1 Thursday, 19 September 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Naletilic not present]
5 [The witness entered court]
6 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
7 JUDGE LIU: Call the case, please, Madam Registrar.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-98-34-T, the Prosecutor versus Naletilic and Martinovic.
10 JUDGE LIU: Witness, good afternoon.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour.
12 JUDGE LIU: Are you ready to start?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. I would
16 just like to inform you that my client is still not feeling well, and, as
17 you can see, he is not present in the courtroom, but we can continue
18 without him.
19 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much for your cooperation, and we
20 notice that he was not feeling well yesterday afternoon. We only wish him
21 a speedy recovery.
22 Mr. Scott, you may proceed.
23 WITNESS: DAVOR MARIJAN [Resumed]
24 [Witness answered through interpreter]
25 Cross-examined by Mr. Scott: [Continued]
1 Q. Good afternoon, sir. Before we continue on, let me go back to a
2 couple of thoughts from yesterday, please. During the time that you
3 served in the vicinity of Gornji Vakuf, what was your position or rank
4 or function at that time?
5 A. I did not have a rank. I commanded a platoon.
6 Q. A platoon. So did you have any sort of functional -- if you
7 didn't wear a particular insignia, did you have a functional rank of
8 platoon commander, something -- second lieutenant, any such terminology
9 used in connection with your military service at that time?
10 A. I just wore the HVO insignia, and there were also insignia for
11 platoon commanders.
12 Q. And did you wear that insignia, for a platoon commander?
13 A. No, I didn't.
14 Q. And in connection with your military service and all of the
15 background that we talked about yesterday, just one other thing that I
16 didn't ask. Have you ever attended a military academy or professional
17 military school?
18 A. No, I never attended a military academy. I served my compulsory
19 military service in the former Yugoslav People's Army.
20 Q. All right. Perhaps, against my better judgement - I'm not sure -
21 I'm going to ask you the next question, sir, it has nothing to do with
22 what's written in your report and I do not want to get into the same
23 difficulty, hopefully, that we had at the end of the day yesterday. So
24 apart from what's in your report, let me simply ask you this question: In
25 your role as an historian and in your work that you have done, was Franjo
1 Tudjman obsessed with the division of Bosnia?
2 A. Firstly, as regards this obsession, if I remember it well,
3 yesterday afternoon issued a false statement, saying that I was the one
4 who mentioned that word in my report. I read the report three times
5 again, and I didn't find it. Secondly, I am a historian. I'm not the one
6 who knows, but the one who searches for the truth. So far, I haven't
7 found any evidence for such an allegation. The allegation about Franjo
8 Tudjman being obsessed with the division of Bosnia has been served to the
9 general public for years. This allegation comes from certain circles in
10 Croatia, but also in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
11 Q. Well, what circles in Croatia does it come from?
12 A. These circles are those around the former magazine Erasmus, and
13 they can mostly be linked with sociology.
14 Q. All right. In any event, sir, the policy, again, going back to
15 your report, on page 21, is it correct that the policy of the Republic of
16 Croatia was based on a situation where the Bosnian Croat leadership, or at
17 least the HDZ/HVO leadership, wanted to unify the Croatian parts of Bosnia
18 and Herzegovina into a unified Croatian state, that is, as part of
20 A. Can you please indicate the footnote where I can find this part in
21 my report?
22 Q. Well, sir, there's a fairly long stretch on page 21 in the English
23 version without a footnote, but it occurs between footnote 161 and
24 footnote 162. In the English version, it begins -- it is the first
25 sentence of the third paragraph starting on page 21. And let me just read
1 it to you, with the translation -- help of the translators: "The politics
2 of RH, the Republic of Croatia, towards BH, as a state, in which one of
3 the constitutional nations are also the Croats, obviously had a desire for
4 unification into an integral Croatian state. That is indisputable."
5 That's your position?
6 A. Yes, I have found it. This report was written on the 12th of
7 July, 2002. That's when it was completed. And I believe that it was on
8 the same day that I handed it over to Mr. Par. This is not my usual
9 practice. I usually leave my papers to rest for a month or so. I leave
10 them aside, and then I go back to them. I revisit my papers to find the
11 possible mistakes.
12 When I was rereading it some 15 days ago, I crossed some things
13 out; in some places I found things not easy to understand; and I also
14 found some mistakes, some errors. One of these errors is as follows:
15 Instead of "RH" here, I would put "Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina," and
16 the rest of this passage I wouldn't change.
17 Q. All right. So putting aside for the moment the broader matters
18 that you've raised, you agree, then, with the sentence I read you, with
19 the suggested modification that instead of saying, "the politics of RH,"
20 you would say, "the politics of the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina." Do I
21 understand you correctly?
22 A. Yes. I think, and I have to express my reservations here, with a
23 little hedging, I can say that historians very often assume things, but
24 this is clearly denoted. This opinion of mine is mostly based on my
25 personal contacts. I did not meet more than two Croats from Bosnia who
1 were not geared towards Zagreb, who did not turn their eyes towards
2 Zagreb. In addition to that, I quoted here a document from December 1991,
3 and I have to admit that I never saw that document. The only place I came
4 across this document is Bosniak historiography. There are people who
5 think that this document is not authentic. To my mind, it is
6 inconceivable for a professional historian, such as Smail Cekic, who
7 mentioned it first, would reduce himself down to that level.
