should not find out that they are accommodated in medically treated under
6 inadequate conditions and consequently to create a bad impression about
7 the central military prison as that could damage the HVO and as well as
8 all Croatian people" what you're telling this Chamber is that Mr. Bozic
9 had no basis, the head of the prison, the head of the prison, had no basis
10 to make that conclusion?
11 A. The document includes a sentence, at the same time, I'm asking you
12 to transfer this group and ensure hospitalisation. So the gentleman had
13 obviously sent this document to different places. He informed a number of
14 people. I'm one of them. As for my part, he obviously wanted to transfer
15 the sick, but a letter from him was not necessary for that, because we
16 were doing that. The medical team which was there did that. So I think
17 that this document is in order, meaning that Mr. Stanko Bozic obviously
18 took care, I don't know, in the centre which he headed, took care, but his
19 assessment about the state of health care, the medicine supply and all
20 that is to me completely irrelevant because I have no reason to take
21 Bozic's assessment -- to accept Bozic's assessment and not the assessment
22 of my physicians. And I know that at the time, the physicians were
23 reporting that everything was in order in so far as the health care
24 organisation was concerned. And I claim this under full responsibility.
25 JUDGE CLARK: Dr. Bagaric, excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Scott,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 can we come to the end of that letter and say that as far as Dr. Bagaric
2 is concerned, that letter is ill-informed and unfair?
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I think when it comes to the
4 assessment of health care and that aspect, I think that it simply does not
5 provide the real picture. I claim that under full responsibility.
6 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you, Dr. Bagaric, I just want to ask Mr. Scott
7 something while we are on the matter. Mr. Scott, I notice that the person
8 who is described as the director of the central military prison on the
9 29th of September, 1993, is Mr. Stanko Bozic. And the document you
10 referred us to about half an hour ago, 171.1, refers to a prison warden
11 called Mr. Mile Pusic. Can you tell me, are they occupying the same role?
12 Has there been a change of personnel or is Mr. Bozic senior to Mr. Pusic?
13 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, Judge Clark, subject to verifying this, I
14 can only say, if you'll allow me, based on the general knowledge of these
15 matters that are I carry in my head, I think that by September of 1993, in
16 fact earlier than that but certainly since September of 1992, Mr. Pusic
17 had been replaced by Mr. Bozic.
18 JUDGE CLARK: Is it the Prosecution case that Mr. Bozic had
19 been the chief administrator, if you like, of the Heliodrom for some
20 considerable time?
21 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you.
23 MR. SCOTT: Yes, we'll come back to you on that.
24 Q. Sir, who were the doctors, you said you put a great deal of stock
25 in the doctors that reported to you. Can you give us some of the names
1 again of these doctors?
2 A. Absolutely. Dr. Ivan Curic, specialist in "infectology" [as
3 interpreted] -- He head the team. He was the head of the team which took
4 care of this part.
5 Also, Dr. Ivan Sandrk, that is Dr. Ivan Curic was the head for the
6 preventive medicine in the medical corps head staff. Ivan Sandrk was head
7 of the control and inspection. That is supervision of the quality of
8 health work in the HVO units. And Dr. Toni Kolak, who at that time was a
9 surgeon, and he headed the team which took care of the wounded.
10 So my head down to Mr. Bozic and his care, but when it comes to
11 the organisation of the health care there, then I place much more stock in
12 them, in what they say, in what they testify about.
13 Q. I'm looking at the transcript, sir, so I want to be absolutely
14 clear about this. When you refer to Dr. Ivan Curic, Dr. Toni Kolak -- I'm
15 sorry if I pronounce, the pronunciation was wrong, and there was one more,
16 Mr. Ivan Sandrk, you put great stock and credibility in the reports of
17 those doctors, then; is that correct?
18 A. It seems that lawyers are something completely different from the
19 physicians. Physicians have no right to place stock or to trust anyone,
20 and those people, and my relationship with them, was the guarantee, I had
21 no reason to doubt that. I hear, I assume, all the responsibility here
22 openly, I assume the responsibility if any of those physicians or any
23 other physician subordinate to me did something wrong. I therefore
24 personally assume the responsibility for that.
25 Q. Sir, our time is getting away from us. Would you please look at
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
3 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I merely wish to warn Your Honours
4 that this document is not complete either, nor full, because in the
5 Croatian and English version, it says, "Annex, list of the wounded and
6 sick." So this document is only part of another document containing the
7 list. But the list is missing. So once again, we are dealing with an
8 incomplete document. And who knows what that other part says?
9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott?
10 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I note the same objection we've made
11 before. The document bears all the indications it bears. The Zagreb
12 archive stamp, it bears a stamp of Mostar HVO stamp, it bears the
13 signatures, apparent signatures, of at least two or three of the doctors
14 on the last page of the Croatian version. If there is another attachment,
15 we will certainly make every effort to provide it, Your Honour, but again,
16 counsel is getting up before the witness has had a chance to give the
17 answer the question and preempts, the witness's testimony.
18 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, I think Mr. Krsnik is talking about
19 the document P614.1, the document we have used already.
20 MR. SCOTT: I don't know, to be honest now, which one he's
21 referring to, maybe Mr. Krsnik can help us.
22 JUDGE LIU: Any way, we will take into consideration the views
23 expressed by both parties at a later stage.
24 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE LIU: You may proceed, Mr. Scott.
1 MR. SCOTT:
2 Q. Sir would you look at 618.1? And sir, according to this document
3 it is a report from three of the very doctors that you just named.
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. On item number 1 on touring the centre, we were not stopped or
6 asked for identity papers by authorised officials. Two, there is an
7 insufficient number of persons physically guarding the centre. Three, the
8 centre surroundings and the centre itself are messy and neglected. Four,
9 the centre is overcrowded with inmates. Five, the centre's surgery is
10 well supplied with medicines and medical supplies. Six, the surgery's
11 working hours are from 0 to 24 hundred hours, there are two doctors, four
12 nurses and one assistant pharmacist working in the surgery. Seven, there
13 is no segregation in centre between the wounded, sick and healthy inmates.
14 Eight, the hygienic conditions are absolutely unsatisfactory and there was
15 a great likelihood of an outbreak of intestinal and respiratory diseases.
16 Sir, those are the conclusions of the three doctors you told us a moment
17 ago you found to be credibility and their signatures are on the document.
18 Isn't that true?
19 A. Your Honours, the previous document that I said was signed by
20 them, by the three of them, will you give me the document, please? That
21 is I know about these documents because I carry them here in my head
22 because they are important to me. I signed this document but this other
23 part is missing. Give me the document. The first time when I said that
24 these three signed, I meant that other document. Give me, please, that
25 document, the previous one, that incomplete document which is my
1 document. My apologies. So this is how it is. This is clear evidence,
2 this is clear evidence corroborating what I said. So this is the team,
3 Kolak, Sandrk, Ivan Curic, so that is my team. They entered and toured
4 the prison, the centre. So from item 1 to item 8, not a single item
5 refers to any criticism of the health care, from item 1 to item 7. Just a
6 moment. Meaning that item 5 confirms what I said, that the centre is well
7 supplied with medicines and medical supplies. That there is no
8 segregation in the centre, that the clinic works 24 hours. So nothing of
9 this is a criticism. Why, the contrary, it confirms that we organised the
10 service well. Item 8, Mr. Lawyer, the hygienic conditions are not --
11 don't have -- don't have to be provided and need not be provided by the
12 health personnel. So I'm talking about the hygienic, the sanitary
13 conditions. That is what I'm talking about, that includes cleanliness,
14 regular baths, and prevention and so on and so forth. So only this
15 particular item qualifies to be as the only possible source of danger.
16 And after that inspection, straight away, we wrote an order, a new order,
17 I'm giving it to you, which had to do with how to prevent these events.
18 So this document is another document that I take pride in and which is
19 proof that we systematically and in an organised way embarked on the
20 solution of this problem and solved it. There is also the measures which
21 we proposed and it says, act according to order so of the 28th of
22 September, 1993, and it probably says, I don't know it by heart, that more
23 cutlery and crockery sets be brought, that these vessels be washed better
24 and so on and so forth to prevent infectious diseases and that we worked
25 well is also confirmed that there was no infection. It did not take
1 place, Mr. Honourable Prosecutor.
