1 Wednesday, 18 September 2002

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.

6 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number

8 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.

9 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Mr. Seric, thank you very much

10 for providing us with the translation of the D2/72 and D2/73.

11 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours. Your

12 gratitude should be conveyed to the interpreters who managed to do it and

13 provide it, with the help of Madam Registrar.

14 JUDGE LIU: Witness, did you have a good rest yesterday?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes.

16 JUDGE LIU: Are you ready to start this afternoon?

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am, yes.

18 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Mr. Scott. Cross-examination, please.

19 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President

20 WITNESS: DAVOR MARIJAN [Resumed]

21 [Witness answered through interpreter]

22 Cross-examined by Mr. Scott:

23 Q. Good afternoon, sir. I note from your background as it's been

24 explained to us that you studied history and archaeology at the philosophy

25 faculty at the University of Zagreb from 1987 to 1994; is that correct?

1 A. It is.

2 Q. And was this a period of continuous study, that is from 1987 to

3 1994?

4 A. No. I had two breaks in between.

5 Q. And when were those breaks and what was the nature of those

6 breaks, please?

7 A. They were between April 1992 until September 1992. That was the

8 first time. And the second time was between July 1993 and May 1994.

9 During that time, I was involved in the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

10 Q. Only on the second occasion or on both occasions that you just

11 gave us?

12 A. On both occasions.

13 Q. All right. We'll come back to that, then. As a result of your

14 studies, did you obtain any degrees?

15 A. Yes. I am a graduate historian and archaeologist.

16 Q. When you say graduate and I understand educational systems

17 sometimes vary between country to country and institution to institution,

18 but when you say you graduated, does that mean you completed a three or

19 four-year course of study as we might call in some places an undergraduate

20 degree?

21 A. That was the end of a four-year study.

22 Q. And do you have any degrees after that, that is after the end of

23 your four years? Did you continue and obtain any other degrees?

24 A. Currently I'm doing post-graduate studies.

25 Q. All right. So we can understand, then, that at least at the

1 present time, you have what we might consider an undergraduate degree in

2 what, history?

3 A. That's right.

4 Q. And what do you consider your actual expertise, sir?

5 A. You mean what you consider the field of my research?

6 Q. Yes, sir.

7 A. The war of -- history of war, warfare including theory, and more

8 specifically, my narrow specialisation is World War II and the Patriotic

9 War.

10 Q. And when you say the Patriotic War, which war are you talking

11 about?

12 A. I'm talking about the war in Croatia, and may I add, the war in

13 Bosnia-Herzegovina during the same period of time.

14 Q. All right. Now, in terms of your expertise, then, let me follow

15 up on that for a moment. Do you consider yourself primarily an historian

16 then; is that correct?

17 A. Yes. Yes. I do not do archaeology any more.

18 Q. And do you consider yourself a military analyst?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Do you consider yourself a political -- what some might call a

21 political scientist, an expert on government and politics?

22 A. In the first place, I address military aspect of a period, and I

23 analyse political issues only to the extent needed to explain the time or,

24 rather, to present it.

25 Q. Do you consider yourself an intelligence expert?

1 A. I think -- I believe I'm quite familiar with the intelligence

2 service of the Yugoslav People's Army.

3 Q. Now, you've told us that during two periods of time, if I heard

4 you well, that you were a participant in some fashion in the war in the

5 former Yugoslavia; is that correct?

6 A. It is.

7 Q. During the first time period that you gave us a few moments ago,

8 can you tell the Judges, please, how it was that you were involved in

9 that -- in those conflicts, if you had a unit assignment, what unit you

10 were in, and what location in the former Yugoslavia were you assigned to?

11 A. I was a member of students platoon of the Livno Brigade called

12 Petar Kresimir IV on both occasions. During the first interval, I was at

13 the front around Livno, and the second time I was around Livno and

14 Uskoplje.

15 Q. And we might -- some of us might known Uskoplje better as Gornji

16 Vakuf; is that correct?

17 A. It is. It's a new term.

18 Q. And what were your duties? Can you give us a bit more help,

19 please, on the exact time that you were engaged, excuse me, around Gornji

20 Vakuf?

21 A. Three times. Ten days each. Ten days on every occasion. And I

22 was assigned to the defence.

23 Q. Well, I understand ten days on each occasion, but can you help us

24 in general? Are we talking about the summer of 1993 --

25 A. Yes, three times and ten days on every occasion.

1 Q. And I'm asking you, sir, about the period of time when that

2 occurred. Was this in the summer of 1993, the fall of 1993? When were

3 you assigned at Gornji Vakuf?

4 A. November 1993, December 1993, and now I'm not quite sure whether

5 it was March or April 1994.

6 Q. And who was your commanding officer during that time?

7 A. What level do you have in mind?

8 Q. Well, what was the name of your unit again?

9 A. The brigade -- well, I was in a platoon, and this platoon made

10 part of the Petar Kresimir IV Livno Brigade.

11 Q. Who was the brigade commander?

12 A. Colonel Stjepan Sucic, I believe.

13 Q. And was this an HVO unit or an HV unit?

14 A. It was an HVO unit, reserve brigade.

15 Q. And how about command office your Mr. Susic, if I heard you

16 correctly? Was he an HV officer or had he been an HV officer before

17 taking command of that brigade?

18 A. I believe so. I believe he was an HVO officer. He was -- he came

19 from Vukovar, but I believe he was born in Livno.

20 Q. My question to you, sir, was whether he was an HV officer and you

21 said yes, but then you described him as HVO. Had he been an HV officer?

22 A. I think so.

23 Q. And at what point had he joined the HVO or at least engaged in

24 service with the HVO?

25 A. At that time, I was a member of the brigade and specifically the

1 platoon commander. It wasn't mine to ask questions like that. I mean, we

2 didn't talk in that way. I never saw him in the papers referring to that

3 period.

4 Q. Well, sir, we'll get into this perhaps -- in much more detail

5 later, but you knew during your time of military service, probably on both

6 occasions, didn't you, that a substantial number, majority of the senior

7 HVO officers either were at the time or had been HV officers; correct?

8 A. What does the word "substantial" mean to you?

9 Q. More than a few.

10 A. More than a few? Yes.

11 Q. And had you engaged in any military service since ending that

12 second term that you again described to us some minutes ago?

13 A. Yes. I was a professional soldier in the Guards Brigade.

14 Q. And when and where was that?

15 A. September 1994, August 1995, the 1st Guards Brigade of the HVO.

16 Q. Who was the commander of the 1st Guards Brigade of the HVO?

17 A. Zeljko Vlasanovic [As interpreted].

18 Q. Now, again, sir, moving forward with your background, you tell us

19 that spent some time at the central military archives. What is the

20 central military archives?

21 A. It is the central archives of the Ministry of Defence of the

22 Republic of Croatia.

23 Q. And where are those archives located, please?

24 A. It is in the Ministry of Defence on Kralja Zvonimir street. In

25 Zagreb, of course.

1 Q. And is this archive, if I can describe it this way, is it

2 primarily a repository of documents, someplace, a collection perhaps of

3 shelves and filing cabinets, or is it an active archives in the terms that

4 the Ministry of Defence uses it on an active basis?

5 A. Well, the latter.

6 Q. And is this an open or public archive? Can members of the public

7 come off the street and look through this archive?

8 A. Well, in Croatia there is an Archive Act. For 30 years, nothing

9 is accessible, until 30 years expires. The same thing applies to this

10 archive.

11 Q. Well, except, sir, the fact that you've worked there. I assume

12 you've had access to this material; correct?

13 A. Yes. I had the authorisation of the Defence Minister.

14 Q. And for what purposes did you have this authorisation?

15 A. Scientific work.

16 Q. Were you employed by the Ministry of Defence at that time?

17 A. Well, yes, in part. And in November or, rather, in October 2001,

18 I quit the Ministry of Defence, that is, the Croatian Army. But the

19 authorisation was still valid because of the project that had been

20 launched by the government of the Republic of Croatia.

21 Q. So what you've told the Chamber, then, is this is an archive of

22 the Ministry of Defence, the Republic of Croatia, which is not generally

23 open to the public or outsiders but that you have had access to this

24 archive; is that right?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Do you still have access to it now?

2 A. Unless the new lady Minister has not withdrawn the authorisation

3 of the previous Minister, then I do. But I'm not aware that she's done

4 it.

5 Q. Well, who is the director or person in charge of this archive at

6 the present time?

7 A. Colonel Branko Mihaljevic.

8 Q. Now, you've also mentioned something called the military museum of

9 the Ministry of Defence. I take it this is something different than the

10 central military archive; is that correct?

11 A. It is.

12 Q. Where is that located, please?

13 A. On Vlaska street in Zagreb.

14 Q. And who owns or operates this museum?

15 A. Captain Dinko Cutura.

16 Q. This is the individual person. Should we understand that it's

17 owned and operated by the Ministry of Defence?

18 A. Yes. It is a museum of the Ministry of Defence.

19 Q. And what is there? Museums, I suppose, can be all sorts of

20 things. Is it a tourist museum or is it again a collection of documents

21 or what is there?

22 A. No. They -- it displays exhibits from the patriotic -- from the

23 homeland war. And by and large, one needs to announce himself previously

24 and then he's allowed in. I mean, the museum is provisional. I mean, it

25 is only its temporary location.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 Q. You've also been associated with something called the Croatian

2 Institute of History. What is that?

3 A. It is the Central Croatian Historical Institution.

4 Q. And who owns or operates the Croatian Institute of History?

5 A. Dr. Mirko Valentic.

6 Q. And is it again a creature, if you will, of the government of the

7 Republic of Croatia?

8 A. In what sense do you mean?

9 Q. Who owns it and funds it, sir?

10 A. The institute was established in the 1960s. It was set up by the

11 League of Communists of Croatia.

12 Q. Who owns --

13 A. It is financed by the Ministry of Science of the Republic of

14 Croatia.

15 Q. So is it correct, sir, to try to move forward here a bit, that

16 apart from your academic experience, all or virtually all of your

17 vocational life and work since the early 1990s or even the late 1980s has

18 been either in the military, of either Croatia or the HVO, or in

19 association with some agency or project of the Croatian government? Is

20 that correct?

21 A. Well, I was quite clear about how long I was with the HVO.

22 Between November -- that is, October last year, that is for the past year

23 I've been engaged in a project. And from the beginning of 2000, I was

24 also involved in some projects of the government of the Republic of

25 Croatia or the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Croatia.

1 Q. So, sir, I won't belabour this too much, but it's correct, then,

2 that apart from your education you have been -- and apart from your time

3 in the HVO, you have been continuously employed by or associated with the

4 government of Croatia; correct?

5 A. The institution -- yes. Mostly, yes. But the institution that I

6 am with now is independent of the daily politics.

7 Q. I think you mentioned already something called the Croatian

8 Information Service or HIS, we may have heard before, H-I-S. What were

9 your duties in association with HIS?

10 A. Following the order of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of

11 Croatia from April 1999 to early June 2000, I was an archives officer at

12 the HIS, H-I-S.

13 Q. And so the record is clear, HIS is what many of us would call an

14 intelligence service of the Republic of Croatia; correct?

15 A. One of the intelligence services of the Republic of Croatia to be

16 exact.

17 Q. And during this period of assignment to HIS, who was your

18 superior? Who did you report to in connection with this project?

19 A. I never submitted any report on my work to anyone. Formally

20 speaking, I think my superior was the head of the HIS.

21 Q. And who was that?

22 A. Well, three persons held that job during that time. The first

23 one, to be quite frank, I can't remember the name of that one. The second

24 one was Miroslav Tudjman, and the third one was Ozren Zunec.

25 Q. The man Miroslav Tudjman was the son of the late President Franjo

1 Tudjman; correct?

2 A. Well, yes.

3 Q. And Mr. Zunec would be the head of HIS who was appointed after the

4 change of governments when Stipe Mesic become president; correct?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. And it was after Stipe Mesic became president that documents in

7 the Republic of Croatia in these archives and at the Ministry of Defence

8 first began to become available to this Tribunal; correct?

9 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.

10 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr. President. I

11 allowed this set of questions and answers, but I object to any further

12 examination in this direction, because I do not know whether my learned

13 friend is trying to conduct a new investigation with the help of this

14 expert witness or is it -- or whatever he's trying to establish, that is

15 not going to discredit this witness.

16 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think the question asked by the Prosecutor has

17 some merits in it, and we also want to know the answer of that question.

18 On the other hand, Mr. Scott, you really spend too much time on those

19 questions. I hope you could get over this part of the cross-examination

20 and move on.