8 Q. All right, sir.
9 A. It is visible from this document -- please allow me to finish,
11 Q. I am going to cut you off, because my time, sir, is going to be
12 limited, and I'm sure counsel will remind me of that. And what you're
13 saying now is not responsive to the question that I asked you.
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I would like to answer, if I may,
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness should be
18 allowed to answer; otherwise we will arrive at misunderstandings. In
19 addition to that, my witness has been interrupted in mid-sentence. I
20 think he should be allowed to finish that sentence at least.
21 JUDGE LIU: Well, I think, you know, the Prosecution put a very
22 simple question: Do I understand you correctly? The witness said yes. I
23 think -- then he gave some explanations. We get most of the answers in
24 the transcript already. We have to move on.
25 Mr. Scott, your next question.
1 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.
2 Q. Sir, isn't it true, based on all this, based on your report and
3 what you said just now, that in fact the HDZ and the HVO did more or less,
4 perhaps not identical things, but more or less the same thing as you say
5 that the Bosnian Serbs and the SDS did, just as they wanted a Greater
6 Serbia connected to Belgrade, the HDZ and the HVO wanted a greater Croatia
7 connected to Zagreb? Correct?
8 A. I think that you are putting the sign of equality between Serbs
9 and Croats, and this brings me back to the first part of my testimony.
10 The Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna was created as a defence
11 organisation. When it became clear that the government of the Socialist
12 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its president, Mr. Izetbegovic,
13 were not interested in anything but the destiny of Muslims.
14 Q. Well, let me go back to my question, sir. Perhaps if you'll
15 answer this question. Isn't it true that the HDZ and the HVO had and
16 carried out a desire to create a greater Croatia connected to Zagreb, in a
17 similar way that the Serbs, the Bosnian Serbs, wished to create a Greater
18 Serbia connected to Belgrade?
19 A. They did not have similar intentions. They didn't have the
20 intention to do what the Serbs do, because what the Serbs did is
22 Q. Well, how is it different, sir?
23 A. Firstly, there is a problem, in addition to the document that I
24 have just mentioned, I did not come across any other documents, and I am
25 an historian who uses documents rather than prejudices. I have not seen
1 documents indicating that somebody from the Croatian Defence Council, or
2 from the HDZ, spoke about the time of unification with the Republic of
3 Croatia. Because of the policy pursued by the international community,
4 which persistently divided Bosnia, they didn't need to do that. That is
5 my opinion. As regards your question, sir, it is very clear how Republika
6 Srpska came about to be after ethnical cleansing, after an aggressive war
7 with concentration camps, and so on and so forth.
8 Q. So, sir, the difference, what you're telling us, if I hear you,
9 and building on what you told the Judges yesterday, you say there were
10 differences between what the HVO did and what the Serbs did. You're
11 saying it was a matter of degree. They did similar things, but your
12 contention that the HVO wasn't as bad as the Serbs; is that correct?
13 A. I think that this is a very liberal interpretation.
14 Q. In fact, sir, didn't --
15 A. The HVO never denied or never fought against being an integral
16 part of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Even when HVO was always
17 within that framework.
18 Q. You don't think, sir, that in the document we looked at yesterday,
19 where Mate Boban said that the legal armed forces of the nation admitted
20 to the United Nations, when Mr. Boban said those were illegal forces on
21 the territory claimed by Herceg-Bosna, you don't think that was an attack
22 on Bosnia-Herzegovina?
23 A. You have just mentioned the United Nations. Are you referring to
24 something that you call the legal authorities or the legal government.
25 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... exhibit yesterday, and if
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 necessary we'll pull it out again. I showed it to you, dated
2 approximately the 10th of April, 1992. And when Mr. Boban declared that
3 the HVO armed forces were the only legal forces on the territory of what
4 was claimed of the so-called Herceg-Bosna, and that all other forces,
5 including those of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were illegal; correct?
6 A. That is a correct statement. Can you please give me an example
7 illustrating the situation when the HVO chased out from, so to say, their
8 territory, the, so to say, legal forces of the Republic of Bosnia and
9 Herzegovina? Do you know how the 4th Corps of the BH army came to be? It
10 originated from the HVO. So you should make a distinction between what
11 it says on the paper and what really happened. We are here talking about
12 a conflict between two methodologies, one very superficial, belonging to
13 you, that I would illustrate in the following way: Based -- using this
14 microphone, you are trying to describe the desk in front of you. I'm
15 looking at the historical truth, not speculations.
16 Q. In fact, sir, the HDZ, or the Bosnian Croat declaration -- excuse
17 me - the HDZ declaration establishing the Croatian Community of
18 Herceg-Bosna, on the 18th of November, 1991, actually preceded the similar
19 Serb declaration, didn't it, the Serb declaration that you said started
20 the war, which was not until the 21st of December, 1991?
21 A. I believe that sometime in 1991, mid-1991, the Serbs in Krajina
22 organised joint manoeuvres of the army, more specifically, it was Mile
23 Martic and Bosanski Petrovac. I believe that they issued a joint
24 resolution on unification that was repeated at least twice. After that,
25 Mr. Prosecutor --
1 Q. Sir, the document that you cite in your report on page 6, it was
2 the Bosnian Serb decision dated the 21st of December, 1991, titled
3 "constituting the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Correct?
4 A. Can you please repeat? I didn't understand you.
5 Q. We'll continue on?
6 MR. SCOTT: If I can ask the usher to please show the witness
7 Exhibit IAC 2 [Realtime transcript read in error"IHC"]. Just so the
8 record -- Mr. Poriouvaev has indicated that the transcript says "IHC," and
9 it's "IAC." If you could place that on the ELMO, perhaps give -- the
10 witness may wish to look at the B/C/S version.