2 Q. So sir, by what you've told us in the last few minutes that we can
3 take that exhibit as being absolutely accurate and you're proud of it,
4 whatever it says in that exhibit, sir?
5 A. First part of the document absolutely, but the second part is
6 missing, and that part was signed by me. That is a document that I
7 signed. So you cannot deal with my papers which are not complete. What I
8 am telling you is that you can't do that. I have to explain that that's
9 why I have to go on explaining to you because you don't have complete
10 documents. Why didn't you ask for these documents from me? I would have
11 given them to you.
12 MR. SCOTT: If the usher could please show you Exhibit P638.1?
13 JUDGE CLARK: Just a moment, could I clarify something while we
14 are looking at it, is what you're saying that your letter of the 28th of
15 September, 1993, that's called an order, and we called it Exhibit 612.2,
16 is the attachment to that last document we were dealing with, 618.1? Am I
17 correct in that?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately no. Can I please have
19 all the document that is I've seen so far? I will place them in a proper
20 order because I know the order. I'm referring to the document that I
21 first claimed were signed by -- I understand you. I understand why you're
22 confused. I also need time but I will demonstrate why. This document,
23 there is just one page, and on that page it says, "Order." This is a
24 document for which I first claimed that it was signed by Kolak, Sandrk
25 and others, but they did not. This document was signed by me. I did not
1 have the second part. That's what confused me. But then when the
2 gentleman showed me another paper which indeed was signed by the three
3 people, this has made me conclude that this -- how things happened. So
4 this is the date is 28 September, 1993, but it says in this document that
5 after the inspection on site, an order issued on 18 and 20 August, 1993,
6 with regard to the application of the provisions of the humanitarian law
7 and so on and so forth so there were other prior documents, orders, which
8 were issued by me on the proposal of my colleagues, doctors whom I always
9 trusted. So I issued these orders on their recommendation. So this is
10 just one in a series of orders designed for setting up proper medical care
11 that we would all be satisfied with. But we were never satisfied. There
12 was always room for improvement. We strived for more. And one of the
13 problems was malnourishment but we could not provide enough food for the
14 people. Somebody else was in charge of that. International organisations
15 which did not supply people with enough food. We had to feed the refugees
16 as well, unfortunately. If you need these documents, and if they will
17 clarify some things for you, I can send them to you, Your Honours, and
18 they will be more complete for to you have a full insight, because these
19 are just fragments in the mosaic and fragments don't mean anything.
20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, let's come to the DP138.1.
21 Mr. Scott, ask your question.
22 MR. SCOTT:
23 Q. This is a report to Mr. Bruno Stojic on eleventh of October, 1993,
24 concerning the Heliodrom prison. Sorry -- sorry, my colleague is pointing
25 out that in the transcript we may have a wrong reference, the exhibit is
2 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
3 MR. SCOTT:
4 Q. Dr. Bagaric I'm not going to direct your attention to it items
5 under the first page at this point, the use of detainees for work. I
6 direct your attention to item number 2, on the second page, or -- well, I
7 don't know if it's the second page of your -- yes, it is the second page,
8 severe wounding and other sufferings of the detainees. Mr. Bozic reports
9 2(a) a large number of wounded detainees need the kind of medical
10 attention that can only be administered at a hospital which we are unable
11 to provide. The problem of the -- (b), the problem of the supply of
12 medical equipment, medicines and basic items for personal hygiene, his
13 remark under (c), international committee of the red cross visited the
14 central investigative prison on the 10, 11th and 12th of August and
15 pointed out a number of irregularities that also constitute violations of
16 the Geneva Conventions, including (a), (b) and (c). Now, sir, I put it to
17 you again is it not true that as time progressed into the fall of 1993,
18 the conditions at the Heliodrom, the medical conditions, the conditions of
19 confinement, still do not comply with international or medical norms, did
21 A. Your Honours, can I comment upon all the allegations written by
22 Mr. Bozic? I believe this to be important.
23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, but do it as concisely as possible.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Under (a), the sentence ends in
25 which we are unable to provide. If Mr. Bozic was not able to provide
1 this, and if this document is authentic, then it was us, doctors, who were
2 able to provide it, for all, irrespective of who the wounded was, to which
3 side he belonged, if they were wounded, they were sent to the hospital.
4 If we were informed about that, if we had contact with the wounded. Under
5 (b), the problem of the supply of medical equipment, medicines and basic
6 items for personal hygiene, that was the problem that we had across the
7 board of the entire organisation of the health care of the HVO. We had
8 that in the hospital in Mostar. That was the problem. But that problem
9 was tackled and shared with the units, and in the same way, the units were
10 supplied with medicines, it was very difficult because supplies were very
11 scarce, and we -- within our possibilities, we supplied sufficient
12 quantities of those to the investigation centre. The problem existed but
13 we dealt with it.
14 Under (c), there is a need for setting up and so on and so forth.
15 He says that there is a need to set up a dispensary. A commission, our
16 commission, proposed that a medical centre should be established, as a
17 point, and this was done. As far as I know, I believe that this medical
18 centre even had beds for possible cases, but these were absolutely
19 irrelevant in this context because whoever needed treatment and they would
20 be brought to the hospital for treatment. And I will finish with the
21 remark, the International committee and so on and so forth, three
22 comments, (a), (b), (c), none of these comments is relative to health care
23 as health care, as such. I already mentioned early on that the quality of
24 food was questionable, food rations were very insufficient, there was not
25 enough food. As for the quality and quantity of food, I cannot comment.
1 As for the use of detainees for work, I don't know, I cannot comment upon
2 that, because I've been talking about the organisation of health care and
3 I can only answer questions in that sense. So here I don't see a single
4 allegation which would deny my testimony with regard to the organisation
5 of health care. This is what I've -- I tried to say.
6 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence is a bit
8 confused and that's why I need your assistance. What is the document that
9 we are currently talking about? I apologise, doctor, I thought we were
10 looking at 638.1. Is that the document that we are looking at?
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, I think so.
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Because I have a totally different
13 content. That's why I'm confused, whatever the doctor has been talking
14 about, I don't have. None of these items in document 638.1.
15 JUDGE LIU: Are you the only one with this problem? Do you know
16 where it is? On the second page of that document.
17 MR. SCOTT: 638.1.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, I can't find the
19 document. The right document. I understand the number.
20 JUDGE LIU: I think the number is 01540561 in B/C/S version.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, since there is no substantial
23 objections from the Defence counsel, you may proceed while the Defence
24 counsel will find the proper page.
25 MR. SCOTT:
1 Q. Sir, if I can direct your attention first of all to exhibit -- I
2 can't deal with it without the usher?
3 JUDGE CLARK: I think Mr. Krsnik is right, if you look at the
4 B/C/S version, there seems to be a page missing. There is certainly one
5 missing from mine if you look at it compared with the translation, there
6 is a paragraph 1 which goes from (a) to (e) and then the next page is
7 paragraph 6 whereas there are several paragraphs with (a), (b), (c), on
8 the English version, so I think Mr. Krsnik probably has an inadequate
10 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, you've obviously spent more time looking
11 at the document in the last few minutes than I have. I can only
12 compare --
13 JUDGE CLARK: Judge Lieu has pointed out it's not in the correct
14 sequence but it's there, the second page is after the last page.
15 MR. SCOTT: I think it is, Your Honour, and I apologise, mine is
16 not stapled that way, but these things do happen.
17 Q. Sir, if I can ask the usher's an assistance showing you 661.11?
18 Directing your attention to the Croatian language original, sir, which is
19 the document -- does the document bear your name in type? And bear a -- a
20 hand marking, I won't necessarily I won't call it necessarily a signature,
21 initials and some hand marking and to the left of that, the Herceg-Bosna
22 stamp? Yes?
23 A. Excuse me, what is your question?
24 Q. Is that your name and that marking yours, sir?
25 A. This is indeed my name. The -- I did not initial, this is not my
1 initial but I believe this is an authentic document. I don't remember
2 this document. There was a number of such documents, but I believe this
3 is our authentic document.