21 MR. SCOTT: I will do that, Your Honour. I can only represent to

22 the Chamber that I believe it would be tied up in later questioning.

23 Q. But in any event, sir, let me repeat the question. It was after

24 Stipe Mesic became president that the documents in the Republic of Croatia

25 in these archives and at the Ministry of Defence first began to become

1 available to this Tribunal; correct?

2 A. I don't know. Partly, yes. I don't know what the cooperation

3 before that was like.

4 Q. Well, isn't it true, sir, that a substantial number of HVO

5 documents had in fact been moved out of Bosnia-Herzegovina for the express

6 purpose of keeping them from this Tribunal, hiding them in Croatia until

7 the change of governments? And you know that, don't you?

8 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott -- sorry. Mr. Seric.

9 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I object to this

10 question. It has nothing to do with the substance of this examination.

11 If we're going to be telling the truth, then the constitutional law on the

12 cooperation with this Tribunal was signed by the HDZ government headed by

13 the late President Tudjman.

14 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik.

15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, very many times we have

16 been warned that politics do not have a place in this court despite the

17 political indictment and the political appearance of the Prosecutor at

18 every moment. These are deliberate allegations by the Prosecutor, and

19 this is just political propaganda on behalf of his witness, Mr. Mesic, who

20 is available to this Prosecution whenever they want him to be available.

21 I believe this is propaganda because he's now President Mesic called as a

22 witness in the Milosevic case. I think this has nothing to do with the

23 expert witness. Let's examine this witness on the things for which he has

24 been called. He is not a fact witness. He is an expert witness. And

25 Mr. Prosecutor has been doing things for a year that now I believe have

1 become clear to all of us after all.

2 JUDGE LIU: Well, this topic has appeared many, many times during

3 our proceedings, and this witness worked for a considerable time in that

4 institution. And we also believe that the witness has the right to answer

5 that question by yes or no.

6 Yes?

7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I agree, but let's do

8 that in the Prosecutor's office. The knowledge about the archives or

9 whatever other knowledge that this witness has may be discussed in the

10 Prosecutor's office, because what we are dealing with here is the

11 indictment, and the indictment is something completely different. We are

12 wasting time on something that Mr. Prosecutor can discuss with this

13 witness after the hearing. We know what the indictment is. We know why

14 this witness has been called. And if there is anything else that my

15 learned friend wants to cause with him, why don't they discuss it after in

16 the Prosecutor's office.

17 JUDGE LIU: I have already said that this topic has been mentioned

18 many, many times during our proceedings. We want to know how this witness

19 knows about this matter.

20 Witness, you may answer that question.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can you please repeat the question,

22 sir?

23 MR. SCOTT:

24 Q. Sir, isn't it correct that a substantial number of the documents

25 that are now at the HVO archive were in fact moved out of

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina by representatives of the Republic of Croatia for the

2 express purpose of keeping that evidence from this Tribunal?

3 A. I cannot remember having participated in any such activities.

4 Q. Sir, I didn't ask you whether you participated. I asked you what

5 you know. You worked with this archive extensively. You worked with the

6 head of one of the main Croatian intelligence agencies for some

7 substantial period of time. Isn't it true, sir, that documents were

8 concealed, spirited out of Bosnia-Herzegovina and concealed from this

9 Tribunal?

10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric?

11 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I object to this question, to the way

12 it has been asked. The Prosecutor is giving testimony instead of asking

13 questions. Why can't my learned friend ask a concrete question without

14 himself giving testimony?

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, the witness has answered that question, and I

16 think the Prosecutor has the right to ask a follow-up question, because we

17 are not quite clear about the meaning of the answer of this witness.

18 MR. SCOTT:

19 Q. Let me state it again, sir. You did said that you did not

20 participate in these activities and I did not ask you whether you

21 participated in it, but you know of it, don't you?

22 A. It is not correct.

23 Q. Yesterday, concerning Exhibit D2/59, when asked questions about

24 that document, you said that it came from the counter-intelligence agency

25 of the Republic of Croatia. So which of the intelligence agencies did you

1 obtain that document from? If it assists you, perhaps if necessary --

2 A. I told you yesterday. I don't need the document. I was very

3 clear yesterday. I told you exactly what the name of that service was,

4 and you repeated it, didn't you.

5 Q. That's the correct name of the agency is -- the

6 Counter-intelligence Agency of the Republic of Croatia?

7 A. I believe I was clear yesterday. The Counter-intelligence Service

8 of the Republic of Croatia. It is the former service for the protection

9 of the constitutional order.

10 Q. I won't, of course, be able to say it in Croatian, but formerly

11 known as the HDZ SUP; correct?

12 A. That is the former abbreviation. Now it is POA.

13 Q. Now, sir, you used the term yesterday historiography, and can you

14 tell the Chamber what that means or at least how you used that phrase?

15 A. Let's put it this way: It is a very unclear term in the circles,

16 in the circles that I belong to.

17 Q. Well, sir, you used the term, unless I misheard you. What does

18 that term mean to you?

19 A. Critical analysis of history, i.e. documents or, to be more

20 precise, sources.

21 Q. And is it correct, sir, again that you testified yesterday that

22 you've looked at this history of Bosnia-Herzegovina, in your words, from

23 the Croatian point of view? Is that correct?

24 A. I believe that what I said was that I studied some segments of the

25 war in Bosnia-Herzegovina as well.

1 Q. From the Croatian point of view.

2 A. Which involved Croatians. I believe that I said that it had to do

3 with the share of Croats in that war.

4 Q. Now, the report that you did and which has been provided to the

5 Chamber, have you been paid or compensated by anyone to prepare that

6 report?

7 A. No.

8 Q. And did you prepare that report, sir, in your private capacity as

9 a private individual or have you submitted this in some fashion

10 representing some political group or some part of the Croatian

11 government?

12 A. I prepared the study at the request of Mr. Seric and Mr. Par with

13 the verbal approval of the head of my institute.

14 Q. And you did it nobly, perhaps. You did this work for free. You

15 weren't compensated for your time or the effort that you went in to

16 preparing this some 22 pages of text and another 20 pages of footnotes.

17 Is that what you're telling us, sir?

18 A. It was not my free time. It was during my working hours.

19 Q. So this work was supported, then, to answer my question about

20 whether it was in your private capacity or some other capacity, you did

21 this report while being employed by and on the time off of the Croatian

22 Institute of History, which is an entity of the Republic of Croatia;

23 correct?

24 A. The Institute for Croatian History is an institution, not an

25 entity. I told you yesterday that I work on the project of the homeland

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 war and the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

2 Q. Who funds the Croatian Institute of History? Who provides the

3 operating funds, pays the electric bills?

4 A. The institute pays.

5 Q. The institute obtains its funds from where?

6 A. I believe I answered that question 15 minutes ago.

7 Q. Sir, you've described the war in Bosnia yesterday as a war about

8 territory; is that correct?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. And if I heard you well yesterday, you said that this process of

11 disintegration of Bosnia-Herzegovina is in fact not yet complete; is that

12 right?

13 A. That is right.

14 Q. And, sir, you've made it clear in both your report and in your

15 testimony yesterday that, in fact, you consider that the war in

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina is not over, is it?

17 A. Correct.

18 Q. You said on page 1 of your report, for instance, that the

19 conflicts between the three main groups continues and was not solved by

20 Dayton now, was this reflected in the fact by Mr. Ante Jelavic, for

21 instance, who had been the Bosnian-Croat member of the presidency of

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina, was removed by the office of the High Representative

23 for advocating and taking steps to create a separate Croat entity in

24 Bosnia and Herzegovina.

25 A. I believe that I told you yesterday that I do not study Bosnia and

1 Herzegovina after the Dayton Accords.

2 Q. Well, sir, you've told us that the war is going on. In fact, you

3 said yesterday that the protectorate of the international community

4 prevents Bosnia and Herzegovina's disappearance and most probably a new

5 war; correct?

6 A. I don't think I said that.

7 Q. All right.

8 A. Obviously you only hear things that you want to hear.

9 Q. Well, in fact, sir, I read the transcript last night, and I think

10 at 9.54 yesterday, that's what you said, and it can certainly be checked.

11 So I'm wondering, sir, you've worked in this institute, you've

12 worked since the 1980s for, or in association, with the Croatian

13 government. If the war is not over, sir, which side are you on?

14 A. I was very clear when I said that the Dayton Accords interrupted

15 the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that Bosnia and Herzegovina has been

16 divided. That is now a protectorate of the international community, and

17 that in -- bearing in mind the previous phenomena, the previous

18 occurrences, it will not be a theatre of war for as long as members of the

19 armed forces of the international community are present there.

20 Q. Sir, I repeat my question to you. If the war is not over, which

21 you say it is not, which side are you on?

22 A. I said that the war was interrupted. There is a difference

23 between something being interrupted and something being over, isn't

24 there?

25 Q. Well, sir, we have your report and we'll go forward.

1 Now, in response to questions by Mr. Krsnik yesterday, you seem to

2 indicate, again if I heard you, that there is no government of

3 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Is that your position?

4 A. Can I please hear the recording of that?

5 Q. I don't -- that's up to the President, of course, Witness. I'm in

6 the President's hands. It it's not up to me to answer that,

7 Mr. President?

8 JUDGE LIU: Perhaps Mr. Krsnik, you could ask your question

9 again.

10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I remember it very

11 clearly, but I'm also familiar with the method of the cross-examination by

12 my learned friend to the question whether there is a Bosnia and

13 Herzegovinian government. The witness replied very clearly that he

14 doesn't study Bosnia and Herzegovina after the Dayton and that he cannot

15 answer that question. I believe I remember that very well, and you,

16 Mr. President, I believe you listened very carefully to both my answer and

17 the witness's -- both my question and the witness's answer and that you

18 will remember that.

19 But my learned friend uses his well-known rhetorics in his

20 cross-examination, and I'm sure we will hear all sorts of questions coming

21 from him today.

22 JUDGE LIU: Well, it is a very, very simple question. We don't

23 need the expertise of this witness to answer this question.

24 Maybe, Mr. Scott, you can ask this question again to see how this

25 witness will answer that question.

1 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President, I will not engage in

2 colloquy with the counsel at this point.

3 Q. Was it not -- were not the questions put to you yesterday

4 afternoon -- morning I suppose it was, questions about whether there were

5 in fact anything to be considered a government of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Do

6 you remember that series of questions from Mr. Krsnik? Do you remember

7 saying essentially "no"?

8 A. What do you have in mind specifically? Yesterday we mentioned the

9 government in several different frameworks.

10 Q. Sir, I just -- one question, and we could ask several, but there

11 are international embassies, agencies and organisations in

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina even as we speak today that deal every day with

13 government agencies representing Bosnia and Herzegovina; correct?

14 A. I believe that there is a huge presence of representatives of

15 various international organisations in Bosnia. They are so numerous that

16 one cannot fail to see them.

17 Q. And they deal every day, sir, don't they, with agencies and

18 departments and representatives of the Government of Bosnia and

19 Herzegovina?

20 A. I do not work in the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This

21 is what you say. It may be true.

22 Q. Sir, let me put my case to you very plainly. As an historian,

23 sir, you appear to have antipathy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina and the

24 Muslims or Bosniaks. Your report suggests that the Bosnia-Herzegovina has

25 never been a "real country." The Muslims have near really been a "real

1 nation" in the sense that you understand or use that word; correct?

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.

3 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I do not only object, I

4 protest. This is an insult to my witness's address.

5 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think the Prosecutor just quoted his own

6 report, and the witness has the free will to say yes or no, whether he

7 mentioned in his report that Bosnia-Herzegovina has never been a real

8 country. These are facts that everybody can look to in that report.

9 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Mr. President. My

10 learned friend said that the witness appears to have antipathy towards

11 Bosnia and Herzegovina. Why doesn't he ask very clear, very correct

12 questions if he wants to continue this cross-examination?

13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I put the Prosecution case to the

14 witness, and I think it's proper, and I think we should have his answer.

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think there is some sense, you know, in the

16 objections from Mr. Seric. You shouldn't use that antipathy towards

17 Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Muslims or Bosniaks. Just ask your

18 question.

19 MR. SCOTT: I will rephrase it, Your Honour, if it will assist.

20 Q. Sir, it is your view, as stated in your paper and the crux of your

21 testimony, or at least a part of it, that Bosnia-Herzegovina has never

22 been a "real country" and the Muslims have never been a "real nation," so

23 the positions that they took and the things that happened during the war

24 by either the Serbs on the one hand or the Croats on the other were

25 justified?