11 Q. Sir, this is a declaration of the Herzegovina regional community
12 and the Travnik regional community, dated the 12th of November, 1991, over
13 the name of Mate Boban, for the Herzegovina community, and Dario Kordic
14 for the Travnik or Central Bosnia community. Have you seen this document
15 before and have you considered it in stating any of the opinions or
16 conclusions in your report or things that you've testified to the Chamber
17 here in the last couple of days?
18 A. You obviously haven't read my paper. I have quoted this document
19 in it. I have quoted it from Mr. Cekic's book. A little while ago I
20 expressed my reservations about that book. This is the first time I
21 actually see this document. It is a copy of the document. Whether this
22 copy is authentic or not, I really wouldn't be able to say. But in this
23 document there is this sentence about our long dream about a unified
24 Croatia, and this is the sentence that I have quoted in my paper.
25 Q. In addition to that, sir, before we get to that, in the
1 paragraph -- the paragraph numbered 1, after "conclusions," does it not
2 talk about -- well, does it not say this: "The Croatian regional
3 community and the Travnik regional community remain of the opinion stated
4 in the conclusions adopted at earlier meetings, that the Croatian people
5 of this region, and all Bosnia and Herzegovina, still support the
6 unanimously accepted orientation and conclusions adopted in agreements
7 with president Franjo Tudjman on 13th and 20th June 1991 in Zagreb."
8 And it then goes on to talk about meetings on the 15th of October,
9 the 22nd of October, and on this occasion it says the 12th of November,
10 1991. Correct?
11 A. I believe your interpretation to be correct, and I know that you
12 will give me the minutes of these two meetings as your next exhibits.
13 This looks as if it had been written for your purpose, to serve your
14 purpose. Can I get these minutes, please? Yesterday --
15 Q. Sir --
16 A. I apologise. Can I finish?
17 Q. If you listen to my questions, not make speeches, it will assist
18 us. You said just now this was a document that you had quoted in your
19 report, sir, so don't indicate that I had made it for my own purposes.
20 Now, directing your attention to that -- end of that same paragraph, did
21 the report not say, simply to confirm if this is in your report, that "The
22 Croatian people in Bosnia-Herzegovina must finally embrace a determined
23 and active policy which will realise our eternal dream, a common Croatian
25 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik?
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is what it says here.
2 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I may not fully
3 understand why the witness is interrupted and not being allowed to
4 explain, why is the Prosecutor twisting the words of this witness. The
5 witness was very clear when he said that he came across the document in
6 the book authored by a Bosniak author and that he never saw it before and
7 that he doubts its authenticity. Why does then my learned friend continue
8 asking questions about this document after such clear answers given by my
9 witness? I've been following the transcript, and I believe that the
10 answers by my witness have been very clear.
11 In addition to that, Your Honour, I don't want to say anything in
12 order to avoid Her Honour Clark's warnings, but we've had people here who
13 allegedly signed this document, and you know their answers about this
14 document, and I really don't know where all this is leading to.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may --
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, we found a very surprise from the
17 testimony of this witness. Since he already used a certain paragraph of
18 this declaration, he has no right to challenge the authority, the
19 authenticity of this document at all. That's very strange, you know.
20 Well, I'm not arguing with you.
21 The second issue is that it seems to me - well, I think as well
22 as you - that we are the laymen to history as a science. I think two
23 interpretations of the history: One is the evidence, hard evidence,
24 whatever that has been happened. The other interpretation of history is
25 the historian's interpretation of history, the historian's opinions,
1 comments, of the history. Here we have a report. It seems to us it is
2 not only the hard evidence itself but also the opinion, the comments, the
3 interpretation of the author himself. The Prosecutor is trying to tell us
4 what is the hard evidence, what has been already happened, and what is the
5 interpretation, his concept of this witness. I think it's quite normal.
6 That's normal procedures. What's the problem with it?
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have nothing to do
8 here, because I hear answers of one kind, and all of you hear answers of
9 another kind. And I quite understand what the witness is saying. Like
10 also yesterday the problem with obsession. Well, if that is, then let's
11 have this paper translated once again by translators of this Tribunal. He
12 says that he quoted this text from a book of a Bosniak author and that is
13 what he quoted. And he says he never laid eyes on it and questions its
14 authenticity. But he saw this text in a book by a Bosniak author. I
15 don't know what is unclear here, because obviously we are talking at
16 cross-purposes and we do not understand one another, and I do not think
17 that this testimony is of any value. Because I hear one thing and
18 everybody else hears something else. This is just too dangerous, because
19 I hear him speak in the original, in Croatian, and I understand his paper
20 written in Croatian. I also understand the Croatian answers, the answers
21 in Croatian that the witness is giving, and that the witness denies the
22 authenticity of this document because it was found in the Bosnian
23 historiography by a Bosniak author and today -- and he is explaining it to
24 us today.
25 Your Honours, I am completely perplexed. I really don't know what
1 to do now, because incomprehension is obviously linguistic or I don't know
2 what, or perhaps somebody doesn't know how to convey the spirit of the
3 language either in this translation or perhaps in interpretation. I don't
4 know, because my English is not so good. I understand, and I hear what
5 the witness is saying. So allow him to give his explanations, because
6 these are very important things.