4 Q. So directing your attention to item numbered 2, did you not say on
5 that date, the 27th of October, 1993, the ordered PMZ, prevention and
6 medical protection measures had been inspected and checked in the
7 Heliodrom and Gabela centre, the ordered PMZ measured have not be
8 implemented and have been urgently ordered to remover the faults. So in
9 fact, sir, even by the end of October, these corrections had not been
10 made, according to your report, correct?
11 A. Mr. Prosecutor, all the documents that they have brought are clear
12 evidence of what I have been talking about, that we have systematically
13 looked after everything. Under item 1, sanitary inspection of the Grude
14 ONP has been carried out, under 2, the ordered PMZ prevention medical
15 protection measures, have been inspected and checked in the Heliodrom and
16 Gabela. The ordered PMZ measures have not been fully implemented, full
17 stop. You forgot to read the rest of it. It has been urgently ordered to
18 remove the faults. And so on and so forth. So we continuously entered,
19 supervised and continuously were dissatisfied. What does this mean? I
20 have to clarify. Because the way you may be interpreting it is that
21 nothing was done there. We wanted more to be done. We saw a room for an
22 epidemics to break out. That's why we intervened, that's why no epidemics
23 broke out. If you were to inspect the hotel where I am actually staying,
24 which is a four-star hotel, I hope that they are not going to it hear what
25 I'm going to it say in a minute, but if you were to control that hotel,
1 I'm sure you would come across something, some faults that need to be
2 changed in order to improve things. So Mr. Prosecutor, in a detention
3 centre, in a city where it is not sure that you will be alive on the
4 following day, in which the war is being waged, in which we do the
5 control, which we carry out supervision, and we propose some things, I
6 think we should be commended. I fully expect the Prosecutor could commend
7 me on doing the job well, the job that we were in charge with and that we
8 belong to a unit which was in no way a unit of -- consisting of criminals,
9 so if I was a good doctor, if my doctors were good, if the whole unit was
10 good, why should not we be commended, in Hitler's time even doctors did
11 evil things, so I do not understand, Mr. Prosecutor, what you are trying
12 to prove with this. This I am very proud of this document.
13 Q. And if I can direct your attention, sir, to Exhibit 697.1?, to
14 conclude, Your Honour, I have this exhibit and one more exhibit and even
15 though by no means is my examination truly completed, I can represent to
16 the Chamber a number of interesting topics, but after the conclusion --
17 after those two exhibits, I will conclude.
18 JUDGE LIU: Is there any English translations for this document?
19 MR. SCOTT: Yes, I'm sorry, Your Honour. 697.1.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes, we have been furnished with them, thank you very
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours, can I
23 just say one sentence, please?
24 JUDGE LIU: Yes, one sentence.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I protest against the Prosecutor's
1 sentence that he has a few more things to show us but he will be brief,
2 because there is no more time. I ask him to continue. I don't want to
3 leave this place feeling that there were other things but there was no
4 time. This is very important. You should find time.
5 JUDGE LIU: Dr. Bagaric, I believe that it is the Chamber who will
6 conduct the cross-examination of this trial. We decide how long the
7 Prosecution will have.
8 Yes, Mr. Scott.
9 MR. SCOTT:
10 Q. Sir, I'm not going to read this entire document to you because we
11 don't have time. But it is another document that you prepared, is it not
12 true, sir, dated the 26th of November, 1993? We are now, sir, have gone
13 probable approximately a month later at the end of November, and is it not
14 true, sir, that still at that time, which is reflected by this document,
15 the medical and health conditions, conditions of confinement, at the HVO
16 detention centres were still not consistent with international law norms
17 or medical norms?
18 A. This is not correct. Please tell me, I apologise, Your Honours,
19 please tell me what makes you allege again the same thing? If I told you
20 that we were continuously working and supervising? So this document
21 dating 26th November, was addressed to Dr. Drago Dzambas and refers to the
22 entire area, and I repeat, I did not read this document, I cannot remember
23 any document from that time but this is another proof that we repeatedly
24 wanted and strived to improve, to control, the health care of the
25 detainees, and I will answer your question. Not even in the hospitals of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina at this moment, the situation of health care is not the
2 way it should be. That is my answer, at this very moment, as we speak,
4 Q. Sir, you say in this letter, upon the completion, you refer back
5 to the earlier documents that we looked at this afternoon based on the on
6 site investigation on the 28th of August, 1993. It is now some three
7 months later. And you report this in the terms of things to be done. In
8 the last paragraph of your report, you state, "The above mentioned must be
9 understood as a priority and a permanent task." I put it to you, sir,
10 with that because I do have to conclude, according to the Chamber's
11 guidelines, so the conditions of the camp never substantially improved,
12 they became a matter of international outrage and it was only after the
13 pressure of the Republic of Croatia that these camps were closed at the
14 end of 1993. Now, isn't that true?
15 A. I am glad that finally you recognise that the Republic of Croatia
16 did something good in Bosnia-Herzegovina after all. What you have just
17 said is not true. It is nothing but, let me put it this way, it is not
18 correct. I have been able to demonstrate with the continuity of my
19 documents, but not all of them, but those that you have had at your
20 disposal that we continuously monitored the situation and supervised the
21 situation of the detainees and whenever we were there and we were there
22 all the time, we strived for more. And imagine if I had not issued this
23 paper at all? Does that mean, Mr. Prosecutor, that in that case, our
24 health care would be good? This is just to prove that we worked
25 continuously, that we strived for more. And when you say that with time,
1 the situation went from bad to worse, is a lie. With time, the situation
2 improved. Your Honours, what I can now wonder is whether there was time
3 when we could all do more, where I could do more. Then the answer is yes.
4 That was immediately after this prison was opened. And this is the period
5 where I could discuss here the things that we failed to do. But after
6 that, with time, the situation only improved, and nobody in their right
7 mind can prove to the contrary. So it is simply a lie to say that the
8 situation was either the same or worse. And that has absolutely nothing
9 to do with the closing down of these centres.
10 JUDGE LIU: Your next document, Mr. Scott.
11 MR. SCOTT:
12 Q. Direct our attention sir to P716.1. We seem to have lost the
13 usher. Oh, sorry, I didn't see him?
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I just want to respect
15 the principles of my duty. I know that I enjoy the trust of this Court
16 and Judge Clark has often warned me that I have to have trust in this
17 Chamber and I do, again this document is being misinterpreted in the
18 cross-examination. It is being interpreted as a letter or a report. It
19 is an order. What needs to be done all over the territory of
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And this is being misinterpreted -- misrepresented
21 during the cross-examination.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just another very brief explanation,
23 if I may, please. I thank my -- the counsel. This refers to the entire
24 area, and the documents that we had before me earlier were -- referred to
25 the centres. So this is another proof -- Your Honours, how can I know
1 what went on in Central Bosnia if I couldn't get there? And this letter
2 is addressed to a doctor in Central Bosnia, so this letter applied to him
3 as well. And in so far as we had information from him. This is just --
4 the Prosecutor has -- is just setting me up and I'm really sorry,
5 Mr. Prosecutor, that you have -- you are resorting to these means.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Usher, did you find that document? Yes?
7 Yes, Mr. Seric?
8 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I don't
9 have any objections, just to provide for the just treatment of both sides
10 in these proceedings, I am bound by my conscience and the protection of my
11 client, I need to say that the Prosecutor has used more time than was
12 allowed for the cross-examination.
13 JUDGE LIU: I think that the Prosecution has realised the time he
14 used. He tried to wind up his cross-examination by using the last
16 Yes, Mr. Scott.
17 MR. SCOTT:
18 Q. Sir, in referring you to Exhibit P716.1, do you recall, sir,
19 looking at this document, that there was a decision by Mate Boban dated
20 around the 10th of December, 1993, to close the following HVO detention
21 camps? Gabela, Heliodrom, Ljubuski, Livno, Tomislavgrad and Prozor
22 detention camps? That's my first question. Do you remember the order of
23 Mate Boban to close all those camps at the end of 1993?
24 A. But of course I don't remember. I didn't work in Mate Boban's
25 office, I didn't work in detention centres so I don't know. If this
1 document is accurate, what is in it that I should remember it by?