1 A. I believe that your interpretation is very liberal and that it

2 goes to the extent of insults. The question that you have asked me, I can

3 tell you that this is not what I said, firstly. Do you understand the

4 chronological depth of this issue, of this question? Bear in mind the

5 years, the time. I do not think you have to put it to me and tell me that

6 I said something that I didn't say.

7 Q. So if that's not your position, sir, is it your position that the

8 Muslim or Bosniak nation has the same or equal rights as the Croats, had

9 the same rights to organise and defend themselves, had the same rights to

10 take political action, had the same rights to negotiate with enemies such

11 as the Serbs, or were those rights that only the Croats had?

12 A. All the rights to defend themselves that belonged to Croats

13 belonged equally to Muslims during the war. However, there are usually no

14 rights in any war.

15 Q. What is a banovina, sir?

16 A. A banovina is an administrative unit which existed on the

17 territory of Croatia, of the medieval Croatia, the medieval Bosnia, and in

18 the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

19 Q. At page 2 of your report, sir, you mention that the Croatian

20 banovina was established, at least on another occasion if not previously,

21 in 1939 [RealTime transcript read in error"1933"]; is that correct?

22 A. Yes. But it was the banovina of Croatia.

23 MR. SCOTT: If the witness can be shown two exhibits, please, 899

24 and 862. Mr. President, if we could finish with these exhibits, then

25 perhaps we could take the break.

1 If those could be placed on the ELMO, please, that would be

2 helpful. Perhaps we could start with Exhibit 899. It may be easier.

3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

4 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, for the record, this is

5 the line 22 -- [In English] Page 22, line 17. [Interpretation] The year

6 is 1933 and it should have been the year 1939. So can we correct that

7 in the transcript.

8 MR. SCOTT:

9 Q. If you'd look first of all, sir, at the coloured copy, do you see

10 there in what would be the boldest, kind of a reddish orange colour,

11 wrapping around what might be described as a pink area in the middle.

12 Does that show what would be called the Croatian banovina in 1939, I

13 believe so.

14 Q. And for the record, I simply provided 862 as well in the case that

15 one or the other might be more helpful. The smaller insert map on 862

16 perhaps shows it in that scale quite clearly as well.

17 Q. Now, you also say, sir -- I'm sorry. We can stop there,

18 Mr. President, if you like?

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes. It's time for a vehicle. We will resume at a

20 quarter to four.

21 --- Recess taken at 3.15 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 3.45 p.m.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.

24 MR. SCOTT:

25 Q. Sir, before we continue on, it was -- someone pointed out to me

1 during the break that a name of a person you gave earlier, we may not have

2 gotten it correctly in the transcript or it's quite possible -- possible

3 that we did, but just in case. When you described or identified the

4 person who was the commander of the 1st HVO Guards Brigade, is that a man

5 named Zeljko Vlasnovic [As interpreted]?

6 A. You're asking me?

7 Q. Yes.

8 A. Yes. Zeljko Glasnovic, so once again it is misspelled.

9 Q. Just so we don't come back to it, can you spell the last name for

10 the record, please? If you can.

11 A. Well, it should be G rather than V in the last name. It is

12 G-L-A-S-N-O-V-I-C.

13 Q. All right. Now, we were talking before the break about the

14 banovina, the Croatian banovina. You say in your report at page 2 that

15 the Croatian banovina was expanded during World War II under the name of

16 something called the Independent State of Croatia or NDH; is that

17 correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. And what was the NDH and how was that established?

20 A. The Independent State of Croatia is -- was a state which was

21 founded by Germany and Italy after breaking apart the Kingdom of

22 Yugoslavia in April 1941.

23 Q. All right. Now, if you still have or if the usher can assist us

24 if you don't, if you still have Exhibit 899 available to you. Could you

25 please use that map to show Their Honours, the Judges, the boundaries of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 the Independent State of Croatia during World War II.

2 A. Well, say the eastern border moved to the River Drina and another

3 part in the area of Dalmatia has shrunk in favour of Italy, and a part of

4 Medjimurje in favour of Hungary.

5 Q. All right. Well, so we can help make the record clear, can you

6 take, if you can, please, take the pointer, can you trace for the Judges

7 the Drina River that you say would have been the eastern -- approximately

8 the eastern border?

9 A. This is the Drina River.

10 Q. Forgive me, sir.

11 A. No, no, no. It's here. This is Bosnia.

12 Q. So at that time, the Independent State of Croatia included

13 essentially all the pink area in the middle of Exhibit 899 and additional

14 territory that would have been to the east; correct?

15 A. Yes. And a part of East Herzegovina down to the border with

16 Montenegro.

17 Q. And on page 2 of your report you also say that after World War II,

18 the borders of the Independent State of Croatia were then reduced again.

19 And were they reduced again to what we see in the orange red on the

20 exhibit or what were the borders of the Croatian banovina after World War

21 II?

22 A. I think you again are seeing something that nobody else does.

23 Where do you see that I -- where do you see the Independent State of

24 Croatia after World War II? Perhaps it wouldn't be bad if you read it.

25 Q. I've read your report, sir, I can assure you, several times. In

1 the first paragraph on the top of page 2, you say: "Upon the end of World

2 War II, the borders were drawn back with minor corrections to correspond

3 with the time of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy.

4 So can you show us on this map what were the borders of the

5 Croatian banovina after World War II?

6 A. Well, to tell you frankly, I am not much of a geographer.

7 Q. All right, sir. We'll move on. Another part of

8 Bosnia-Herzegovina that you mention in your report is called the

9 Posavina. Now, can the usher show you Exhibit P3.5. It's another map.

10 It may be loose. You can use mine. It should be in the first binder, the

11 overall exhibit binders, but in any event, if could you put that on the

12 ELMO, please.

13 Sir, is this an exhibit a map marked as Exhibit 3.5, the area that

14 is in green, as opposed to grey, does that correctly show what you've

15 described in your paper as the Bosnian Posavina?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. And, sir, around the same time that the Croatian Community of

18 Herceg-Bosna was declared in 1991, was there not also another entity

19 declared called the Croatian Community of the Bosnian Posavina or Bosanska

20 Posavina?

21 A. I believe so.

22 Q. So isn't it correct, sir, that what was -- what was established as

23 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna in many ways paralleled territory

24 claimed and that was one time part of the Croatian banovina and the part

25 claimed by the Croatian Community of the Bosanska Posavina was the green

1 part shown on this map 3.5; correct?

2 A. Pretty correct.

3 Q. Now, the first democratic multi-party elections we all know and

4 you say in your report were held on the 18th of November, 1990, and you

5 say that the nationalist parties won overwhelmingly. And just so we're

6 clear, sir, when you say nationalist parties, you include the HDZ;

7 correct?

8 A. I do, yes. The HDZ, SDA, and the SDS.

9 Q. And when you talk about the HDZ political party in

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina, this was really a branch of the HDZ party that had --

11 was first established in Croatia; correct?

12 A. Well, I'd put it in a different way. I'd say, rather, that their

13 political goals were similar.

14 Q. Sir, isn't it correct that the HDZ party in Bosnia-Herzegovina,

15 for all practical purposes, was an extension of the HDZ political party

16 founded by Franjo Tudjman and others in Croatia?

17 A. This claim is very widespread. But personally, I've seen too

18 little evidence to corroborate it.

19 Q. Well, sir, is it correct and do you recall testifying yesterday

20 that the Croatian -- the Croat Democratic Union as a Croat party advocated

21 views identical to the views of the Croat democratic party? Do you recall

22 that testimony yesterday?

23 A. Yes. They had the same view regarding the future of Yugoslavia.

24 Q. And further, sir, you talk about various organisations in the

25 course ever your cross-examination and in your report, for that matter,

1 you identify the HVO or the Croatian Defence Council as being essentially

2 part of the HDZ, in the same way that you equate the SDA with the ABiH; is

3 that correct? One being a political party and one being a military and/or

4 government organisation.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Now, you say, sir, that the war was instigated by the proponents

7 of Greater Serbia expansionism. What do you mean by "Greater Serbia"?

8 A. The expansion of the borders of the Republic of Serbia to border

9 areas of the Republic of Croatia where the Serbs were a majority

10 population, that is, to the Virovitica, Karlovac, Karlobag line.

11 Everything east of it was to become part of Greater Serbia, that is,

12 Serbia.

13 Q. You say at page 2 of your report that the Serb party, the

14 political party in Bosnia-Herzegovina, or the SDS, was nationalistic and

15 centrally connected to Belgrade, and the SDS wanted to merge with the

16 parent nation Serbia.

17 Now, how do you mean and in what ways was it centrally connected

18 to Belgrade?

19 A. To begin with, I did not say it was nationalistic, but that

20 doesn't matter. It was a link which linked Serbia and Croatia, that is,

21 Serb areas in Croatia.

22 Q. Well, let me restate. Perhaps I wasn't clear. And if I wasn't, I

23 apologise. I believe you say in your paper that the Serb political party

24 the SDS was centrally connected to Belgrade. I'd like for you to explain

25 for the Judges in what way you mean that that political party was

1 connected to Belgrade.

2 A. I wish to say here that I wrote "a connective tissue," as said.

3 That is not quite one and the same thing. I wanted to say, and it can be

4 proven, too, that those two parties in Serbia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina,

5 I mean Serb parties, and the Serb party in Croatia, were subordinated to

6 the policy laid down in Belgrade, something about that. I read something

7 about that in a text, about the role of the Yugoslav People's Army, of

8 course supported by evidence in the war against the Republic of Croatia.

9 Q. Sir, wasn't the HDZ political party in Bosnia-Herzegovina the

10 Bosnian Croat party, just in the same way centrally connected, or to use

11 your word, had connective tissues to the HDZ party in Zagreb?

12 A. I'm not sure that one can draw a mark of equality between the two,

13 because it was very, very clear. The Serbs were very clear about that,

14 what they did in Croatia between 1990/1992.

15 Q. Is it a matter of fact or is it a matter of clarity, sir? Are you

16 simply saying the Serbs were simply more overt about their programme and

17 plans than the Croats were?

18 A. I wouldn't really put it that way.

19 Q. You say in your paper that on the 24th of October, 1991, the

20 Bosnian-Herzegovnian Serbs started -- excuse me -- disintegration of

21 Bosnia and Herzegovina by founding the assembly of the Serb people in

22 Bosnia and Herzegovina. And further that on the 21st of December, 1991,

23 they issued the "Decision on constituting the Serb Republic of

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina." Is that correct?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. Now, again in order to try to move forward a bit in time, that is

2 in the time we have in the courtroom, let me see if I understand your

3 position on another topic. Do you suggest or is it the position that you

4 take in your paper that because Bosnian Muslims, who happened to be or

5 were on active duty at the time in the JNA and fought then in the JNA

6 units against Croats in Croatia, and because JNA or Serb forces

7 attacked -- attacking Croatia operated from Bosnia and Herzegovina as

8 bases and because the Bosnian Muslims engaged in what you described as a

9 "pro-Yugoslavian neutrality," that it is your proposition or thesis that

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina engaged in a war against Croatia?

11 A. Yes. But you forgot the Territorial Defence of Bosnia and

12 Herzegovina.

13 Q. And by the Territorial Defence, are you talking about the

14 Territorial Defence at the time it was part of the JNA or after a new

15 Territorial Defence was established by Bosnia and Herzegovina in

16 approximately April 1992?

17 A. The Territorial Defence was never, in no way, belonged to the JNA.

18 Q. It existed, sir, under the military structure of the former

19 Yugoslavia; correct? It existed in the former Yugoslavia?

20 A. Yes. Yes. As a part of the armed forces of the Socialist Federal

21 Republic of Yugoslavia.

22 Q. And is it further correct, sir, as I read your paper at page 3,

23 that you contend that since Muslim TO forces were being paid by the budget

24 of another state, in this case you say Bosnia, that therefore in fighting

25 on the side of the Serbs, again it's your contention that this amounted to

1 Bosnia-Herzegovina engaging in war against Croatia; correct?

2 A. Well, I'd -- I'd like to give a slightly broader answer to your

3 question. We have already said that the territory, the area is used for

4 the attack, that a part of the armed forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina is

5 used. And I think that it suffices for the claim that Bosnia-Herzegovina

6 participated in the aggression against the Republic of Croatia.

7 Q. And is it your contention, sir, that in the way that you've

8 described to the Chamber in your report and just now, is it your

9 contention then that that made the Serb attacks on Croatia or the fighting

10 in Croatia an international armed conflict involving Bosnia?

11 A. Well, once again it depends on how you treat the dissolution of

12 Yugoslavia. I think -- well, perhaps I won't be quite accurate here. The

13 thesis of the French lawyer Badinter is accepted, that Yugoslavia fell

14 apart in June 1991, and that, I guess, meant that we were dealing with an

15 international conflict there.