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, as for yesterday afternoon's sentence, the
8 obsession issues, we ask the interpretation for three times. At least the
9 interpreters translated in this courtroom for at least three times. We
10 don't see any significant differences with the translation of this
11 report. So I don't believe it's a question of translation. I think it's
12 a question of we are talking cross-purpose. I have already said that we
13 have to know what is the hard evidence, what is the facts, what has
14 already happened and what is the interpretation of these experts. That's
15 the only purpose. Different historians have different interpretations
16 towards the same hard evidence. Our job is to distinguish the two. So in
17 this way, I think Mr. Scott's question is somehow on this line, so we will
18 allow him to continue.
19 Mr. Scott, would you please repeat your question.
20 MR. SCOTT:
21 Q. Sir, the statement that I read to you, that was the position of
22 the Bosnian Croat leadership in Bosnia-Herzegovina, correct, leading to
23 the creation of Herceg-Bosna, and that was to realise our eternal dream, a
24 common Croatian state?
25 A. That is what transpires from this document.
1 MR. SCOTT: If the witness can be shown, please, P104 and P103.
2 I'm going to take them numerically in opposite -- take 104 first.
3 Q. In the course of your work, you're familiar, are you not, with the
4 declaration dated the 18th of November, 1991, declaring the Croatian
5 community of Herceg-Bosna?
6 A. Yes. It was published in the Official Gazette of Herceg-Bosna.
7 Q. And as it says in Article 1, this declaration was to "establish
8 Herceg-Bosna as a political, economic, and territorial whole." And
9 there's another 104 -- 103 - excuse me - a better document for these
10 purposes. But that's correct, isn't it, sir?
11 A. Excuse me. Which? Could you repeat the question, please?
12 Q. Well, you may want to look, and when I pointed you to 104, I see
13 now for this particular item, 103 is actually clearer in terms of the
14 translation. Article 1 says: "The Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna
15 shall be founded as a political, cultural, economic, and territorial
16 whole." Correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And Article 3, they declared Mostar to be the seat of the Croatian
19 Community of Herceg-Bosna; correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. Now, in connection with - excuse me - Exhibit P103, this has --
22 this particular version has been amended, and as it says here, on the 3rd
23 of July, 1992, to add a little additional language, which is here called
24 "reasons." Do you see that?
25 A. I see it.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 Q. Under "reasons," under the third paragraph under that, toward the
2 end -- well, about halfway through the third paragraph under reasons, it
3 talks about the unacceptability of a unitary model of state order in
4 multi-ethnic societies. What was unacceptable about a unitary model of a
5 multi-ethnic society?
6 A. It's a civil state: One man, one vote.
7 Q. And what's wrong with that?
8 A. The political force of a people is seen in the number -- of the
9 size of the population, or rather, that is the view of the Muslim side,
10 according to which they would have fared the best. If it had been done,
11 and neither the Serbs nor the Croats agreed to that.
12 As for the reasons for the establishment, I believe they are
13 explained well.
14 Q. And -- sorry, sir. The translation -- I thought you were
16 A. And this was six days after the previous one.
17 Q. And the position of the HDZ at the time, the view or the working
18 assumption, as I understand your paper, was that Bosnia-Herzegovina would
19 not survive, was not going to survive, in any event, so it was a short
20 step from here to becoming part of Croatia; correct?
21 A. Well, I wouldn't really put it that way. You're again very free,
22 very liberal when you quote my paper. And I'd like to read something to
24 Q. Let me ask you to look at, on page 20, do you not say: "The
25 Croatian politics towards Bosnia-Herzegovina obviously had a starting
1 point in the assumption that Bosnia-Herzegovina cannot survive"?
2 A. That is my view. However, as far as I know, that is
3 Mr. Izetbegovic's view. In the footnote 31, you have his conversation
4 with Mr. Tudgman after the elections, so that even Mr. Izetbegovic
5 was -- understood quite well that Bosnia could not survive, as you can see
7 Q. And it's correct, sir, that --
8 A. Divided, split, by the international community.
9 Q. You agree, sir, that Croatian politics toward BH obviously had a
10 starting point in the assumption that BH cannot survive; correct?
11 A. I think that the Croatian policies, perception was that
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina could not survive as an integral whole, but once again
13 we are faced with a problem of evidence. We have documents from 1991
14 which say one thing, and the day before yesterday I showed you at least 15
15 documents testifying to something else, and these -- they also have the
16 seal, the category, the reference number, and one knows where they are
18 Q. You say, shortly after that are in your report on page 20, "The
19 views of Franjo Tudjman on Bosnia-Herzegovina were not a secret. He did
20 not believe in its viability." Correct?
21 A. I believe that sometime towards the end of 1991 Mr. Tudjman said
22 something in this vein. He spoke openly. It was his opinion that it
23 could not survive. You can find it in the press dating to December 1991.
24 Q. And for Croats, you say also on page 20, you say, "for Croats in
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, it was a war for emancipation with a wish to integrate
1 with the parent country." Correct?
2 A. I believe I already explained it at the beginning of this set. I
3 said that it was my view on the basis of my personal insights, and this
4 is again an interesting question which is erased today: Why don't the
5 Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina see that state as their state? Perhaps
6 because during the communism they were not treated in line with the
7 constitution and laws that you so faithfully obey. But I didn't say ever
8 that they wanted it. I do not think that there is a single document with
9 such a clear view, not even in the forgery yesterday which you attempted.