2 Q. Sir, I'll close with this: I just put it to you just as a matter
3 of record that we are required to do this and there may be other evidence
4 that the Chamber has heard or will here: Isn't it true, sir, that these
5 camps were closed because the conditions in the camps, the conditions of
6 the inmates, medical conditions, the hygienic conditions, the conditions
7 of confinement, had become a matter of international outrage and only on
8 the pressure received from the government of Croatia were these camps
9 closed at the end of 1993? Isn't that true?
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I was waiting for interpretation to
13 end to make it easier for my colleagues. Your Honours, I believe this is
14 inadmissible. The Prosecutor constantly appropriate certain rights and I
15 suppose he thinks he has more rights than we do, that he is the lord and
16 master of this Court. He may not testify in this manner. This is not
17 cross-examination. I would not be allowed to do that certainly. These --
18 this is the testimony by the Prosecutor, it is not a question, nor is it
19 pursuing an answer, nor does he want an answer.
20 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President --
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I really frankly speaking, I really
22 could not understand you. I could not understand your objections.
23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour may I -- I apologise.
24 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] [no interpretation]
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, we will hear from Mr. Scott.
1 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, Rule 90, rule 90, section (h)(2) states
2 quote, "In the cross-examination of a witness who is able to give evidence
3 relevant to the case --"
4 THE INTERPRETER: Slow down please.
5 MR. SCOTT: "... for the cross-examining party, counsel shall put
6 to the witness the nature of the case, of the party for whom that counsel
7 appears, which is in contradiction of the evidence given by the witness."
8 And I put my case, I've closed the -- I'm attempt to go meet the Chamber's
9 guidelines as best I can on the time and I'm closing by putting our case
10 very clearly to this witness.
11 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik? Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is not what was read
13 out from the Rules because we know the Rules, but the Prosecutor asked a
14 question and provided an answer. To make such claims true, he's got his
15 indictment which he needs to prove. And these allegations he needs to
16 prove because he's got a document. We are not here to prove the
17 innocence. The burden is on him to prove the guilt. And for such words
18 in the phrasing of questions, and providing an immediate answer by using
19 some allegations which he has failed to prove so far, it is
20 inadmissibility in cross-examination, sorry, I may be wrong and that is
21 why I addressed the Honourable Court.
22 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I don't see anything wrong with this
23 question. Frankly speaking, this procedure has been practised in this
24 Tribunal for many cases, and we have been sitting here for almost a year.
25 I don't see anything wrong from the Prosecution to ask a question like
1 this. And I have to emphasise that your witness has the full right to
2 rebut any case put to him in front of us, the Judges, and we will make the
3 proper assessment of all the witnesses or testimonies given by this
4 witness. There is no problem about that. I understand you do not agree
5 with what the Prosecution said as a conclusion. It's quite
6 understandable. But the Prosecution has the full right to put his case to
7 this witness. And this witness has the full right to answer this question
8 or deny any allegations. I don't see anything wrong, frankly speaking,
9 Mr. Krsnik.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, that I acted to the
11 detriment of my client, then I didn't know how to do my business in my
12 cross-examination, because at that time, while respecting the equality of
13 arms I was entitled whenever I had witnesses for the Prosecution, whenever
14 I realised they were not telling the truth about the Heliodrom because
15 they could not identify the buildings, I could put it to them, I put it to
16 you that you've never been to Heliodrom and you know nothing about it, but
17 I never did that because I thoughts I was not allowed to, because I wanted
18 to treat decently victims and conditionally calling witnesses and so on
19 and so forth. And I'm now saying that I acted prejudicially to my client
20 because my defence was then wrong and I'm not ashamed to admit that in
21 public because that is not how I behaved, nor did I say that nor did I put
22 such allegations to the witnesses for the Prosecution.
23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, if you believe that your
24 cross-examination is not adequate, and if you believe that there are
25 certain points which are very essential to the Defence of your client, the
1 Rules have provided you with an opportunity at the later stage, that is
2 the rebuttal and rejoinder procedures.
3 Yes, Mr. Seric? We have spent a lot of time on procedural
5 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] That is true, Mr. President, and I
6 apologise, but I object to this question for a completely different
7 reason. Namely my client, Vinko Martinovic, that is the question is
8 completely irrelevant and out of place because he's not responsible for
9 the setting up of prisons or the treatment and guarding of prisoners, not
10 a single one, so I do not know what this question, what this Prosecutor's
11 question has to do with the charges against my client.
12 JUDGE LIU: Well, I understand that this witness is for
13 Mr. Naletilic.
14 Yes, Witness, you may answer that question.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand the Prosecutor. I
16 understand that Mr. Prosecutor, of course, needs to persist in his intent
17 and in some way discredit me as a witness. That is how I understand it.
18 All this time, that was his approach, that is how I saw them.
19 However, I do not see where has he proven that my affirmations
20 were inaccurate in this regard. So my answer to this question is as
21 follows: All the detention centres, prisons or I don't know what in the
22 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina were regrettably contrary to the
23 interests, contrary to the interests of Croats and Muslims Bosniaks, so
24 they were closed down in the interests and to the benefit of both.
25 Whoever contributed to that closure did a good job. Therefore, I withdraw
1 my last sentence. In the prisons, in these centres or prisons or whatever
2 you care to call them, the conditions were not such, when it comes to the
3 health care, the conditions were not such as the Prosecutor is saying, and
4 they cannot be related to that. It was simply a political decision to
5 close them down. And of course, nobody enjoyed being there, wherever you
6 might be detained. So I deny, I refute, any suspicion, any doubt or
7 attempt to say that in my testimony I said something wrongly or
8 interpreted something wrongly. I refute that absolutely, and I am at your
9 disposal fully to prove that, to comment on that, and that is my answer to
11 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I appreciate the Chamber's patience
12 this afternoon. That concludes my questions. I think I would like to
13 make a record, Your Honour, that among the topics, and I say among because
14 it's not all of them, that I was not able to pursue, were the use of
15 Muslim prisoners in forced labour, which I believe there are documents
16 that would go to this witness, and also to the fact that a Herceg-Bosna
17 war crimes commission was established in November 1993 to which the
18 witness was named which I think would be an interesting topic for the
19 Chamber, the war crimes commission, but we have not had time to go into
20 those topics. Thank you.
21 JUDGE LIU: And we'll resume at 6.00. After that, we will do the
23 --- Recess taken at 5.29 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 6.00 p.m.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. Your re-examination, please.
1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I will
2 endeavour to be very brief. We have just received the Croatian
3 translation of P66.4 -- P566.4.
4 Re-examined by Mr. Krsnik:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Doctor, can you tell us if your health care
6 service, the points that you had at the Heliodrom, did you make any lists
7 of persons, because according to this document that was put before you by
8 the Prosecutor, it says that there were -- it indicates the number of
9 persons. Did you have the exact information about the number of people in
10 the central investigative prison?
11 A. When I went there the first time, the information I was given was
12 that it was a large number of detained or incarcerated, of inmates, and I
13 thought that that was that. I mean, a large number. Several thousand or
14 something. And I believe I even used once that many people had been
15 incarcerated, and so on. But later on, when talking with the people who
16 supervised the health care in the centre itself, I heard from them that
17 that figure was too high, that -- but it was a large number, and they were
18 saying there could have been up to 2.000 men. I don't know.
19 Unfortunately I cannot give you the exacts number and at this moment I do
20 not have the exact information so anything I give would be guessing, but
21 that number was certainly not the one -- that I assumed for a while, that
22 I was afraid was correct.
23 Q. And tell us, please, since the doctors had to provide medicines
24 and the health care, did they inform you in their reports that that number
25 changed, say July, August, September? Was the number always the same or
2 A. Well, these questions which require exact, accurate figures.
3 Unfortunately I cannot answer them precisely. What I do know with
4 certainty, for instance, I remember that there was immediately a proposal
5 that everybody over 60 or 65 should be let go. And all those under the
6 age of 18. For instance, those who were younger. So on a number of
7 occasions, in conversations, in talks, or based on proposals of I don't
8 know, even our doctors, for instance, when somebody was ill and so on and
9 so forth, that figure varied, yes, their number changed and, yes, of
10 course, I don't know, but it varied from time to time, but I really cannot
11 give you the exact figures because -- sorry, because I did not even have
12 the information that we would be discussing this subject. So that I would
13 have to refresh my contacts, check and see, and unfortunately, right now,
14 I cannot do that.
15 Q. Right, sorry, my last question, then. I appreciate what you are
16 telling us and I thank you if you are not positive about something, if you
17 do not have personal information but do you know if Dr. Curic would be
18 able to provide us with that information? Does he know more than you do
19 because he went there more often than you did?