16 Q. And, sir, on page 3, the end of the next to last paragraph on page

17 3 of your report, at the last sentence of that paragraph, did you not

18 say: "Is it not consistent then to state that BiH committed aggression

19 against the Republic of Croatia?" That's the position stated in your

20 paper. Now, are you changing your position today?

21 A. No.

22 Q. You're not changing your position.

23 A. I'm not.

24 Q. You say that in the -- in an earlier period of the conflict, of

25 these events, the Croatians unsuccessfully were -- excuse me -- were

1 unsuccessfully trying to reach an agreement with Serbs on the ceasefire

2 and demarcation, and then you go on to say that there were several

3 meetings of the leaders of Bosnian Serbs and Croats outside

4 Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992, which achieved no concrete results.

5 Can you tell us some of the meetings between the Bosnian Serbs and

6 Croats that you had in mind when you wrote that?

7 A. I mean the visit of Nikola Koljevic in Zagreb, I believe sometime

8 in February 1992, and the meeting in Graz in May 1992, a meeting of Mate

9 Boban and Radovan Karadzic.

10 Q. All right. Well, that's helpful, sir, because to be perfectly

11 transparent, I was not clear from your report whether you agreed that the

12 meetings in Graz occurred or if you were denying that they had occurred.

13 So you agree that Radovan Karadzic and Mate Boban had talks about the

14 settlement of the war and the future of Bosnia-Herzegovina in Graz about

15 May of 1992; is that right?

16 A. They talked, and all the dailies carried a press release, and in

17 it one could see that they had failed to reach an understanding on a

18 demarcation line.

19 Q. Well, wouldn't it be fair to say, sir, that they agreed on some

20 things but to use the phrase then "Agreed to disagree on other things"?

21 Is that an accurate statement?

22 A. I must say I wasn't there. I only know what I read in the

23 papers.

24 Q. All right. Well, in that regard, sir, can the usher please assist

25 us in showing the witness Exhibit 126.1, which should be in the first

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 bundle.

2 Mr. President, I should have explained at the beginning and I

3 apologise, with this witness, two bundles -- actually, three bundles have

4 been prepared. The first smaller bundle is a set of documents that will

5 be at this first -- that relates to the first part of this examination,

6 and I hope that they were pretty much in the order in which they would

7 come up in the examination and that is a first bundle would include

8 126.1. There is then a much thicker bundle, a second bundle, and then I'm

9 afraid, as testimony went yesterday, then there is a third bundle which

10 didn't get integrated into the two existing sets because they'd already

11 been -- were already substantially under preparation, but I'll try to

12 assist the Chamber as much as possible in directing you to the correct

13 documents.

14 But, sir, if you look at Exhibit P126.1, you said there was a

15 press release, and indeed do you recall seeing what's marked here or

16 hearing about -- you can certainly look at it for a moment, that this

17 being the gist, if you will, about what was reported about the meetings

18 between Mr. Boban and Mr. Karadzic in Graz in May 1992?

19 A. I must admit that my English is not very good. Can I have this in

20 the original language?

21 Q. My apologies, sir. It hasn't been provided to you, and if we

22 still have time before you finish, I'll try to see if I can provide it to

23 you.

24 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, to be fair to the witness, would you

25 please read the certain paragraph?

1 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Mr. President. That is what I was just looking

2 at. It's hard to pick out any one particular sentence, Mr. President. I

3 apologise. Without reading the entire document. But let me read --

4 starting at the beginning of the page of the document over the written

5 names of Radovan Karadzic and Mate Boban. It would be the second page of

6 the exhibit. It says this: "Our intention being to resolve peacefully by

7 agreement all outstanding issues including the borderline between our two

8 constituent units, the Croatian unit and the Serbian unit, in

9 Bosnia-Herzegovina. The representatives of the Croatian and the Serbian

10 national communities have established the existing -- existence of the

11 following specific differences as regards the working demarcation map:

12 Number 1, in the city of Mostar, the Serbian side considers the Neretva

13 River to be the borderline, while the Croatian side considers the entire

14 city of Mostar to be within the Croatian constituent unit.

15 Number 2, south of Mostar, the Croatian side considers the entire

16 area delineated in 1939, in other words, the borders of the Hrvatska

17 banovina to be in the Croatian constituent unit. The Serbian side

18 considers the Neretva River to be the borderline between the Croatian and

19 the Serbian constituent units."

20 Now, let me stop there.

21 Q. Is that what you -- as an historian and from what you heard at the

22 time, is that what you recall?

23 A. I haven't seen this document. Summaries, I've already told you,

24 appeared in the press, but can you please continue reading this document?

25 Let's see who the organisers of this meeting were.

1 Q. Well, I can refer, Mr. Marijan, without reading the entire

2 document, I think it's fair to say that the negotiations were to some

3 extent encouraged by the European Community, if that's what you're getting

4 at. Is that what you're trying to suggest, which I'm prepared to say that

5 that's correct, but is that what you're trying to get at?

6 A. Yes, Mr. Prosecutor. And if I may say another thing, I would like

7 to repeat what I said yesterday several times, and I've already said it

8 today, and that is something that you insisted upon at the beginning.

9 There is the influence of the international community everywhere. The

10 international community has always been designing maps. It has always

11 continuously divided Bosnia and Herzegovina, and eventually it has managed

12 to divide Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Dayton Accords.

13 Now, I'm not clear that I understand what you are trying to prove

14 talking about a failed -- the failed Croatian attempt.

15 Q. I don't think I said anything about a failed Croatian attempt, but

16 let's move on, sir, because as I said a few moments ago, I was not clear

17 from your report whether you in fact simply denied that Graz had occurred

18 at all. That appears to be not your position.

19 Moving forward, then, sir --

20 A. Can you please tell me -- I apologise. Can you please tell me

21 where it was that I denied it?

22 Q. Sir, I won't get into extensive discussions with you, but if I can

23 do it very quickly, I will tell you that.

24 A. Let me tell you where you may have found the place where you

25 thought that I denied it.

1 Q. Well, just so you --

2 A. Where I commented upon Mr. Izetbegovic's attitude.

3 Q. Well, sir, I think, and so the record's clear and so the Judges

4 can be advised if it's something they want to look at, it's page 21 of the

5 report. Perhaps it's a translation issue, sir, and I -- as I said several

6 times, I was not clear what your position was.

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I believe it would be

9 fair if such allegations are not given without giving the witness the

10 opportunity to explain, because this is not the witness's position. It is

11 something that is alleged by the Prosecutor.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Unfortunately, at this moment I

13 cannot find this part. I commented upon the recollections of

14 Mr. Izetbegovic, who had placed this in April 1992, and that was clearly

15 an attempt to justify his policy. Mr. Izetbegovic is a very important

16 factor, because the other two leaders, one of them is dead and the other

17 one is hiding. He is on a run. And this is what I meant.

18 MR. SCOTT:

19 Q. Sir, in the third paragraph, the third paragraph starting on page

20 21, not quite halfway down through the paragraph is this sentence -- it

21 seems rather categorical: "It seems no evidence exists of the

22 Karadzic-Boban talks and both participants denied them."

23 So that is what caused me to think that you were denying that

24 these negotiations ever occurred. But apparently as was indicated, that's

25 not your position, and I appreciate the clarification.

1 A. No, it isn't.

2 Q. Now, isn't it true, sir, that after approximately June 1992, there

3 was no significant sustained fighting between the Croats and Serbs in what

4 might be described as the Prozor-Mostar-Stolac region for the remainder of

5 1992 and all of 1993?

6 A. The end of March 1992, the fighting started in Bosanska Posavina,

7 and this fighting ended by the fall of Bosanski Brod on the 6th of

8 October, 1992. The 101st Brigade of the HVO had some 400 dead during

9 the -- these fightings. To my mind, it is a lot. And it talks about the

10 extent of that fighting.

11 Q. I didn't want to interrupt you, but that was not my question. I

12 wasn't talking about Bosanski Brod. I was talking about the region as I

13 described it, the approximate zone running from Prozor, south to Mostar,

14 south to Stolac. In that region, sir, after approximately June 1992,

15 there was no significant fighting between Croats and Serbs, at least until

16 sometime in 1994; correct?

17 A. The Croatian forces entered Stolac in June 1992. In June, they

18 were the so-called "June Dawns" around Mostar. In July of the same year,

19 Serbs had a counter -- launched a counter-attack in the area of Mostar.

20 And in November, there was the Operation Bura at the foot of the mountain

21 Velez. In other words, there was some fighting going on.

22 Q. Sir, isn't it true and don't you state at page 9 of your report

23 that by the end of 1992 at least and with the fall of Jajce and the

24 Bosnian Posavina, the Bosnian Croats and Serbs had reached a stalemate;

25 correct?

1 A. It was not -- it was not a ceasefire but what we actually call a

2 stalemate. There was still gunfire, shelling. The daily report coming

3 from the operation zone of Northwest Herzegovina are available to you, and

4 you can read in those reports.

5 Q. Sir, any violence, of course, is too much, and there were

6 certainly skirmishes and artillery shells fired from time to time, but

7 isn't it true, sir, that in 1993 in the Prozor-Mostar-Stolac region

8 fighting between Serbs and Croats was not a significant factor in what was

9 happening there?

10 A. That is true.

11 MR. SCOTT: And I'd like the witness to please be shown Exhibit

12 126.11. 126.11, which is a map, multicoloured map, in the first bundle, I

13 hope. Or it's loose. I'm told it's in the loose set. Sorry. If it's

14 easier, you can use mine. Thank you. If that could just be put on the

15 ELMO, please.

16 Q. Sir, this is a map that's been prepared that -- giving in one --

17 in the blue colour the area that you described today when you said that

18 the Serbs started the war by declaring the Serb republic, a Republika

19 Srpska, and the area claimed then by -- to be Herceg-Bosna, and the area

20 with the blue and green vertical lines being the area of overlap.

21 Isn't it true, sir, that in reality the areas of contention

22 between the Serbs, on the one hand, and the Croats, on the other, were in

23 fact quite limited?

24 A. It is not correct, Mr. Prosecutor. I will illustrate that by my

25 own example.

1 On the 13th of April, 1992, I was a member of the HVO in

2 Koricina. That is a pass between Livno and Glamoc. On that day, the

3 Tactical Group number 1 of the Knin Corps tried to enter Livno. They lost

4 a tank and 20 men. A few kilometres further down west in the area called

5 Strumica. They repeated the attempt. Again they lost a tank and a few

6 men.

7 Ten days later, another attempt was made, and this time from the

8 direction of Bosansko Grahovo. They lost three tanks, an armoured

9 vehicle, some 30 men. You can read about that in greater detail in a

10 report written by General Slavko Lisica in his memoirs. Maybe it

11 wouldn't be a bad idea for you to read such literature.

12 Q. Well, I appreciate that, sir. I'm not suggesting that these lines

13 were ever exactly achieved and that there weren't areas of contention

14 otherwise but simply the areas claimed by the Serbs and the areas claimed

15 by the Bosnian Croats on the 18th of November, 1991, when they declared

16 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, that if each side got exactly what

17 they wanted, there wouldn't have been that much in contention; correct?

18 A. You are trying exactly what I just said. You have your own

19 picture. You are not interested in the facts. You are putting things out

20 of the context and in a certain way you've been insulting me, sir.

21 On the 13th of April, I almost lost my life, and I'm not in no way

22 in the mood for your very imaginative way of putting things to me.

23 Q. You say that the Croats were left out of the various negotiations

24 between the Bosnian Muslims and the Serbs, at page 8 of your report. And

25 you say that these negotiations between Muslims and Serbs ended in June of

1 1992 in failure.

2 A. Mr. Izetbegovic writes about that in his memoirs, and he does it

3 really very well.

4 Q. In your report, sir, you're critical -- one of the criticisms you

5 direct toward the Bosnian side is they engaged in negotiations with the

6 Serbs without the presence of the Croats. My question to you, sir, is

7 didn't the Croats do exactly the same thing including at Graz between Mate

8 Boban and Karadzic with no Muslims there?

9 A. What do you mean exactly when you say the Bosnian side?

10 Q. The central government you might call it. The BiH Presidency. I

11 think you know well, sir. You're an historian and you know which of the

12 three parties I'm referring to.

13 Why is it, sir, that it's your contention that the Croats were

14 entitled to have their separate meetings with the Serbs but you won't give

15 that same right to the Muslims?