10 THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me. Interpreter's correction. Not that
11 they wanted it, but when they wanted to do it.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] And as for the documents of the 12th
13 of November, it refers to two others, and it can be easily checked. You
14 had access to the archive of the president of the republic in contrast
15 with me. I suppose you have records of the meeting. Everything was
17 MR. SCOTT:
18 Q. Sir, on page 21, you say that "By mid-1992 the political option,
19 whose fundamental objective was to annex the Croatian ethnic parts to
20 Croatia, had practically made most of their wishes come true." How had
21 those wishes come true by mid-1992, sir?
22 A. Could you tell me where is that again, if you could give me a
24 Q. It is after footnote 161, in the first paragraph starting on the
25 top of page 21 in the English version. You're talking about as early as
1 mid-1992, and then in your next sentence you say, "At that time, the
2 political option, whose fundamental objective was to annex the Croatian
3 ethnic parts to Croatia had practically made most of their wishes come
4 true." Now, what wishes had come true by mid-1992?
5 A. At the time when I wrote this, it is indisputable that in the
6 Croat Democratic Union, or rather the HVO, there was an option which was
7 wholeheartedly for the unification with Croatia. By 1992, it had already
8 accomplished its military goal, and you can find the best picture of it in
9 a letter by Alija Izetbegovic, of which I only found a fragment of I
10 believe the 5th of July, 1992, and Franjo Tudjman's answer, from which one
11 can see that yes, the option is on the table, but he does not go along
12 with it. So one thing were the wishes of the Croat and circumstances were
13 another matter. I believe you have those letters. Unfortunately, I do
14 not. All I have is Mr. Tudjman's reply.
15 Q. Sir, my question to you is: How was it that by mid-1992 the
16 fundamental objective of being annexed to Croatia had mostly come true?
17 A. Because the HVO had practically preserved a major part,
18 militarily, and there was still some fighting in Posavina and around
19 Jajce. And again I see here, I believe, that the option is -- well, let's
20 say if we regionally singled it out, the Herzegovina option was slightly
21 stronger, unlike some other areas.
22 Q. Now, in connection with that part of your report that we were just
23 looking at, that same paragraph, where you said, "As early as mid-1992, BH
24 Croats managed (with the help from the Croatian army and Croatian
25 politics) to canalise the conflict with the Serbs into two battlefields:
1 Jajce and the Bosnian Posavina."
2 So moving into the topic, sir, of the involvement of the Croatian
3 army, you agree, do you not, that throughout most of 1992, the Croatian
4 army played a significant role in Bosnia-Herzegovina, didn't it?
5 A. The Croatian army in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in 1992, as I wrote
6 here, was in a border areas quite strong, especially along the Neretva
7 Prevlaka line, and it played a major role insofar as Bosnia-Herzegovina
8 itself was concerned, because it practically prevented the extinction of
9 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Secondly, it helped - and I mention it in a place -
10 the analysis of how much of the army of Republika Srpska it tied up. And
11 it also indirectly helped the Territorial Defence, subsequently the army
12 of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina significantly. Sometime as of
13 September, that is, end of August, from the area of the late operative
14 zone. No. It was already operative zone north-west Herzegovina. And
15 members of the Croatian army who were very few in number there were
16 withdrawn. There were some of them in Posavina, until October 1992, and
17 down on the southern front, around borders.
18 Q. Sir, most of the documents you showed us yesterday, the Defence
19 exhibits -- or excuse me, on Tuesday - were from 1992, in terms of
20 assistance being provided to the Muslims, and that was when the Croats and
21 Muslims, during that time, were more or less fighting against the Serbs;
23 A. Well, not really. You can find them in 1993. The last one is of
24 the 30th of March, 1993. And I believe that by mid-April the assistance
25 from the Republic of Croatia stopped when the BH army started cleansing
1 Croats from its territories in Konjic, in Jablanica, where they were
2 symbolic as compared with them.
3 Q. And in connection with your -- the exhibit D2/78, that had to do
4 specifically with the Tuzla area in eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina, and that
5 was an area -- that was a particular situation where the Muslims and
6 Croats fought together against the Serbs throughout the war; correct?
7 A. My documents are not marked. Do you mean the document of the 2nd
8 Corps of the 10th of July?
9 Q. That's right, sir.
10 A. Yes. In that area there was no fighting between Croats and
11 Muslims, never during the war, except that Muslims accounted for some 25
12 per cent of the HVO units there for the duration of the war.
13 Q. Sir, if we need to, we can look at the map, but Tuzla is on the
14 complete opposite side of the country as Mostar and Herzegovina; correct?
15 A. Yes. Tuzla is approximately below Bosnia and Posavina, in the
16 northern part of Bosnia.
17 Q. And as you said just a moment ago, and as you say in your report,
18 whatever your contention is about the Croatian support to the Muslims, it
19 ended by March, or at most early -- April, excuse me, April 1993; correct?
20 A. I think that after the middle of April, until about the middle of
21 another April, or perhaps May 1994, that is, for a whole year, I did not
22 see a single document of that nature. Only then the assistance was
23 resumed, which covers the whole period of the Muslim/Croat war.
24 Q. All right. Now, can you tell the Judges, please, in the
25 terminology that was used by the Croatian army, perhaps also by the HVO,
1 what was the southern front?