20 A. Right. Well, right. Like this. Yes, of course he has more
21 information, but I have to say that neither Dr. Curic nor any other
22 physician had primarily -- were responsible primarily, were tasked
23 primarily with something related to figures. They were tasked with doing
24 what needed to be done and that is extend the health care, so Dr. Curic of
25 course will have more information, just as he will have more information
1 about the health care itself. But of course, one can discuss the matter
2 with the commanders themselves.
3 Q. Thank you for this information. You know, in this courtroom we
4 heard figures from 5.000 to 10.000, that is why I'm asking you?
5 A. Yeah, right, very well.
6 Q. Now, I have two more questions in relation to the documents. Her
7 Honour Judge Clark asked you, you didn't answer not because you didn't
8 want to but because my learned friend moved on to it a different answer
9 and that answer took sometime. When Judge Clark asked you and the
10 document is P612.2, which also incorporated the report signed by -- by the
11 three doctors, it says that order of the health sector of the 28th of
12 September, 1993. So Judge Clark asked you if that was an integral part,
13 and you never had time to answer.
14 A. Yes, I know what you're talking about because I can remember that
15 text. After -- after they had taken stock of the situation there
16 regarding the health care, they also attached an earlier document so that
17 it became part and parcel of that document making for an integral
18 document. And along side this document, which they had made themselves,
19 they attached yet another document. So that.
20 Q. This order that you issued on the 20th of September, 1993, should
21 be an integral part of this document?
22 A. Yes, it is that's correct.
23 Q. We did not get did it in this way, that's why I asked you that.
24 And my very last question, witness, will you please be so kind and tell
25 us, it is document P661.11, it is the document, you will remember, that
1 the Prosecutor asked you if it was a facsimile?
2 A. Yes, I know.
3 Q. Could the usher please help me, will you look at the upper right
4 corner and tell us if you had identify the signature and is it a common
5 thing to have these doodles or signatures or initials in the upper part
6 of the document? I'm referring to the upper part of the Croatian
8 A. Well, it's like this: This is -- this can be a document forwarded
9 by our headquarters elsewhere to somebody else, and that somebody else
10 possibly initialed it in the upper part to indicate that he had received
11 it. I'm guessing, I cannot make even an assumption. And this first part
12 perhaps and this second part is something I do not understand, but this
13 first part could even be Mr. Stojic's. It could be. So I go back to
14 that part, whether the document was signed or not, which is what the
15 Prosecutor asked me. Right. So if we -- when we made a document, we'd
16 send this document to somewhere it was supposed to be sent but we could
17 print out a copy of that same document and keep it for ourselves, so it
18 did not have to be signed necessarily nor did it have to leave our office
19 with this facsimile in the upper right corner, I say possibly that the
20 person who received the document somewhere initialed it because, I assume,
21 you got these documents from the archive of the Ministry of Defence and
22 perhaps these documents were addressed to that ministry, perhaps I say. I
23 cannot really say with any certainty.
24 Q. Let us cut it short. Which document is considered original?
25 After all the attempts to arrive at an answer, will you please tell us
1 what is the original? For example this document, what does this
2 document's original look like?
3 A. Well, well, well, it has the heading which is the official
4 heading, therefore, which is not like this one of course, which has a
5 stamp and a signature, therefore.
6 Q. When you say signature, what kind of a signature do you mean?
7 Because it is deemed here or there is an attempt to consider a signature,
8 once typed signature?
9 A. No, no, no, this here is machine. This is not the signature.
10 Q. Wait. You are making too much haste. When you say signature, do
11 you mean a signature in one's own hand?
12 A. I apologise. Do you mean this document.
13 Q. I'm talking generally about an original document. What does an
14 original of a document look like which you will says in the original?
15 A. You mean my document?
16 Q. Yes, of course, yours.
17 A. Well, my document, the originals of my documents were the ones
18 which had down there the assistant of the head of the Defence Department,
19 of course this is typed. And then this is signed either personally by
20 myself personally or it is signed by one of my colleagues with me knowing
21 who did that.
22 Q. And that is then considered the original document?
23 A. Well, to my mind, yes, because otherwise we could not function. I
24 could not be always present there and sign every document in my own hand
25 so it always said, Ivan Bagaric.
1 Q. But doctor, if you're sending this document to the United Nations
2 will you send it without your original signature?
3 A. But this is not a document that was addressed to the United
4 Nations, this document here.
5 Q. I'm not asking you about this document in particular, I'm asking
6 you about documents in general that you created?
7 A. But of course I signed them.
8 Q. Right. And my last question, doctor, if the Defence asked you to,
9 in to fortnight or roughly in a fortnight, if you could provide certain
10 documentation and give it to the Defence so that I could file it with the
11 Honourable Court, if that is possible, I don't know if you are prepared to
12 do that?
13 A. Right. A request from this Court is an obligation, that is how I
14 see it. So of course I will do my utmost and provide whatever I can,
15 primarily with my colleagues, with the doctors, to do that. Now, when I
16 can do it, I really cannot say right now.
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I have no
18 further questions. Thank you very much for coming here.
19 JUDGE LIU: Any questions from the Judges? Judge Clark?
20 Questioned by the Court:
21 JUDGE CLARK: Yes, Dr. Dr. Bagaric, I'm hoping you'll clear up a
22 few things for me. Prior to the conflict in 1992, even with the Serbs,
23 what was the ethos of the main hospital in Mostar? Now, the word ethos
24 may cause you some problems in translation. I don't know if it does. In
25 many countries, well, in most countries -- you understand what ethos
2 A. I believe that I do. That's the national composition of --
3 JUDGE CLARK: No, doctor, in most countries I am familiar with,
4 there are many religions operating in the country. Some of the hospitals
5 have a Catholic ethos and maybe nuns run them. Some of the hospitals are
6 Protestant and are run by a board, some are Jewish, looking at America
7 and Britain, and some are run by a board of directors. That's what ethos
8 means, that it leans towards the philosophy of a particular religion. In
9 other words if it was a Catholic hospital would you have no terminations
10 or probably no in vitro fertilisation, that sort of thing, there's ethos
11 and ethics involved. Now the question I'm asking was the main hospital in
12 Mostar which subsequently became the war hospital, did that hospital,
13 prior to the conflict, have any particular ethos? Was it Catholic or
14 Muslim or Orthodox or did it serve the entire population of the Mostar
15 municipality? You're nodding. So it had no specific ethos, it served
16 everybody. Good. When the HVO was set up, were there any flags flying
17 outside the hospital then at that stage, when the HVO took over the
18 day-to-day running, administration, of Mostar? Did the flag fly outside
19 that hospital?
20 A. I cannot -- I understand what you're saying, but I cannot say
21 anything about the time immediately before the conflict in 1992, because I
22 was not in Mostar, in that year. That was the time of conflict between
23 Croats and Muslims on one side and Serbs on the other side. So I can
24 truthfully not say anything about that, whether there was something or
25 not, but what I can say, for a fact, is that during the conflict with the
1 Muslims, so the conflict between Croats and Muslims, on several occasions,
2 I pointed to the fact that not only -- not on the hospital, I did not
3 see a Croatian flag on the hospital, but at a checkpoint in the courtyard
4 of the hospital, within the perimeter of the hospital, at the very
5 entrance where the military police controlled the entrance, I think I saw
6 a Croatian flag on one occasion, and I intervened personally and I asked
7 for that flag to be removed because it provided an excuse for possible
8 shelling or I said that somebody may perceive it as a sign that we did not
9 receive people of other affiliation or religion. So on the hospital
10 itself I did not see a flag and I don't believe that there was one. The
11 only flag was a red cross flag but I remember my personal intervention
12 that took place within the perimeter of the hospital at the main entrance
13 which was 300 or 500 metres away from the main building of the hospital.