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can we please allow

18 after the question of the witness, when the -- when the witness says the

19 Bosnian side and asks what does the Prosecutor mean by that, can we allow

20 the witness to answer that, what he means by the Bosnian side?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The country that we see in front of

22 us on the screen is not Bosnia. It is not its name. Its name is Bosnia

23 and Herzegovina. Please, Mr. Prosecutor, bear that in mind.

24 MR. SCOTT:

25 Q. Sir, throughout your 22-page report you repeatedly use the word"

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 "Muslim" and in a few instances "Bosniak." Now, you know exactly which

2 group I'm referring to; don't you?

3 A. I'm not a mind reader. But I would like to answer your previous

4 question.

5 Q. Please do.

6 A. I cannot recall that Mr. Izetbegovic negotiated under the

7 patronage of the international community with the staff of the Supreme

8 Command of the socialist federative Republic of Yugoslavia. The meeting

9 of -- in Graz was organised by the international community, and you seem

10 to be forgetting that all the time. It was the gentlemen from Europe who

11 invited them. And the story started in Portugal, in Lisbon. And it

12 ended, as I've already said, by the Dayton Accords, by the division of

13 this country that I see in front of me on the screen, the country that was

14 divided by the international community.

15 Q. All right. Sir, I think we understand from your testimony

16 yesterday and today that you blame the international community, in part,

17 for the war. We understand that. Needless --

18 A. It is the key culprit, to my mind. Even bigger than the Serbs

19 themselves.

20 Q. All right.

21 A. It allowed the Serbian war machine to go on a rampage.

22 Q. Needless to say --

23 A. And it's still recognised this area that has been ethnically

24 cleansed, Mr. Prosecutor.

25 Q. Be that as it may, sir, you're not willing to extend the same

1 right to the Muslims to negotiate and have discussions with one or the

2 other warring parties to the same extent that the Croats claimed that

3 right for themselves; correct?

4 A. That is your conclusion, and it is not correct, Mr. Prosecutor.

5 Q. All right.

6 A. I said already who the organisers of Graz were.

7 Q. Sir, we can't stay on this longer. Your report's in evidence and

8 certainly can be quoted later.

9 You say that the big problem in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the

10 parallel political and military structures between the Bosnian Croats, or

11 HVO, on the one side and the Muslims, or ABiH, on the other side, at page

12 13. Is that correct?

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. And what parallel structures exactly do you have in mind when you

15 make this -- when you state this thesis?

16 A. The Croatian and the Muslim, which from 1994 has been the

17 Bosniak.

18 Q. Well, in terms of parallel political and military structures, to

19 use your terms, you're talking about the HVO government on the one side

20 and the BiH Presidency on the other side; is that correct?

21 A. Yes. We are talking about the HVO government. That is the HDZ

22 government, to be more precise and more honest, and the SDA government in

23 Sarajevo.

24 Q. So let me understand. Between these two parallel structures, as

25 you say, do you recall that the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was

1 recognised as a sovereign state by the European Community on the 6th of

2 April, 1992? Can you please tell the Judges on what date the Croatian

3 Community of Herceg-Bosna was recognised as a state by the European

4 Community?

5 A. On the -- at the moment when it was involved in the negotiations

6 about the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

7 Q. It's your position that the European Community at some point

8 recognised that the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was a state?

9 A. Not as a state but as an equal participant and an equal

10 negotiator.

11 Q. Sir, they were one of the warring parties. Wasn't it essential

12 that the international negotiators had to negotiate with all three sides

13 whether they recognised any of them as being legitimate or not; correct?

14 A. It would be correct. However, we across -- we are talking at

15 cross-purposes. You don't want to seem to understand me. It would be so

16 if the representatives of the international community had not created

17 Republika Srpska.

18 Q. And in terms of the parallel structure, sir, the Republic of

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina was admitted as a member state of the United Nations on

20 the 22nd of May, 1992. Can you tell the Judges, please, when the Croatian

21 Community of Herceg-Bosna was admitted as a member state of the United

22 Nations?

23 A. You are claiming that Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was admitted

24 in the United Nations. What's the name of that state today? I think it's

25 called Bosnia-Herzegovina, period.

1 Q. Sir, I'm not going to argue with you. My question to you was

2 quite clear. I asked you to tell the Judges if you think -- if it's

3 your -- if you believe that these were equally legitimate parallel

4 structures, please tell the Chamber when the Croatian Community of

5 Herceg-Bosna, the HZ HB some might call it, was admitted as a member state

6 of the United Nations?

7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.

8 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I object to the manner in which the

9 question is phrased because we are talking about notorious things, about

10 common knowledge. So the Prosecutor, by asking this question, is merely

11 pulling the leg of this witness.

12 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I must join -- thank

13 you, Your Honours. I think that the Prosecutor is doing something that is

14 even worse than that. He has his political beliefs which he is defending,

15 and we are quite clear about it. Whose policy he's defending, whose

16 political views he is defending. This is not cross-examination, this is

17 defence of his political views. And he's trying to provoke a discussion

18 with the witness. This is not cross-examination.

19 I will certainly not be allowed to conduct my cross-examination in

20 this way, Your Honours. I'm quite sure about that. You would have

21 interrupted me a long time ago. Thank you.

22 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President --

23 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, I think Mr. Seric has said it's

24 common knowledge. Are we going to pursue this --

25 MR. SCOTT: No, Mr. President. I can rephrase the question, of

1 course, and I agree with that. I do have respond ever see briefly to

2 comments by Mr. Krsnik. I don't submit with respect to the Chamber in the

3 past 12 months I don't believe I've stated a personal political view in

4 this courtroom. I object to that very much. To make the record very,

5 very clear, I was -- I am appointed by the Secretary-General of the United

6 Nations to represent the international community in the investigation and

7 Prosecution of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, and I do that without

8 bias or prejudice to any party to those conflicts, and I object to these

9 attacks.

10 Q. Sir, you know, and it's true, isn't it, that contrary to the

11 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Herceg-Bosna was never recognised as a

12 state by the European Community or by the United Nations? True?

13 A. That is true, Mr. Prosecutor, but you have already said that you

14 are obviously a representative of one of the parties to the war in

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16 Q. Well, as you define it, sir, yes. I represent the international

17 community. And your position is clear --

18 A. Unfortunately --

19 Q. Sir, your position is clear, and I think the Judges understand it,

20 you blame the international community for the war. And you're correct, I

21 represent the international community. But let's please move on.

22 Now, the --

23 A. Well, everybody will be called to account for the sins he

24 committed.

25 Q. Thank you, sir. The Territorial Defence -- this goes back to the

1 point we were talking about some minutes ago. The Territorial Defence

2 that existed under the former Yugoslavia as a whole, as part of the

3 overall military structure of that state, was abolished by President

4 Izetbegovic on the 8th of April, 1992, and the Territorial Defence of the

5 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was established in its place; correct?

6 A. Well, I wouldn't really say it was correct.

7 Q. All right. Well, can the usher please assist us in showing the

8 witness Exhibit P122.1.

9 A. I'd like to add --

10 Q. I'm told that it's --

11 A. -- regarding the Territorial Defence --

12 JUDGE LIU: Well, witness, if you want to add something, you're

13 allowed to do that.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Regarding the Territorial Defence.

15 You have a very nice testimony by two officers of the BH Army, Stjepan

16 Siber and Hasan Efendic, who both describe how the Territorial Defence was

17 renamed and how the republican staff of the army -- of the Republic of

18 Bosnia-Herzegovina became the staff of the Territorial Defence of Bosnia

19 and Herzegovina. That is one and the same institution, in the same place

20 with only its name changed, and the chief individual who escaped.

21 MR. SCOTT:

22 Q. Sir, if you can ask you to look at Exhibit 122.1, since you're an

23 historian. Do you have any reason to disagree that this is a true copy of

24 the regulation issued by President Izetbegovic on the 8th of April, 1992

25 in Sarajevo, establishing the Territorial Defence of the Republic of

1 Bosnia and Herzegovina?

2 A. Yes.

3 Q. Now, isn't it true, sir, that it was only about two days after

4 this that it was Mate Boban, on behalf of the so-called Croatian Community

5 of Herceg-Bosna that declared in fact that he did not recognise the

6 Territorial Defence than the only legal military forces on the territory

7 claimed by Herceg-Bosna was the HVO?

8 MR. SCOTT: And I'll ask the usher to move us along. I'll ask the

9 usher to put before you Exhibit P123.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't understand why you use the

11 expression "so-called." And I also think that it was on that same day

12 that Mate Boban issued his communication.

13 MR. SCOTT:

14 Q. Directing your attention, sir, to Exhibit P123, to the third

15 paragraph starting on the first page. Mr. Boban says -- goes on to say:

16 "The Croatian people formed their own defence forces. The Presidency of

17 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna has decided that the Croatian

18 Defence Council will have exclusive Supreme Command of these forces. This

19 body is the only legal one, and its name is the only official one."

20 And skipping a paragraph and going to the bottom or the last

21 paragraph: "Did not Mr. Boban say all military formations on the

22 territory of the HZ of Herceg-Bosna are either illegal or enemy

23 formations?"

24 A. Yes, that is what Mr. Boban says. The communication is authentic.

25 Q. So he refused and Herceg-Bosna refused to recognise the legality

1 of the armed forces of the state declared to exist by -- or recognised to

2 exist by the European Community and the United Nations; correct?

3 A. Yes, it is.

4 Q. At page 13 of your report, sir, you claim that an order issued by

5 Bozo Rajic in January 1993, if I read your report correctly, was an effort

6 to solve the parallel structure's problem? Is that your position?

7 A. It is.

8 MR. SCOTT: And if the witness could be -- perhaps it would be

9 easier if I can -- put the next four -- P214, P215, and P223.2.

10 Q. Sir, directing your attention first of all to Exhibit P214. Is

11 this an order or -- decision, excuse me, issued by the president of the

12 HVO, Jadranko Prlic on the 15th of January, 1993, to declare or execute

13 this issue -- excuse me, the solution to the parallel structure's problem,

14 as you describe it? Is that what you're referring to?

15 A. Well, basically the text is the same. I mentioned -- I quoted the

16 text of the 16th of January, but I quoted it quite clearly, and basically

17 they are the same.

18 Q. And Exhibit P215, if you will, working down the chain of command

19 from the HVO president to the HVO Minister of Defence, this was a similar

20 order issued by Bruno Stojic, the Minister of Defence; correct?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Now, again, sir, this is a part of your report that wasn't

23 completely clear to me. Were you attempting to suggest that this was an

24 agreed situation, that both the Bosnian Croat side and the Muslim or, to

25 use your term if it assists you, the Presidency side agreed to this

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 situation?

2 A. I don't think there was an agreement or that they agreed with this

3 solution.

4 Q. Sir, the truth of the matter is, is it not, this was a unilateral

5 declaration by the HVO side, which in fact was not agreed to and never

6 agreed to by the Muslim side; correct?

7 A. They did not reach an agreement as far as I know.

8 Q. We seem to have agreement on that, but so the record is clear, if

9 you would please look at Exhibit 223.2. Did not President Izetbegovic on

10 the 19th of January, 1993, make it very clear that that proposition was

11 rejected?

12 A. Yes, although I must admit this is the first time that I see

13 this. Mr. Izetbegovic, who, as far as I know, was not supposed to be the

14 president of the Presidency at the time, signed this order, that is, this

15 decision. You know that his term of office expired sometime before this.

16 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I'm going to change topics a bit, and I

17 noticed at the last break and I apologise, I think we stopped at an hour

18 instead of an hour and is a minutes. For some reason I had 2.00 stuck in

19 my head, and when I counted off an hour and 15, it brought us to 3.15.

20 I'm sorry, my mistake. I don't know what are pleasure is at this stage.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. We'll make a break right now. We will resume at

22 5.30.

23 --- Recess taken at 5.00 p.m.

24 --- On resuming at 5.30 p.m.

25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott. At 7.00, some of the Judges will

1 have some meetings, so we will make an earlier recess, about 15 minutes

2 earlier.

3 MR. SCOTT: Very well.

4 JUDGE LIU: Yes. You may proceed.

5 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.

6 Q. Sir, before moving to another topic, just one final point. You

7 said at page 12 of your report that attempts at cooperation, and you were

8 making reference to the Croats on the one side and the Muslims or Bosniaks

9 on the other side, and you said at page 12: "Attempts at cooperation

10 were insincere on both sides"; correct?

11 A. Just a moment. I need to find the sentence. Could you tell me --

12 could you give me some indication, perhaps a footnote after it?

13 Q. Sure. I'll try. It would be -- of course we're not referring to

14 the footnote except as a marker, but if you find your footnote 89, the

15 next sentence I believe it says: "The attempts at cooperation were

16 insincere on both sides."