2 A. That is the southern front expression, and that is a part of the
3 Split operative zone, which became independent sometime in April 1992, and
4 existed as such until the end of the war against the Serbs. So that is
5 until the end of 1995. In that area, we can say, from Ploce, that is,
6 the Neretva mouth, in the Adriatic Sea, to Prevlaka, the border with
7 Montenegro. That is the southern front.
8 Q. And is it correct, sir, perhaps we can save a little bit of time
9 if there's no dispute about it, as reflected in Exhibit P123.2, Croatian
10 army General Janko Bobetko was appointed by President Tudjman as commander
11 of the southern front on the 10th of April, 1992; is that correct?
12 A. That is correct. It is correct. I believe he published his
13 document in his book.
14 Q. And did General Bobetko continue to be the commander of the
15 southern front throughout all of 1992 and 1993, or were there other
16 persons in that position?
17 A. Well, late, sometime around November 1992, that was when General
18 Bobetko became the chief of the Main Staff of the Croatian army. I
19 believe he was first replaced by Nojko Marinovic, and then Zivko Budimir,
20 I think.
21 Q. Was Mr. Marinovic was he the commander of the southern front
22 through, then, the balance of 1992 and all of 1993?
23 A. I said already that Bobetko was until the end of 1992, almost, and
24 Marinovic was then the commander of the 163rd Brigade of the Croatian army
25 from Dubrovnik. And when Bobetko left that position, he took over the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 southern front.
2 Q. When you say "he," Mr. Marinovic?
3 A. Yes. Yes. This is who I mean, Mr. Marinovic.
4 Q. My question to you, sir, just so that we're clear for the record
5 purposes: He continued to be the commander of the southern front, then,
6 through all of 1993?
7 A. I don't know that for a fact. I don't know until when. He was
8 wounded, but I believe that he was the commander throughout 1993.
9 Q. And moving forward, sir, there's no dispute, is there, that the HV
10 was engaged in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in southern Herzegovina and in the area
11 described yesterday as the Bosnian Posavina, during the spring and fall of
12 1992; correct?
13 A. There's no dispute about that.
14 Q. And you say that on -- as early as the 7th of April, 1992, at page
15 10, that "the HV chief inspector asked the Croatian Minister of Defence to
16 organise a group, approximately 1.200 soldiers, to go to Bosnia to fight
17 against the Serbs." Is that correct?
18 A. You're really doing something forceful to my text.
19 Q. Sir, I believe I am simply reading it back to you. If you want to
20 look at page 10 ...
21 A. Would you like me to read this part to you?
22 Q. No, sir. Just answer my question. It's correct, isn't it, that
23 the HV --
24 A. It was just the other way around, sir. It is not correct,
25 Mr. Prosecutor, General Martin Spegelj asked from the Minister of Defence
1 to allow for 1.200 men, mostly Muslims, to be sent out, and this is the
2 document that you have got. And it is given in -- it was given during the
3 first part of the day. You have it. Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for
4 you to read my text. You keep repeating that you have read it, and you
5 are constantly demonstrating the opposite by your actions.
6 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Seric.
7 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Although
8 yesterday you rejected my objection, I will repeat it again, just for the
9 record, because this record will be read by people in the future. It is
10 not going to be just for us in the courtroom. It will be the second
11 instance court, the historians, or maybe just my son, who is also a
12 lawyer. I object to all these questions when the Prosecutor repeats the
13 direct examination, when he takes the words out of the context of this
14 expert report and cross-examines by using such words taken out of the
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, we found that sentence. Would you
17 please read that sentence.
18 MR. SCOTT: Exactly, Mr. President, and I believe it's exactly
19 what I said it represented it said a moment ago, but I'll read the entire
21 "Immediately upon the escalation of the conflicts in
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina General Spegelj, as a chief inspector of the Croatian
23 defence ministry -- let me stop there, Mr. President. If you go back to
24 the transcript, what I said was: "The HV chief inspector asked the
25 Croatian Minister of Defence, returning to the text, asked, on 7 April
1 1992, from the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Croatia, to form a
2 group of 1.200 soldiers, mostly Muslims, from the area of the operational
3 zone Rijeka, and send them to Bosnia-Herzegovina."
4 Q. Now, again, sir, are those not your words or is this something --
5 another part of your report that you want to change?
6 A. These are my words, but I don't think you have interpreted them in
7 this way. You have twisted the order a little bit. But there is a
8 record, I believe, of what you've said.
9 Q. Well, I think the record will show, sir, that I read your report
10 word for word.
11 Did someone named Daidza become involved with the HV efforts in
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina in the spring of 1992?
13 A. Daidza's full name is Mate Sarlija, but apparently his real name
14 is Nijaz Batlak. He was the commander of the 1st Brigade, volunteers of
15 the Croatian army, also known as Krajl Tomislav. His unit, and I have to
16 admit that in the military archives I haven't found a single word about
17 that unit - his unit was in April, or between April and June, in the
18 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I believe that he was in the area of
19 Capljina. I'm sure of that. And this unit is -- just a moment, please.
20 It is a unit that, on the 27th of May, 1992, by the decision of the
21 president of the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Alija
22 Izetbegovic, was integrated with the Territorial Defence of Bosnia and
23 Herzegovina under the name of Bosnia and Herzegovinian Brigade Kralj
24 Tomislav. After this it was disbanded and it split into two parts,
25 because it had been composed of Croats and Muslims. Croats established
1 the unit Ludvig Pavlovic. I do not have a copy of this document, but it
2 was published by General Hasan Efendic, in 1998, in his book that I am
3 quoting in my report. So that is very interesting, isn't it? There are a
4 few documents of direct communication between Mr. Daidza and
5 Mr. Izetbegovic regarding combat activities in the area of Konjic and
6 Jablanica, where Daidza complained to Mr. Izetbegovic about a person who
7 was called Zejnil Delalic, who apparently didn't obey him. You can find
8 these documents in the state archives of the Republic of Croatia.