14 That's where the military police was checking the entrance.
15 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you. The next question I wanted to ask you is
16 if the usher would be kind enough to furnish Dr. Bagaric with Exhibit
17 D1/380? It's a list of medical supplies in a consignment for the BH Army
18 dated the 8th of June, 1993.
19 A. I can see that.
20 JUDGE CLARK: I was just wondering, doctor, if you could explain
21 to me what the initials "SC," which appear after quantities, what "SC"
23 A. "SC" I believe is a "scatula," that's a box. That's Latin,
24 scatula, that's a box which contains medicines. So that's the
25 abbreviation for scatula, so that's a measure for quantity.
1 JUDGE CLARK: I just wondered about that because the very last
2 item, number 25 is called loose medicaments, two boxes.
3 A. I believe that these medicines such as penbritin under 1, so this
4 is an antibiotic, it is listed and counted in scatulas. Now, loose
5 medicaments, this could be infusions -- no, 24 is infusions solutions.
6 That's one pallet. That is about 100 infusions. And as for loose
7 medicaments and boxes, I don't understand. Maybe this means that there
8 were a number of different medicaments which were not sorted for type
9 because that's very often how we receive it. We received it in
10 humanitarian aid. We still have a lot of medicaments from humanitarian
11 aid which are poisoned because they are out of their date. So I think
12 that these may be medicaments which are not assorted or sorted.
13 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you. I leave that aside now. Doctor, from
14 what I understand of your testimony, correct me if I'm wrong, is that
15 prior to July, mid-July, 1993, you were unaware of the existence or the
16 operation of the Heliodrom as a detention centre for Muslims, that when
17 you went there, there was no medical care being provided at all.
18 A. To be completely precise, the first time I heard about the
19 detainees at the meeting in Jablanica that I mentioned earlier on, then
20 Mr. Halilovic mentioned that there were detained soldiers, although the
21 war had not even started yet, and I was really surprised, and indeed one
22 commission visited that prison which was there and I didn't even know
23 where Heliodrom was, and people were released. That's number 1. Number
24 2, during the conflict, in the month of May and June, I told you that in
25 June, in mid-June, I went where I went, that was Canada. When I returned,
1 I believe it was sometime in mid-June, so I left towards the end of June
2 and I returned in mid-June. Or around the 20th of June. Then I heard
3 from other doctors that they had entered these premises, that those who
4 required help were receiving treatment, and then I heard about a huge
5 number of people, and that we were supposed to intervene, and then I also
6 told you how I contributed towards that intervention. That was my initial
7 visit together with Dr. Lang that I already told you about. But at that
8 time, I can't tell you for a fact that this or that person supervised this
9 or that. But I know that chiefs of medical services of particular
10 brigades in the area received people and provided them with care. And
11 from the -- from my visit onwards, we established a continuous, organised
12 protection and supervision.
13 JUDGE CLARK: Well, can I take it that your evidence, then, is
14 that whatever care prisoners had before your visit towards the end of
15 July, 1993, following your visit there with Dr. Lang, the service
17 A. Absolutely.
18 JUDGE CLARK: Because we've heard from Mr. Bruno Stojic when gave
19 evidence -- did I say something that I should not say?
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] No, no, no, Your Honour, but
21 Mr. Bruno Stojic never gave evidence before this Court.
22 JUDGE CLARK: Well, who was the gentleman who was in a very high
23 position? He may be a protected witness. Maybe I should go into private
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] You're referring to Mr. Bozo Rajic.
1 JUDGE CLARK: Forgive me, we have terrible problems with referring
2 these names. This gentleman who was in a position of importance in the
3 HVO went to visit the Heliodrom and he told us that he was shocked by what
4 he saw, but I believe that he may well have gone before you went, that
5 that may be the situation. But any way, your evidence is that after your
6 visit, there was a material improvement in the health care afforded to
7 these prisoners. Now, the question I want to ask is, Dr. Bagaric, do you
8 make a distinction in function between the general welfare of the
9 detainees and the care of the detainees when their medical condition gave
10 rise to such a necessity? Do you make a distinction between welfare and
11 medical care?
12 A. The line is very thin between the two. People cannot be provided
13 with good health care and be malnourished at the same time. I know what
14 you're saying. When you ask me whether the condition improved after our
15 visit, the completely correct answer would be as follows. I don't believe
16 that it improved on the following morning or even within two or three
17 days, but a few days later, ten days later, it improved significantly
18 because we insisted on doctors going there. And then at the beginning of
19 August, we even organised our medical point within that centre, and I
20 agree with you that the conditions that prevailed there, the overpopulated
21 conditions, obviously aggravated the overall condition of these people and
22 also meant a lot of problems for the health care.
23 JUDGE CLARK: You made a distinction, doctor, between the sanitary
24 problems, the lack of toilet facilities, washing facilities. I take it
25 you could do nothing about that.
1 A. This was something that falls under the logistics which were
2 necessary in order to provide for certain conditions. That is the
3 sanitary inspection which has to be carried out in order to provide for
4 the conditions that would prevent the breaking out of any epidemics, I
5 immediately I can tell you that our results were not spectacular at the
6 beginning but after the opening of our centre, the situation even with
7 that improved and as a result of that, there were no epidemics. There was
8 no serious health condition seen in a number of people. And if you read
9 all the items of the document that the Prosecution has provided you with,
10 especially the second page, where it says that the chlorine has to be
11 added to the water, that stools of those who were handling food have to be
12 inspected, that the diet has to be improved, that the hygiene has to be
13 improved, washing and so on and so forth,. Obviously conditions were very
14 serious and could not be good, could not be optimal conditions, but from
15 my point of view, as a doctor, what was necessary that everybody who
16 needed health care should be provided with health care and that the
17 break out of epidemics were prevented and that those who had to be
18 referred to hospitals should be referred to hospitals. And we succeeded
19 in doing that.
20 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you, doctor. It knew you may feel that this
21 is outside of your area of expertise or your knowledge but I'll ask you
22 the question because we are concerned about it. In the year that you were
23 in Mostar and that really was the time when the worst hostilities were
24 going on, in 1993, were you ever personally aware as a doctor and in the
25 position you had in the HVO, that there were reports, I won't put it any
1 more than that, there were reports that prisoners were being used on the
2 front line or near the front line, and as a result, a number of them
3 sustained gunshot injuries or were killed. Were you personally aware of
5 A. I was aware of the fact that people would go out to do some works,
6 groups of people would be engaged in works, so due to the scarcity in
7 the -- of workforce, people were sent out to do some work. Whether that
8 was some sort of labour or work, I don't know. I heard of that. But
9 where they were taken, where they were, where they were injured and how, I
10 can't tell you with full certainty. I think that it would be good if you
11 could establish contacts with those people who were there. I'm sure that
12 they could provide you with a lot more information. I did hear that
13 people from these centres were taken to do some work and that they were
14 injured and I also heard that some of them were even killed. Now, for me
15 to speculate whether this happened in this or in another way, there was a
16 lot of shelling going on, I can't say anything about that, I can't give my
17 testimony to that effect.
18 JUDGE CLARK: Can you help me with this, then, doctor? Was it any
19 part of your duty or any part of your portfolio in relation to the
20 position that you held, to direct an investigation into the death of a
21 prisoner? Was that something that was done by the police or did you have
22 any role at all in that, if a prisoner were to die or a prisoner were to
23 be badly injured, was there any protocol for an investigation?
24 A. If somebody were to be injured, then they would be treated in the
25 hospital and as a patient. The destiny of these people from then on was
1 their destiny in the hospital. And they received the same treatment as
2 everybody else, and the hospital had its principle, its structures of
3 work, and I did not have the need to intervene. I did not have any
4 objections about the health care extended to the injured persons, no
5 matter of their religion, Muslim, Croats, that was not my authority and I
6 did not need to intervene. As -- when somebody was killed, these centres
7 had their respective commanders and I told you that our doctors were in
8 the centre in charge, i.e. it was my duty to provide the maximum level of
9 health care. We could not assume responsibility for the fact whether the
10 people were taken for work or not, and whether they were going to be
11 injured there or not. A few days ago, I told you that we were very
12 surprised to see these centres because we were in no way prepared. So my
13 main task was to organise health care for the units and for the
14 population. So when these centres were opened, we provided health care
15 there because there was nobody else to provide health care. I'm afraid
16 that international organisations did not enough to increase their
17 presence. So when I talked about our proposals, when that representatives
18 of the Red Cross have to be present there, all the time, in order to
19 report on the conditions in these centres, that was my proposal. So --
20 what you asked me was not in -- under our authority.