17 And can we correctly understand that to mean that you contend not

18 only that it was the efforts on the Muslim side were insincere but the

19 efforts or the attempts on the HVO side were equally insincere?

20 A. I think that the Bosniak Muslim side was much more insincere, as

21 one can see, among other things, from the fact that they sent Colonel

22 Jaganjac and the fact -- and the fact that Mr. Izetbegovic, in his

23 memoirs, does not remember this. But while you're at it, it is

24 interesting to analyse the case of General Praljak here.

25 Q. Well, sir, my question to you, and if you want to change your

1 report or state a different conclusion to the Chamber you can do so, I

2 suppose, and the Judges will decide, but are you changing your statement?

3 You're saying now that you withdraw the conclusion that these attempts

4 were insincere on both sides?

5 A. Could you tell me once again where that is, because I can't find

6 it.

7 Q. After footnote 89, sir, in the text.

8 A. I cannot conclude that from my text. Oh, no. Sorry. I've found

9 it.

10 I did not say the amount of insincerity. I said that both sides

11 were insincere and then I proceed to explain why. In the best example of

12 reasons why I think that the Muslims are a little less sincere, that is, a

13 little more insincere, can be found in the text which is quoted above

14 footnote 102. That is throughout the summer of 1992, the BH Army was

15 trying to play the card of Croat armed forces, the HOS, of the Croat party

16 of rights. So I stand by the claim that the Muslims were more insincere.

17 Q. All right. Well, in fact you've taken us to the next topic, sir.

18 You talked about part of the attempts or however sincere or insincere at

19 Croat-Muslim cooperation at HOS or H-O-S. From your report again, if you

20 can assist us, please, are you saying in your report that HOS was not in

21 fact for an integrated multi-ethnic Bosnia-Herzegovina?

22 A. I believe I quoted very clearly the letter of the party's

23 president, Mr. Paraga, to Major Darko Kraljevic, later a member of the

24 HVO. If you want me to, I can read it out to you.

25 Q. No. In fact, that was once again exactly what I was going to

1 refer you to. Footnote 95 of your paper, on page 31, at least of the

2 English version, footnote 95, in reference to this statement by

3 Mr. Paraga, you say this: "We cannot let the wrong Boban's politics to

4 come back at us. We are absolutely for the unity of Croat people and its

5 common defence. We are likewise for the unity with Muslim people. We

6 shall not retreat from our policy of the integral Bosnia and Herzegovina,

7 in other words, Croatia to the Drina. Any other policy would mean a

8 division of Herceg-Bosna and creation of a new Serbian state this side of

9 Drina, which would be a disaster for both the Croat and the Muslim

10 people."

11 Now again, sir, I'm not sure from your paper. Are you saying that

12 that was not in fact said or are you saying that it was not in fact true?

13 What point are you trying to make about this statement?

14 A. I'm trying to say -- I'm trying to say under A that that is not

15 true, what you have just said; and B, that Mr. Paraga is trying to renew

16 the Independent State of Croatia, which one can see clearly from the

17 sentence which he wrote.

18 Q. So you're telling the Chamber that the statement we quoted from

19 your report and that I just read to you, that that was false and that was

20 not in fact the bona fide position of HOS? Is that what you're telling

21 us?

22 A. I can't know what Mr. Paraga had in mind.

23 Q. Sir, what I'm trying to understand --

24 A. What --

25 Q. What I'm trying to understand, sir, is the position of your paper

1 on this topic, and I do not know if you're drawing into question and

2 saying that this view of HOS is false or do you indeed agree that that was

3 the stated philosophy and programme, if you will, of Mr. Paraga and his

4 party?

5 A. Mr. Paraga probably really thought this. But I'm telling you that

6 here he means a concept which - how shall I put it? - which will be held

7 against the Croat people as long as there are any Croats living and which

8 damaged most the Croat people in World War II. This is a defeated policy,

9 a policy which was defeated with a large dose of crime, unfortunately.

10 And, sir, HOS, I'm sure you know what HOS looked like visually.

11 And HOS is to this day used to discredit Croatia in the press, especially

12 in Croatia. We always see the same photographs of the same people who had

13 a "U" on their caps. Unfortunately, the HOS wore this symbol of an ugly

14 part of the Croatian past.

15 It is not mine to agree with him or not. I'm saying what he said.

16 Q. Well, sir, didn't it true that it wasn't only the HOS members that

17 wore the letter "U" prominently on their caps or uniforms? Correct?

18 A. Well, from time to time, now and then I did see a member of the

19 HVO and the Croatian Army here and there who would be wear such -- this

20 emblem, but those were -- such instances were few and far between.

21 Q. The HOS commander, that you say in the same paragraph of your

22 report, that was killed, you're referring to Blaz Kraljevic who was

23 assassinated in August 1992; correct?

24 A. I mean Darko Kraljevic, subsequently the commander of the Knights

25 of Vitezovi, in Central Bosnia.

1 Q. I'm referring in your report to where you say in the area of

2 Mostar, HOS was on bad terms with the HVO and close to the BH Army until

3 the death of their commander. And when you're talking about the death of

4 the commander you're referring to the killing of Blaz Kraljevic; correct?

5 A. Yes. I'm referring to Blaz Kraljevic.

6 Q. And can you tell the Judges, sir, was he assassinated by forces or

7 persons associated with the HDZ and HVO because he and HOS were seen as a

8 pro-Muslim competitor or threat to the HDZ?

9 A. Well, look, I didn't see documents referring to this so that I'd

10 rather not say anything about it. Many guesses, many stories circulate

11 around about this.

12 Q. So in all your work as an historian that you've told us about, in

13 terms of some of the various key events in Bosnia-Herzegovina, you have no

14 views on this topic, the killing of Blaz Kraljevic as commander of the

15 HOS? Is that correct? If that's correct, we can move on.

16 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.

17 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, Your Honours, the

18 Prosecutor spent today, more than an hour, repeating questions from the

19 direct examination, which, too, the Chamber would not allow me to do.

20 When I merely tried to do something like that during my examination. He

21 spent the time in a suspicious attempt to discredit the witness, and he

22 got to the documentation after two hours. So I object and I protest,

23 because the Prosecution examination has taken longer than the direct

24 examination. If the Prosecutor is again allowed to do it, I will consider

25 it unfair to the Defence.

1 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think, you know, most of the cross-examination

2 is concentrated on the reports which is in our hand, and we Judges also

3 have some problems with the reading of these reports, I think partially

4 because of the translation matters, and partially we are not quite

5 familiar with the situations here. So I don't think there is any problem

6 to ask some questions on the reports.

7 Yes, Mr. Scott. You may proceed.

8 MR. SCOTT:

9 Q. Sir, you know your report, and in the interest of time, I'm not

10 going to read out the entire top third of page 13 of the English version,

11 but in terms of HOS being viewed as a threat or a competitor to the HDZ or

12 the HVO, you cite here, do you not, a report or a communication from

13 Milivoj Petkovic, and you give six, what some people call bullet items,

14 all to the effect, are they not, that Mr. Petkovic was concerned or

15 complaining that the Muslims seemed to be dealing and going to HOS instead

16 of the HVO? Isn't that a fair reading?

17 A. You can conclude from the report based on what General Petkovic

18 said, that the BH Army did not make any attempts to cooperate with the

19 HVO, which again I put it in one of my footnotes, which some faxes of some

20 documents that General Siber published in his book, in his war diary, that

21 is, dating from 1992.

22 Q. Sir, could it not be that the reason that the Muslims were going

23 to HOS and not the HVO is because they believed that HOS indeed was for a

24 multi-ethnic Bosnia and the HVO was not?

25 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

1 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, thank you very much.

2 Let us allow the witness to finish his thought. Mr. Prosecutor, my

3 learned friend, is -- keeps interrupting him in the middle of his

4 sentences. He has done it again. I think it would be only fair to the

5 witness to give him an opportunity to finish his thought and to answer the

6 question completely.

7 JUDGE LIU: Well, from the transcript I thought the witness had

8 already finished his answer. But if you're not, please continue your

9 answer of that question.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.

11 From the text of the report by Mr. Petkovic and from your contention --

12 actually, I should like to go back to your contention about the HOS as the

13 advocate of the multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina. I believe that this

14 could not be called that way. We can only talk about the HOS as the

15 advocate of a single state of Bosnia and Herzegovina on the principle of

16 the dual ethnicity or two ethnic principle. So in very simple terms, it

17 would be a multi-ethnic state. The HOS was not at all interested in

18 Serbs.

19 MR. SCOTT:

20 Q. Which all of you, the Muslims and the HVO, were fighting at that

21 time; correct? The Serbs. Correct?

22 A. That is correct. Although I could use this to remind you of some

23 of your allegations about the limited combat activities of the HVO against

24 Republika Srpska, that is, of its army.

25 Q. It's your position, sir, on page 8 of your report, if I understand

1 it correctly, that at least in their public pronouncements, the Muslims

2 spoke in favour of a multi-ethnic Bosnia-Herzegovina with the co-existence

3 of all peoples and joint action with the Croats, the Bosnian Croats,

4 against the Serbs. Page 8 of your report.

5 So do you agree that in fact among the three groups, the three

6 prior -- excuse me, principal groups, that the Muslims were more in favour

7 of multi-ethnic Bosnia than the other two?

8 A. Can you please draw my attention to the place where you found

9 this? Maybe you can give me another footnote as the indicator.

10 Q. Well, for example, right after your footnote 57. You say -- you

11 say -- excuse me, just so we're clear because you've asked me. You said:

12 "According to the directive, the main task was supposed to be the

13 protection of Muslim people, the protection of the territorial integrity

14 of Bosnia-Herzegovina in order to secure the future co-existence of all

15 the peoples and nationalities in the state territory of

16 Bosnia-Herzegovina."

17 A. Again I quote the commander of the Patriotic League, Mr. Sefer

18 Halilovic. And further on in the text, I comment upon that. I draw the

19 attention to some illogical points, and I also warn that Mr. Halilovic

20 does something that a professional historian does not find appropriate,

21 i.e. brings an incomplete document.

22 Q. All right. My question to you now is this, sir: Is it the

23 position -- is it your position, as stated in your report or not, that of

24 the three groups, the Muslims were the most pro-multi-ethnic Bosnia of the

25 three groups? If I misunderstand your report, sir, please correct me.

1 A. Are you referring to this concrete comment that I gave you a

2 little while ago? Then your interpretation is wrong.

3 Q. So you do not believe that that was their -- that was the Muslim

4 position. Is that what you're telling us, that perhaps it was stated but

5 not what they meant?

6 A. I already told you what this is. And somewhat earlier the same

7 person, Halilovic, talked about an extremist wing of the HDZ. Yesterday I

8 admitted that I was not very clear as to what he referred to, and I

9 believe that my work shows it very clearly.

10 One needs to make a distinction between a promotion, although this

11 is not what he does here, because these are combat reports, combat

12 documents. But I believe that you also know it only too well that the BH

13 Army in Sarajevo did not come out very glorious when it came to

14 multi-ethnicity. That started with the year 1992 and the stories about

15 Stup and then ended in 1993, and the activities of certain gentlemen, both

16 by the name of Celo and a third one called Musan Topalovic - Caco.

17 Q. Well, getting into a level of detail, sir, I don't want to get too

18 bogged down in. So the way you've corrected me then, is that you admit

19 these are the public statements of the Muslims, but your view is that they

20 were not genuine. Is that what you're trying to tell us?

21 A. Exactly. If I may, I would like to draw your attention to the

22 methods used in the work of a historian, which is the method that I have

23 used, and it is called the criticism of sources. Historians are very

24 often put into a situation in which they conclude that the proclaimed and

25 what is written in laws and what can be read on papers does not reflect

1 the real life, and that is what this method is all about.

2 Q. Sir, are you suggesting that governments or political parties or

3 organisations can take one position publicly and actually have a different

4 agenda in private?

5 A. History is full of such examples. It is more of a rule than an

6 exception.

7 Q. So, for instance, when the HDZ or HVO said that they were for a

8 sovereign multi-ethnic Bosnia, they didn't really mean an unitary,

9 ethnically mixed state based on one person, one vote, did they?

10 A. An unitarian Bosnia and Herzegovina is certainly not what they had

11 in mind, but one cannot deny the fact that the HVO, and here I mean the

12 military component of it, was the only warring party which at a certain

13 moment in time had members of another people amongst its ranks.

14 Q. You deny, sir, that there were a number of Croat -- relatively

15 senior Croat officers in the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Is that what

16 you're telling us?