9 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, your answer is yes or no?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm a historian, and I cannot give
11 you a simple yes or no. In this case there was a Daidza, and I told you
12 exactly who he was, what he did, and how he ended up.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, you have to answer yes or no. Then you may
14 explain why you answered that question.
15 Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
16 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, not a single name was
17 recorded in the transcript, and the witness mentioned his two names. The
18 only thing that we have is Daidza. Can we have that repeated, and we also
19 have a misspelling of Zejnil Delalic's name. I believe that this should
20 enter the transcript. So maybe my learned friend would be kind enough and
21 ask the witness to repeat all of the names under which Mr. Daidza was also
22 known so that they can be recorded correctly in the transcript.
23 JUDGE LIU: Is that important?
24 MR. SCOTT: I won't speak for Mr. Krsnik.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, you may repeat those names.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Daidza, a general of the Croatian
2 army, was also known as Mate Sarlija, but allegedly his real name is Nijaz
4 MR. SCOTT:
5 Q. Now, moving on, sir, you say at page 11 of your report that "Due
6 to the objections to the presence of the Croatian army in BH on the 7th of
7 July, 1992, the deployment of the Croatian army outside the borders of the
8 Republic of Croatia without the express order of the commander-in-chief
9 was forbidden." It's my question to you about that part of your report
10 was, whose objections? Who was objecting to the presence of the Croatian
11 army in Bosnia at that time?
12 A. I'm not sure. I believe that it was primarily the international
13 community who objected.
14 Q. And where were they in Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time when they
15 drew those objections?
16 A. Bosanska Posavina. This mostly refers to that area, which was
17 the problem.
18 Q. When you say that they would not -- the Croatian army units would
19 not be allowed to be deployed outside the borders of Croatia without the
20 express order of the commander-in-chief, who was the commander-in-chief
21 that you're referring to?
22 A. The president of the Republic of Croatia, Dr. Franjo Tudjman.
23 Q. Sir, in the course of this trial - I know we're coming up on the
24 break, Mr. President, but I think if we can get one or two more questions
25 perhaps. In the course of this trial we've heard about a certain
1 agreement between Mr. Tudjman and Mr. Izetbegovic around the 21st of June,
2 1992, but if I understand your report, sir, again correctly, at page 11
3 your conclusion is that that agreement in fact did not change anything.
4 Is that correct?
5 A. I believe so, but I would like to correct something first. We're
6 talking about July, not June. And Mr. Izetbegovic's comment about this
7 agreement you can find in my footnote -- in footnote 79. On that same
8 evening, on the Croatian television, he -- I'm sorry. It's not 79. I
9 apologise. I can't find it right now. But on the same evening he denies
10 the military agreement, believing that such an agreement would be a threat
11 to the Serbian people and that he is going to wait for the moves of the
12 international community. And now I would like to take the opportunity to
13 confirm a high degree -- a higher degree of the lack of cooperation on the
14 part of the Muslims than the one that we talked about yesterday.
15 Q. The bottom line, sir, is that even though that agreement has been
16 discussed in this courtroom, that agreement in fact never took affect, as
17 you just told us, and didn't change anything, did it?
18 A. I didn't say -- in the military aspect it didn't change anything.
19 And as for the other aspects, I don't know. And in any case, this was not
20 a military agreement.
21 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I see it's 3.30.
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.
23 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, can I humbly ask this
24 Chamber to ask my learned friend how much longer is this cross-examination
25 going to take?
1 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
2 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, well, I'd rather make the comments, my
3 answer, outside the presence of the witness. If the witness could be
4 excused or ....
5 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Madam Usher, would you please take the witness
6 out of the room.
7 [The witness stands down]
8 Yes, Mr. Scott.
9 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, it's clear, and --
10 THE INTERPRETER: The microphone, please.
11 MR. SCOTT: It's become clear, Your Honour, by one of your
12 interventions Mr. President, a few minutes ago the witness has apparently,
13 as the court will observe, has become since yesterday increasingly
14 aggressive and has set up on a course - it's rather obvious - to set up on
15 a course to give long, non-responsive answers. Now, whenever I try to cut
16 him off, interrupt, when I believe the question has been answered, as you
17 did, yes or no, of course I draw an objection from the Defence. So I do
18 not necessarily intend to intervene, and the witness can go on for ten
19 minutes. He can give ten-minute non-responsive answers, if that's the way
20 we wish to proceed. If that's the case, this cross-examination will
21 indeed take a very long time, probably will not finish today. If the
22 witness gives responsive answers and conducts himself properly, then it
23 can be conducted, be finished much more quickly.
24 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Scott, I think in most cases in the
25 cross-examination, the witnesses are rather hostile, at least to your
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 case, to your positions. So try to - excuse me - try to organise your
2 questions during the break and to see whether if we could save some time,
3 you know, for the next sitting.
4 MR. SCOTT: With all respect, Mr. President, it's not the
5 organisation of my questions. I expect the witness to be hostile to me.
6 I quite expect that. That is not my -- he can be hostile all he wants and
7 I certainly won't ask him to have any different feelings for me that he
8 might have. That is not the issue. The issue is the giving of completely
9 non-responsive answers, which take a long amount of time. Referring to
10 footnotes and about topics that were not related to my questions at all.