21 JUDGE CLARK: Could you help us with this, doctor? Whose
22 authority would the treatment of prisoners of war or detainees come
23 under? Who was responsible for the welfare of detainees who were injured
24 or who were killed? We know from documents that we've seen, doctor, that
25 there were detainees who were injured and killed. I'm not saying who
1 caused the injuries or how they were killed, but we know that while they
2 were on day release from the hospital, because there are records that show
3 that, that they sustained injuries close to or at the confrontation line.
4 Who would have been responsible for the welfare of prisoners of war?
5 A. I'm talking about those instances when somebody was injured.
6 Either a detainee or anybody else. Then it was our responsibility. So it
7 was either -- it was medical service, the hospital. When it came to those
8 people who were killed, it was not our responsibility. We were not
9 responsible for the Croatian Defence Council, for civilians or for members
10 of the HV army or anybody else. Later on, there were some bodies which
11 looked after the victims of war but this certainly fell beyond the scope
12 of our authority.
13 I apologise. Those who were injured and who were treated, that
14 was under our authority. These people were treated in our hospitals. I
15 can't tell you here that everybody who was injured was treated by us. We
16 did treat them, if they were brought to the institution, if we knew about
17 them, but if our member of the HVO or somebody else were injured somewhere
18 where doctors were not present, where it was very remote and doctors never
19 knew about it and somebody could bleed to death without any assistance
20 being extended to them because roads were blocked or that person was not
21 pulled out in due course, and the help just did not arrive on time but all
22 those that we admitted, that our services and our hospitals admitted, we
23 were responsible for those people who had been injured, we were
24 responsible for their treatment.
25 JUDGE CLARK: Doctor, if I could sum up your evidence as I
1 understand it, in relation to that aspect of your evidence, the facilities
2 were there for the treatment of all injured people no matter what
3 background they came from, but that there was nothing that you or your
4 doctors could do to make the military bring them to the hospital for
5 treatment. That was outside of your area of responsibility. You could
6 provide the treatment but you couldn't force anybody to bring the injured
7 detainees for treatment.
8 A. I don't know of any case that somebody was injured and needed help
9 and was not brought in and was not treated. So your allegation that there
10 is a possibility that something like that may have happened, unfortunately
11 is not true. I just want you and me to clarify one thing. What I said
12 was that there may have been an HVO soldier who was injured in one of
13 those, so to say, pockets or enclaves and people there could not bring the
14 injured person to a medical centre in time, and that is why somebody may
15 have lost their lives. I know of such cases. I remember a case of a
16 medical -- of a nurse who was killed from an ambush and by the time they
17 had found her, she was still alive but she -- she actually bled to death.
18 As a rule, I never heard of anybody who was injured, regardless of their
19 background, who was not transported to where they had to be transported
20 to. What I'm saying is that sometimes, they arrived too late. If you are
21 referring specifically to those people who were doing some work, they were
22 detainees, I never heard of anybody like that being injured and not being
23 brought in. I really have -- did not hear of any such case. So what I
24 believe is that whoever was injured or wounded, regardless of their
25 nationality was treated.
1 JUDGE CLARK: Thank you, doctor, for your assistance.
2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Judge Diarra?
3 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] I'm still at the Heliodrom. Let us
4 talk about the Heliodrom. And you said that this, the Heliodrom, that
5 this camp was an undesirable result of the war. I liked that feeling.
6 But what we need to know is were you indignant because of the conditions
7 under which they were detained, that is lack of room, lack of heating,
8 lack of sanitary conditions, so on and so forth, or were these people in a
9 deplorable state of health? Were there any general illnesses, infectious
10 diseases, contagious diseases or some other, some inflammations and if
11 that happened as a result of running a gauntlet, of beating, of this or
12 that, that is I think that you were very vague when you spoke, and in
13 spite of the explanations thaw provided to my colleague, I'd really like
14 to know precisely what was it that made you indignant about it?
15 A. Right. To begin with, when I said the result of the war, that is
16 an undesirable outcome, I meant that specifically or myself or all my
17 other colleagues, my doctors, we all read medicine and learned how to help
18 the sick, the wounded and so on and so forth but we didn't have any war
19 experience and we did not expect that because of that conflict between
20 the, I don't know, Croats and Muslims, the Croats would --
21 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Doctor, I'm very sorry but you're
22 not answering my question. And it will be unnecessarily long. What I
23 want to know is what made you indignant? What made you angry? Did the
24 prisoners have any marks of having been beaten, tortured, or were they
25 victims of some general diseases, contagious diseases where they were too
1 cramped, too overcrowded in the cell? Will you explain that? Do not go
2 into the past of that situation. Just give me the answer to what I've
3 asked you.
4 A. Okay. Right. When I personally entered the centre that I spoke
5 about, I saw many people in one place. I did not see -- I did not see
6 then anyone with some injuries. At that time, I did not see anyone like
7 that. However, amongst those people, I saw some men who had, I don't
8 know, some said, "Well, I'm taking medicines against high blood pressure,
9 and here I don't have medicines or anything." For instance, then people,
10 you understand what I'm driving at? That is individual men approached us,
11 the doctors, and complained, saying, "Well, I don't have this medicine or
12 that medicine. I need this or that." And so on. So that the fact that
13 you have many people in one place, even if they are in good shape and
14 healthy, will require some intervention. For instance, to make a step
15 forward and then anticipate certain events, anticipate that perhaps an
16 epidemic may break out or I don't know what, and that interventions maybe
17 necessary because of this multitude of people in one place, because of all
18 the requests that they told us about. I saw at that very moment that it
19 was a very serious matter and that it needed to be addressed very
20 seriously, and that in case of health care, one would have to urgently and
21 systematically form a group to supervise and treat and so on. And that's
23 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Did you say after the attacks on
24 the 9th of May, 1993, and other events that follow, that Bosnia remained
25 intact and whole in one piece? That is at least what I gathered. Did you
1 say that? Or perhaps I'm wrong.
2 A. How do you mean that Bosnia remained intact? What do you mean? I
3 didn't understand your question.
4 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] I noted down, I wrote down what you
5 were saying, what you said in this courtroom, that after the attacks of
6 the 9th of May, and other events that ensued, that Bosnia remained intact
7 and whole. Did I get you wrong or is it what you said? Perhaps you did
8 not speak about that year, perhaps you were very fast. We have
9 interpreters with us. Did you affirm that Bosnia remained intact and in
10 one piece?
11 A. I don't think I spoke about that at all. I do not recall that in
12 relation to the conflict --
13 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Okay. I do not insist. You spoke
14 about Madam Minder and that she came to help, in view of the tragic
15 situation in Konjic, and -- who is Mrs. Minder? Who is Madam Minder. And
16 you said she needed authorisation to help you. Whose authorisation?
17 A. I cannot remember if it is Mrs. Minder or somebody like that. I
18 need a document because I was reading documents, but I believe you're
19 referring to a document that was sent to the International Red Cross, the
20 International Red Cross, and she headed it at the time. She was
21 responsible for it at the time. I think that is what it is about. And if
22 that is so, and I think it is, then it is an international organisation
23 which has no weapons, which has its staff unarmed and they cannot come to
24 Konjic, cannot go to Croat villages where specifically a crime had been
25 committed at the time because the Muslim forces, the forces of the Army of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina had blocked that area. She therefore needed their
2 permission. Otherwise she could not do it. And that is what happened.
3 We did not get the permit. We did not get the authorisation and we did
4 nothing about it.
5 JUDGE DIARRA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Dr. Bagaric, for your
7 JUDGE LIU: Any questions out of Judges' questions? Yes,
8 Mr. Scott?
9 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, yes, I do on one question about arising
10 from Judge Clark's questions about whether conditions in fact materially
11 improved after the end of July, 1993. If I can have the usher's hopefully
12 final assistance today by showing the witness P630.2? Which would be in
13 the original binder, P630.2.