17 A. I think that there were two, as far as I know. Stepan Siber was

18 one. And maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to read his memoirs.

19 And as far as I know, there was also a Brigadier Ivan Brigic.

20 As regards Mr. Siber, I have come across his name in several

21 places, and those were from the period of the Yugoslav People's Army. The

22 said person is there referred to as "Stjepan." "Stjepan" is not a

23 Croatian name. He must have remembered only subsequently what his ethnic

24 background was.

25 I would also like to comment upon the case of the second

1 high-ranking officer of the BH Army. That is Mr. Divjak. I said that

2 yesterday, Mr. Izetbegovic, in his memoirs, published his dismissal notice

3 which -- that is, his resignation, which I quoted here. And this shows

4 the character of the multi-ethnicity of the command staff of the armed

5 forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was nothing but propaganda. I would

6 most heartily advise you to read that.

7 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik.

8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. There has

9 been a misprint in the transcript which leads to a misunderstanding of the

10 witness's words. Page 59, line 16. The name should be spelled Stepan,

11 S-T-E-P-A-N, without a "J", because Stepan is the name which is not

12 Croatian, as the witness said. When the name is written like this, there

13 is a misunderstanding, because Stepan and Stjepan are two different names.

14 I know this may not mean much to you, but this is what the witness wanted

15 to explain to all of us and this is how the transcript should read. Thank

16 you very much.

17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, do you agree with that statement?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is exactly what I was trying to

19 say.

20 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

21 MR. SCOTT:

22 Q. So again, just to finish on this point, sir, your position is that

23 in this particular regard that you talked about with Mr. Izetbegovic, that

24 these claims were nothing but propaganda; correct?

25 A. Correct. If you want me to read a part of this letter, a part of

1 this resignation, I will gladly do that.

2 Q. No. You've answered my question, sir. My next question to you

3 is: And wasn't it exactly the same type of propaganda when the HVO denied

4 having any plans to join what they considered the Bosnian Croat parts of

5 Bosnia to Croatia?

6 A. Which specific allegations and which time do you have in mind?

7 You seem to be confusing matters a little bit. You seem to be confusing

8 terms. We're now talking about the structure of the officer, personnel,

9 and now you're talking about high politics.

10 Q. What you said a few moments ago, and you said words to the effect

11 and the screen has passed but that history is full of examples where

12 various leaders, movements, political parties, said one thing and meant

13 something quite the other. And that can be equally said of the HVO;

14 correct?

15 A. Probably, yes, although one needs to insist on specific

16 allegations and on specific period of time. I was very specific a little

17 while ago when I gave you the example of the BH Army, unlike you.

18 Q. If I can -- well, sir, if we have time, we may get some additional

19 specific examples, I can assure you.

20 MR. SCOTT: If I can ask the witness to be shown Defence Exhibits

21 D/72 and D/73 which we did not have the translations of yesterday, and my

22 understanding is that those translations have been made available.

23 THE INTERPRETER: Could they be put on the ELMO, please, because

24 the interpreters do not have them.

25 MR. SCOTT:

1 Q. Now, if I can ask you, first of all, to look at D2/72. Perhaps we

2 can assist the translation?

3 A. Yes.

4 MR. SCOTT: I don't know if it would assist the translation if the

5 English was placed on the ELMO or not. The witness is looking at the

6 B/C/S version presumably.

7 THE INTERPRETER: Either language, as long as we can see the

8 text.

9 MR. SCOTT:

10 Q. Starting with D2/72. Again, sir, and not having had -- not being

11 able to read the document yesterday during your direct examination, for

12 which I apologise, I'm not sure the point that you're trying to make. Are

13 you saying that there are statements or matters in this document that are

14 false, are not accurate?

15 A. I absolutely do not follow you.

16 Q. Well, perhaps you can refresh our memory now that we have the

17 translation, the Judges and I and others have the translation of the

18 document. If you recall, maybe you don't recall, what point you were

19 trying to make by showing us this document.

20 JUDGE CLARK: Can I interrupt, please, for a moment? My note, and

21 I found the documents very interesting I must say when they were

22 translated, my note from yesterday is that this witness described them as

23 a core set of documents which caused the war between the Croats and the

24 Muslims.

25 MR. SCOTT: Judge Clark, that's what I heard as well, and that's

1 why I'm coming back to them, to make sure we understand them.

2 Q. Is that your contention, sir, D2/72 and 73 should be understood by

3 the Judges to provide a core explanation to how the war or why the war

4 started?

5 A. I still adhere to my yesterday's statement, only I didn't

6 understand you fully. You were talking about the HVO, so I thought that

7 maybe you would bring me an HVO document. I'm going to repeat now what I

8 said to you yesterday.

9 This document is important for two reasons. This document clearly

10 shows on the example of the 4th Corps of the BH Army that the BH Army was

11 continuing to get the supplies of armament and equipment which the HVO,

12 some of it takes, but most of it let's through. That's the first reason.

13 And I think I put it in my remarks.

14 The reason for that was that General Rasim Delic, in his memoirs,

15 claims that between November 1990 -- after November 1992, the flow of arms

16 stopped, whereas Mr. Izetbegovic, in his memoirs, says and mentions even

17 the quantity of weapons and other equipment that arrive in Sarajevo and

18 reach the BH Army.

19 Secondly, the commander of the 4th Corps, I believe that this

20 document was signed by the chief -- his Chief of Staff, asks for certain

21 measures to be put in place in the area of responsibility of his corps,

22 and these measures to be aimed against the HVO.

23 Seven days later, minutes were compiled which confirms that these

24 measures were indeed put in place.

25 Q. Sir, let me -- just to move us along because we have about a half

1 an hour left this evening. Perhaps we can take both documents then and

2 come back to them as a unit. Let me direct your attention for a moment to

3 the next exhibit then, D2/73. And I'm going to start by asking you the

4 same question that I asked you about the prior document. Is there

5 anything in this document, any assertions, the things that are being

6 reported, which you say are false or not accurately presented in the

7 document?

8 A. I suppose there are a number of accurate statements on the first

9 and second page.

10 Q. So my question to you, sir, having both of those documents now in

11 mind, and I asked you earlier today in my cross-examination, I said are

12 you prepared to give -- is it true that the Muslims had the same rights of

13 organisation and self-defence as the Croat people did, and you said yes.

14 So what do you find objectionable, please, to the Muslims reacting to

15 convoys being stopped, humanitarian aid being stopped, ABiH soldiers being

16 arrested, the issuance of Herceg-Bosna licence plates as an affront to the

17 central government, an HVO tax system put in place, the seizing of flats

18 and businesses? The Muslims had no basis to object to all that? Is that

19 your position?

20 A. Yes. The Muslims had the right to fight against it, except the

21 way in which they did it is somewhat questionable, Mr. Prosecutor. Just a

22 little too many people got killed. Just a little -- there was a little

23 too much fire or a little too much violence. Too many settlements got

24 burnt down. Questionable is also the way in which it was done, and

25 questionable is also -- and these -- and the -- the census is also

1 questionable.

2 Q. And your --

3 A. -- described it pretty accurately.

4 Q. I'm sorry, Your Honour. Sometimes the interpretation stops and I

5 think it's finished. I'm not trying to be impolite, Witness.

6 And when you say things were a little bit questionable, a little

7 bit too extreme, you're telling the Judges, are you, that none of that

8 extremism, none of those questionable things happened on the HVO side?

9 A. Look, it is always a question, it is always a matter of the

10 level. HVO outbursts are mostly of the technical nature, and this is the

11 strategic level. Two days later, this document was seized by the HVO.

12 This document was published in March or perhaps early April in a local

13 newspaper of the Konjic HVO. I believe the paper is called Aviza. That

14 is what I wanted to say.

15 Q. In that regard, in fact, sir, you say on page 9 of your report,

16 you say that: "the Serbs engaged in ethnic cleansing and concentration

17 camps." And so that we again can speak as much as possible, understanding

18 your terms, when you say ethnic cleansing, what do you mean?

19 A. By this I mean exactly the expulsion, killing of members of a

20 different ethnic origin.

21 Q. And when you say that the Serbs used concentration camps as a

22 means or a tool, as an instrument of ethnic cleansing, what do you mean in

23 saying that?

24 A. Just a moment until I find it. Well, all I said was that the

25 practice of ethnic cleansing had started and establishment of

1 concentration camps. You're interpreting my sentence rather liberally.

2 Q. All right. So you didn't mean to suggest that concentration camps

3 was one of the ways that ethic cleansing was carried out. Is that what

4 you're telling us?

5 A. Well, by "ethnic cleansing," I mean the expulsion of people. A

6 concentration camp is a detention and collection, and there is a different

7 between them. However, the effect is, to all intensive purposes, the

8 same.

9 Q. So it's your position, from your paper, that during the years, the

10 war years, from 1991 to 1995, the Serbs engaged in ethnic cleansing;

11 correct?

12 A. It is.

13 Q. And it's your position that during the war years, from 1991 to

14 1995, the Serbs used concentration camps as part of their programme;

15 correct?

16 A. Correct.

17 Q. Is it your position that Muslims engaged in ethnic cleansing

18 during this same time period?

19 A. My position is that Croats and Muslims and Serbs equally engaged

20 in ethnic cleansing during that time, that is, during the war in

21 individual areas. It all depended on the war in question and the

22 adversary, of course.

23 Q. On page 17, you say that concerning -- with a reference to 1993,

24 you say: "The treatment of the civilians," and if it's a problem with

25 translation I apologise but I won't paraphrase, I'll just read the

1 translation of your report as it was given to us. It says: "The

2 treatment of the civilians, such as until then, had been a characteristic

3 of the engagement of the Serb forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, were quite

4 often, and those were to become a strong argument for the equalisation of

5 the Croats with the Serbs."

6 Are we to understand that statement that the Croats followed in

7 the footsteps of the Serbs, engaging in similar behaviour?

8 A. Could you tell me the footnote so that I can find the text,

9 please?

10 Q. The last sentence in the second to last paragraph starting on that

11 page. It's after footnote 148.

12 A. Yes. I'm saying here that in the latter half, sometime in May

13 1993, roughly, the -- the practice of ethnic cleansing begins to emerge

14 among Croats, and the concentration camps emerge, but only as of May 1993,

15 after the beginning of the war against the Muslims.

16 MR. SCOTT: Forgive me, Mr. President. I'm looking to see if

17 there are any topics -- I'm looking to see if there are any topics I can

18 complete in approximately 15 minutes. I'm not sure that there is, but

19 we'll just have to go as far as we can and then pick up.

20 Q. Sir, isn't it true, as stated in your paper again, and one

21 particular example is on page 20, that the Republic of Croatia's President

22 Tudjman's goal and obsession, and obsession is your word so I'm not

23 accused of I can hyperbolic. Tudjman's goal and obsession was the

24 division of Bosnia and Herzegovina and bringing parts of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina into the Croatian state; correct?

1 A. Again, can you help me with the footnote number?

2 Q. Yes. It's not immediately following the footnote. It goes on --

3 it's between footnotes 159 and 160. In the English version it is the last

4 full paragraph on page 20.

5 A. Oh, 159.

6 Q. Between paragraph -- excuse me. I'm sorry. Between footnote 159

7 and footnote 160 in the text you say this: "The views of Franjo Tudjman

8 on Bosnia-Herzegovina were not a secret. He did not believe in its

9 viability, which can be documented by his statements and parenthetically

10 less probable by the claims various witnesses of the history." And

11 specifically when I said you used the word "obsession," you go on to say:

12 "It is not serious to reduce the policy of the Republic of Croatia

13 towards Bosnia-Herzegovina to Tudjman's obsession with a division of

14 Bosnia."

15 And my question to you: That's you position; correct? President

16 Franjo Tudjman was obsessed with the division of Bosnia and joining part

17 of it with Croatia?

18 A. Well, I really admire you, because you obviously keep finding

19 things that I did not write. I did not write that, so obviously the

20 translation is incorrect. All I said -- let's clarify it. That Franjo

21 Tudjman, and that is my opinion, that his point of departure was the idea

22 that Bosnia and Herzegovina could not be sustained, that it could not

23 survive. And I believe that the Dayton Bosnia confirms that view. I'm

24 not sure. At least I did not see. Any documents where he would be

25 speaking about the time and manner of separation of Herceg-Bosna and its

1 annexation to the Republic of Croatia. And that would not be serious.

2 That would be flippant in view -- that would be too facetious in view of

3 the situation in which the Republic of Croatia was in, bearing in mind the

4 existence of the Republic of Serb Krajina. That is what I wanted to say.

5 And this claim of yours I really, however hard I try, I cannot find it

6 here.