14 Further cross-examination by Mr. Scott:
15 Q. Sir, because of the time, I'm not going to show you -- I don't
16 have time to show you the other document but this is very, very similar to
17 P638.1, which we looked at for sometime. This was a letter again from
18 Mr. Bozic to Bruno Stojic. That 638.1 dated the 11th of October, 1993,
19 and I submit, Mr. President, any one in the courtroom that compares the
20 text they will find that the texts are virtually identical or extremely
21 similar. Sir, do you see on this version of the document, 630.2 that
22 notations from Mate Boban have been put on this document in which he
23 writes to the chief of the military police, Mr. Valentin Choric, this is a
24 very serious problem, please contact Mr. Bozic, sort the matter out within
25 the limits of what is possible, and the requirements of humanitarian law.
1 Put together rules and an organisation immediately. Report to me and
2 describe the situation to date in the following manner, who, whom, where
3 and when, 13 October, 1993, Boban." And also the notation, Mr. Boban's
4 alleged hand, "Urgent, Boban."
5 A. I apologise, I apologise. I don't know what you're talking
6 about. I am being shown a document of the 10th of October, 1993. Is that
7 the document? There is no number that you're talking about. What I have
8 here is 01538326. Is that the document, that document was given me.
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... that's correct and you'll
10 see -- excuse me, you will see on that document, sir, in the Croatian
11 language, the hand written notations, in the upper right corner of the
13 A. Yes. I see that. Go on. So what's your question?
14 Q. Sir, isn't it true that when these conditions in this report,
15 which is the content of which is very similar to 638.1 from Mr. Bozic,
16 found its way up to Mate Boban, Mate Boban's clear reaction was these
17 matters had to be corrected immediately, and can we not understand from
18 that that as of the 10th of October, 1993, they had not been corrected?
19 A. Right. I have no idea about this document. I do not know who it
20 is being sent to, why, I can read it and see. I had a look at it. It is
21 repeated here, I don't know, large number of the wounded requiring
22 hospital treatment, problem of medical supplies, setting up a clinic and
23 so on and so forth, and I claim, I claim under full responsibility that
24 this is therefore 10th October, 1993. As of the moment when I told you
25 that we set up a medical team outside now what is called outside --
1 outside the centre, and the team which was set up in the centre, that in
2 point of fact, it solved the major part of the problems. I'm sorry that
3 you don't have it. I can't talk about a document which was written by
4 somebody else, but I'm sorry that you do not have here a report. After
5 all you did send me sometime ago the report of my doctors who say,
6 therefore doctors who are saying, who are speaking something else than
7 what is said here. Now, I do not know that this is a very serious
8 problem. I do not know whether the centre has become a problem unto
9 itself because they possibly do not know how to run it any more. They
10 cannot handle all the problems of all sorts, that are indicated here. So
11 I do not know that. But whether it comes to the medical care that I spoke
12 about, and in the report of the doctor that I showed you sometime ago, it
13 shows that it was definitely improved and that it was solved so I really
14 cannot comment on this paper, I need time to have a look at it and so on.
15 But I think that the generally has to do with the centre.
16 Q. My last question, Mr. President, to the witness, sir, as a senior
17 member of the Ministry of Defence, is it not true, and did you not know,
18 that as a result of the international pressure brought to bear at the end
19 of 1993, including about the conditions in the camps, Mate Boban was
20 removed from office?
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this question does not
23 arise from the questions asked by Judge Clark.
24 MR. SCOTT: It does, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, I agree this question does not come out much
1 Judge Clark's questions.
2 MR. SCOTT: I disagree because it goes to whether the conditions
3 were in fact materially improved or not and when Mate Boban was removed as
4 president partly because of this reason I think it goes directly to the
5 question but I stand by the Court's rulings, of course.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, my advice is that you withdraw this question at
7 this moment since it's very late.
8 MR. SCOTT: Well, I'm not going to withdraw the question, Your
9 Honour. I think it's a relevant question.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I answer?
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, if you'd like to answer, you may do
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Why not? The Prosecutor is
14 entitled -- is right when he says that the centre has become a problem,
15 meaning maintenance, meaning, I don't know, medical supplies, food
16 supplies, and all sorts of problems that went with it. Yes, of course, it
17 required additional effort and meant more work, just as any other unit and
18 work related to that -- to it. I have no doubts about that. However, it
19 is absolutely crazy to say after all the documents that I presented, I
20 mean papers and testimonies of my doctors and a real situation there, that
21 nothing changed there. When it comes to the medical care, I absolutely
22 refuse any accusation in that regard, and I see absolutely no purpose in
23 asking such questions, and that it should have been closed down? Well,
24 would that it had never opened and not a single centre in Bosnia, ever. I
25 agree about that. But I said that we prevented, we prevented, that is we
1 allowed that people be extended health care. We prevented epidemics. We
2 prevented suffering as much as we could. And that was a major progress.
3 Whatever happened had those people suffered en masse or killed or fallen
4 ill or -- I see no problem there.
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik?
6 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have no more time
7 and that is what worries me. I wish to tell Your Honours that the
8 cross-examination should have been interrupted at quarter to five, not
9 five, it's two hours. I have two witnesses and my professor has not yet
10 come, from now on, Your Honours, I will change the tactics of my direct
11 examination, trying not to prejudice myself. These are either tactical
12 moves to discuss it at such length or something else but I have to finish
13 my witnesses.
14 JUDGE LIU: If you ever any question in your re-examination out of
15 Judges questions.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Yes, I have.
17 JUDGE LIU: You may ask your questions.
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just one question
19 arising out of Her Honour Judge Diarra's questions which I think was
20 unanswered. Judge Diarra asked rightfully and the doctor answered was the
21 Heliodrom as a result of the conflict. It was your first question and
22 later on it was what conditions when he found then.
23 Further examination by Mr. Krsnik
24 Q. What did you mean when you said that the centre arose from the
25 conflict, that it was the result of the conflict, but please very brief
1 it's 7.00 can you please do it in one sentence?
2 That arises from Her Honour Judge Diarra's question.
3 A. Whilst the Croats and Muslims in Bosnia fought together in the
4 Croat Defence Council and fought together against their common enemy,
5 there was no -- detention of anyone by anyone. But the moment the Muslim
6 units or rather members of the Muslim army left the Croat Defence Council
7 and overnight, I don't know, took certain points, certain areas and when a
8 conflict took place and when the mutual trust fell to the lowest possible
9 point when nobody trusted anyone and when everybody doubted everything,
10 that happened, and I think that is the principal cause of it. In order to
11 prevent people from further taking up arms on behalf of the Army of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina, doing mischief and so on and so forth so it arised
13 from the conflict.
14 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you and finally can we have a
15 look at 630.2 and 638.1? I do not have any questions but if you take
16 those documents and I mean Your Honours, if you took these documents, I do
17 not know what they look like in English because I do not know those
18 English texts, but look at the Croatian originals. The Croatian texts are
19 absolutely identical, the two texts are identical, absolutely, apart from
20 the very last sentence, that is the last passage, all the eight items are
21 absolutely identical. And now please look at the Croatian original.
22 There is no signature and no stamp. How is that possible? Document
23 638.1, the Croatian original, no signature, no stamp, identical document
24 with 630.2. Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
25 JUDGE LIU: Thank you, Mr. Krsnik.
1 Witness, thank you very much for coming to The Hague to help us.
2 We appreciate it very much. All of us wish you good luck in your future.
3 The usher will show you out of the room. We wish you a pleasant journey
4 back home.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. President.
6 JUDGE LIU: You may go now.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I didn't even shake hands with the
8 accused and yet they are here all the time, those people who are here.
9 JUDGE LIU: You are not allowed to shake hands with the accused.
10 [The witness withdrew]
11 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's five minutes past the time. We have no
12 time for the admission of the documents. I wish both parties will submit
13 their written submissions in one week's time, including their objections
14 to the other party's documents. We will resume tomorrow afternoon.
15 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
16 7.06 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
17 the 18th day of June, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.