7 Q. So you did not say, and we can check the translation, we'll have

8 the B/C/S translators go back and look at your original language, you're

9 telling the Chamber that you did not write about Tudjman's obsession with

10 the division of Bosnia? You're denying that that was your -- those are

11 your words?

12 A. I will read it, sentence, out to you, and it reads: "It is not

13 serious to reduce -- to bring down the policy of the Republic of Croatia

14 towards BH to Tudjman's obsession with the division of Bosnia." And you're

15 obviously reading something else.

16 Q. I think the point is made, sir.

17 MR. SCOTT: If I can ask the witness to be shown comb PT/1. It

18 should be in the second bundle of documents.

19 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik. I saw you are standing.

20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Mr. President, my client is feeling

21 very bad. May he be allowed to leave the courtroom?

22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, he may.

23 [the accused Naletilic withdrew]

24 MR. SCOTT:

25 Q. Sir, I'm having placed in front of you and it's in the second

1 larger bundle of documents, Exhibit PT/1. It is a transcript of a meeting

2 in the offices of Franjo Tudjman on the 8th of June 1991, starting at

3 approximately 10.00. And I'm going to refer you specifically to, in the

4 B/C/S version I will try to give you the page --

5 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, Mr. President. When the copying was made,

6 I'm afraid I lost my markings, so I'm going to have to look at it myself

7 in a bit more detail.

8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my colleague Mrs. Nika

9 Pinter warns me that the translation of the sentence that was quoted by

10 the expert witness is not recorded in the way in which the expert witness

11 read it in Croatian. So perhaps he could do it slower, perhaps once

12 again, so that our interpreters could have time to interpret it properly.

13 My colleagues warns me that this sentence makes no sense the way in which

14 it appears here in English.

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, we only have ten minutes left for today. So

16 perhaps the interpreters will check it during the night against the

17 transcript as well as the record, and tomorrow morning we'll come back to

18 that and to see how it is translated.

19 MR. SCOTT:

20 Q. Sir, if I can direct your attention in particular to -- if you can

21 find in the B/C/S version -- if you'll look in the upper-left corner, sir,

22 there is a series of numbers. I'm going to use those to try to assist

23 you. If you find 0150-9014. And not that page but perhaps the page in

24 front of it. And for the English readers, I'm referring to page of the

25 translation L0045880.

1 And if you can find this language, sir --

2 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.

3 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, this is if it is a

4 document. It is nonetheless an integral text, and I'd consider it

5 necessary, because this witness is not an ordinary witness, I think that

6 it would be necessary for this witness, for your expert witness, to

7 familiarise with him -- himself with the complete text rather than with

8 this fragment only, because if we are to be here for several days, then

9 let's do it for several days.

10 JUDGE LIU: Well, it all depends what kind of question the

11 Prosecutor is going to ask. I understand that this document is a very

12 long document.

13 MR. SCOTT:

14 Q. Well, if I could start, sir, again --

15 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott.

16 MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir.

17 JUDGE LIU: You can draw the attention to the first page of the

18 document and lay some background to the document and later on put the

19 question to the witness.

20 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, this is a document that has been

21 admitted into evidence by the Chamber. The full document, of course, is

22 in the record. I tried to save at least one branch -- one small branch of

23 a tree by not copying the entire document yet again. Obviously the

24 Defence has the entire document, both the original B/C/S version and the

25 translation. I can certainly make it available, with the Court's

1 permission, this could make it available to -- that particular document

2 available to the witness.

3 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Scott.

4 MR. SCOTT: Yes, of course.

5 JUDGE CLARK: I think that what the President is suggesting to you

6 and indeed what Mr. Seric is saying is that this witness doesn't know what

7 happened before. So in fairness to the witness, you should tell him what

8 the document is or what you say that it is.

9 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Judge Clark. I did not appreciate that was the

10 point, and I thank you for that clarification.

11 Q. Sir, so you know the document we're referring to, a number of

12 documents have come into evidence in this case that were provided by the

13 government of the Republic of Croatia, of records of meetings in the

14 offices of the president, President Tudjman, dating from, roughly

15 speaking, 1991 into 1993 and 1994, perhaps a few later. These are

16 transcripts made from recordings, and they have been used and shown to a

17 number of witnesses in the course of the trial.

18 So what I'm trying to show you now, put before you and ask you

19 questions about, are statements attributed to President Tudjman during a

20 meeting on the 8th of June, 1991.

21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.

22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is a free

23 interpretation of the Prosecutor concerning these documents. The Defence

24 says "allegedly." These are allegedly the presidential transcripts.

25 JUDGE LIU: Your statement is registered in the transcript.

1 You may proceed, Mr. Scott.

2 MR. SCOTT:

3 Q. Sir, I directed you a few moments ago to 0 -- in the B/C/S version

4 0150-9014. And if you can perhaps go back about ten or 15 lines before

5 you get to that page, this is the language, part of the language, I'd like

6 to direct your attention to, please. It's the language which says: "So

7 this is the reality that we cannot overlook. Also, gentlemen, if we opt

8 for Croatia's independence, either within an alliance or total

9 independence, Croatia's borders, such as they are today, are absurd. They

10 are impossible in the sense of administration and trade let alone as

11 regards any kind of protection of these borders of Croatia."

12 And if I could ask you then to go to -- if you can find page 01 --

13 I will ask a question, trying to do this as quickly as possible, at

14 0150-9047. And for the English -- the translation starts another page 1,

15 but translation page in the upper right corner is L0042599.

16 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Seric.

17 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, in this case, the

18 original is the Croatian text, not the English translation which Mr. Scott

19 has been reading to us.

20 MR. SCOTT: It's true, Mr. President.

21 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I'm not objecting to you,

22 interpreters, because you're interpreting or, rather, you are saying what

23 Mr. Scott was reading from the English translation and then saying in this

24 case I am saying this for reasons of procedure, because we're dealing

25 about the procedure, not interpretation. The original is the Croatian

1 text, and the -- and our expert witness has this original with him. So

2 the Prosecutor is making a mistake when he's reading the English version

3 as the original and giving us the transcript, which sounds like but not

4 exactly as what the Croatian original says. Since we have the expert

5 witness here, he knows English, let us have him read out what is in the

6 original. What Mr. Scott has said does not correspond with the Croatian

7 original. So we're talking about the Croatian original, not the English

8 original.

9 JUDGE LIU: I think this document has been admitted into evidence

10 already. If you have some problems with the translation, you may raise

11 it. It will help us, you know, to arrive at the correct conclusion.

12 Well, Mr. Scott, I really hope you could finish, you know, this

13 part of the cross-examination. So we may sit a little bit longer. You

14 may ask the witness to read the certain corresponding paragraph in his

15 language. Let's see the difference.

16 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Mr. President. I would be happy to. Of course

17 it's only too true that I can only read the document and put my questions

18 in English. I apologise for that. I directed the witness to, in the

19 B/C/S document, 0150-9047. And on that page, we contend, he can read it

20 and tell me if he thinks it's wrong, that on that page -- the middle of

21 the page is the word "president," which I think he can see, "predsednik,"

22 and in that paragraph, toward the end of the paragraph it says:

23 "Therefore, the solution lies in what is said there, in the partition of

24 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And if he achieve that, we can look for a basis of

25 alliance of sovereign republics and states."

1 And all this, sir, is simply to go, given your statement that it

2 was President Tudjman's obsession, the division of Bosnia, wouldn't

3 surprise you, would it, to see him make such statements?

4 A. I didn't say that his obsession was the division of Bosnia. And

5 please listen to what I'm saying. But what you are now saying, I can't

6 find it. I cannot find it. I don't know where you've --

7 MR. SCOTT: Perhaps if I can be shown the document --

8 A. -- taken that out.

9 MR. SCOTT: Perhaps if the Chamber gives me the document I can

10 point it out.

11 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we do not have those

12 numbers on the transcript. They have all been cut off. All we can see

13 is 0509. We cannot see 47. So I don't not have them and the witness does

14 not have them.

15 JUDGE LIU: Let's come back to the report. I think that paragraph

16 is after the footnotes 159.

17 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Mr. President. That's the part where we got into

18 this whole issue some time ago now about Tudjman's obsession, which the

19 witness then read to us and used -- well, he says -- at least as

20 translated exactly that word.

21 JUDGE LIU: Let's do it again. Let's do it again.

22 MR. SCOTT: All right.

23 Q. Sir, I'm referring to your reports. The sentence occurs between

24 footnote 159 and footnote 160 which there is some number of lines of text

25 between the two footnotes. On the English version, and I say that for the

1 benefit of the Judges and others, it's on the bottom of page 20. And you

2 say: "It is not serious to reduce the policy of the Republic of Croatia

3 towards BH to Tudjman's obsession with the division of Bosnia."

4 Now, did you write that or not?

5 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness -- Witness -- Witness --

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I wrote it.

7 JUDGE LIU: Did you find that sentence?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, yes.

9 JUDGE LIU: Please read it in your own language.

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "It is not serious to bring down the

11 policy of the Republic of Croatia towards BH or to restrict the Republic

12 of Croatia to BH to Tudjman's obsession with the division of Bosnia."

13 I'd like to comment. It seems my impression is that the

14 Prosecutor does not understand the sentence, or, rather, that he reads it

15 as he pleases.

16 I believe I've already said it somewhere, briefly commented. The

17 circles which without proper argument talk about this -- well, let me use

18 the Prosecutor's expression, obsession, Tudjman's obsession.

19 MR. SCOTT:

20 Q. Well, let me correct you, sir. You've now said it several times.

21 That's your word, not mine.

22 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik.

23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, allow the witness to

24 explain to the end, because these are linguistic matters, and the witness

25 is right, the Prosecutor does not understand. What the Prosecutor is

1 saying is not what the witness is saying.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The Prosecutor --

3 JUDGE LIU: Well, it's not the Prosecutor's expression

4 "obsession." Let's pass this. You may continue, Witness. You may

5 continue, Witness. We don't have much time. We have to stop very soon.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I explain this? I'm saying here

7 that it is not serious to name the policy of the Republic of Croatia as

8 "Tudjman's obsession with the division of Bosnia." The Prosecutor cuts

9 off the first part of the sentence, pulls it out of the context, and then

10 dangles it in front of my nose. I have never experienced anything like

11 that before. And perhaps it wouldn't be bad if he read the rest of the

12 sentence.

13 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I've read that statement now a number

14 of times. It's been translate add number of times. The point is made, I

15 submit, and the only question that was pending before all this started

16 again was:

17 Q. Based on what you see attributed, the statements you see in

18 Exhibit PT1 attributed to President Franjo Tudjman doesn't surprise you,

19 do they, given what you describe as Tudjman's obsession with the division

20 of Bosnia; correct?

21 A. Mr. Scott, I'm telling you nicely --

22 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Seric.

23 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] My apologies, Mr. President, but let

24 us conclude that once and for all. The Prosecutor keeps insisting on

25 something that the witness did not say and did not write. He keeps

1 insisting on that.

2 JUDGE LIU: Well, we could not get the meaning of what the witness

3 said. Let the witness tell us what does it mean, the whole sentence.

4 Yes, Witness, you may tell us.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, right. I'll try to explain

6 this sentence.

7 I mean that the policy of the Republic of Croatia is reduced or,

8 rather, that certain circles called the policy of the Republic of Croatia

9 towards Bosnia-Herzegovina "Tudjman's obsession with the division of

10 Bosnia," and I am saying clearly that this is a construct. I merely say

11 that that is what this policy is called. I'm not claiming that. I do not

12 understand how the Prosecutor can draw such conclusions, and I do not

13 understand how is it in these pages that have been shown to me from this

14 record I did not see those sentences. And I know the Croatian language.

15 JUDGE LIU: Well, it seems to me that we still get nowhere. Are

16 you going to pursue this issue?

17 MR. SCOTT: That particular line of questioning --

18 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Scott.

19 MR. SCOTT: My apology. Not specifically, Mr. President. I'm not

20 finished on the topic of in fact the Croatian state policy and what was

21 happening there, but on that particular set of evidence, I don't think

22 anything more productive can come of it.

23 JUDGE LIU: Yes. So could we stop here and resume tomorrow

24 afternoon.

25 MR. SCOTT: Of course.

1 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, you still remember what I told you

2 yesterday afternoon, that you are still under oath. So do not talk to

3 anybody and do not let anybody talk to you about your testimony.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. Have a good rest and be prepared

6 for tomorrow.

7 We will rise until tomorrow afternoon.

8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

9 6.55 p.m., to be reconvened on Thursday,

10 the 19th day of September, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25