11 And that's what's taking time, Your Honour, with all respect, not the
12 organisation of my questions. But I will certainly try to conclude it.
13 But in answer to counsel's question, counsel asked you to ask me about the
14 length of the cross-examination, and my answer is: It depends on the
16 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that you almost covered all the
17 questions in this report. Am I right?
18 MR. SCOTT: No.
19 JUDGE LIU: Because we came to page 22.
20 MR. SCOTT: No, sir, that's not correct.
21 JUDGE LIU: That's the last page.
22 MR. SCOTT: We have not talked about the extensive HVO presence
23 and involvement in Bosnia-Herzegovina from the spring of 1993 on. Right
24 now we are at the end of 1992, and his report throughout goes on to talk
25 about the extensive involvement, and our contention, in the case that we
1 will put to the witness, extensive HV involvement in Bosnia-Herzegovina,
2 fighting against the Muslims throughout 1993, and that topic has not been
4 JUDGE LIU: I think that's the gist of this case and what we want
5 to hear from this witness.
6 Yes, Mr. Krsnik. You stand up first.
7 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I don't believe my ears. I don't
8 believe that I've heard what my learned friend has said. And his comments
9 upon his relationship with the witness, which legal system allows for that
10 anywhere in the world? How many times you have warned us, Mr. President,
11 that it is our fault if our relationship with the witness is not correct?
12 You have repeated this a hundred times in this courtroom. And now you
13 allow the Prosecutor to comment upon the witness's behaviour. The witness
14 is such as he is because of his attitude towards him, and he is doing it
15 on purpose. Why have we never had any problems with cross-examination
16 conducted by Mr. Poriouvaev or Mr. Stringer? Why do we always have such
17 problems when it is Mr. Scott who is in charge of the cross-examination?
18 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Seric.
19 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] I completely second Mr. Krsnik, and I
20 would like to add to that that if we are going to expect that the
21 Prosecutor is going to receive the answer he expects and that he likes,
22 then we can prolong this trial for another 14 months.
23 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] And still we haven't got the answer
24 as to how long the cross-examination is going to take. We are still
25 awaiting that answer. For how long does he intend to go on with his
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, you have to understand that whenever
3 there is a problem between the cross-examination and the witness, first we
4 have to blame, if I may say that, to the cross-examiners in this respect.
5 Because I understand, you know, some witnesses are not professional and
6 they are not trained to give some evidence, especially with some
7 professors, some lecturers, you know. They have the intention to give a
8 very long statement, which might be out of the scope of the subject-matter
9 in this case. We have to take a good lead, you know, in all the
10 questionings. So having said that, we'll resume at 10 minutes past 4.00.
11 --- Recess taken at 3.38 p.m.
12 --- On resuming at 4.14 p.m.
13 [The witness takes the stand]
14 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
15 MR. SCOTT:
16 Q. Sir, you told us in your report, and you discussed in the course
17 of your testimony so far that there was fighting between the HVO and the
18 Muslim armed forces around Prozor in October 1992, which you say on page
19 16 "finished with the utter defeat of the local ABiH units." Now, as I
20 read your report, you agree that HV units, that is, units or elements of
21 the army of Croatia, were involved in that fighting; correct?
22 A. I quote Muslim authors who claim this. I did not find that
23 anywhere, although the material about the Prozor conflict is more than
24 voluminous, but that is not true.
25 Q. Well, sir, that's exactly the reason that we've gone through so
1 much of your report in so much detail, for that very reason, that
2 sometimes, respectfully, it's difficult to tell what your position is. So
3 it's your position that the HV was not involved in the fighting around
4 Prozor. Do I understand you now correctly?
5 A. Yes. I did not see the English translation, but I drew a clear
6 distinction. I indicated where I was quoting.
7 Q. So it's your testimony that the 113th HV Split Brigade and parts
8 of the 114th Sibenik Brigade were not in fact engaged at Prozor; is that
10 A. I did not find any evidence of their participation, and therefore
11 hold that it is not true.
12 Q. And is it also your position, then, that other elements of the
13 114th Sibenik Brigade and also the is 123rd Varazdin Brigade of the
14 Croatian army were not engaged at that time around Novi Travnik?
15 A. Let us clear up one thing here first. The 114th Sibenik Brigade
16 does not exist, nor does the 123rd Varazdin Brigade. The 114th Brigade of
17 the Croatian army comes from Split. The 123rd Brigade of the Croatian
18 army comes from Slavonska Pozega. Regardless of the poor intelligence
19 level of the BH army, which is obviously the source of all these untruths,
20 nowhere have I found so far any evidence that these two units participated
21 in the area of Prozor or the area of Travnik in 1992. That is as far as I
22 know, this information was fabricated, was concocted for the first time,
23 the institute for crime investigation in Sarajevo.
24 Q. During the time that you say you were engaged as a soldier in
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina, were you familiar with the Colonel Zeljko Siljeg?
1 A. I know the name, not him personally. That is a man who was -- who
2 at the time that we are talking about was the commander of the north-west
3 Herzegovina operative zone.
4 Q. And he had been -- was at the time, was he not, an HV officer?
5 A. I don't think he was ever an officer in the HV. But as far as I
6 know, there was a fad at the time, which I think was started by General
7 Praljak, and he was then conferred upon the status of an officer in the
8 Croatian army, but I do not know exactly when. I think he was on the list
9 of the 115th Brigade of the Croatian army in Imotski.
10 Q. I'm not sure from your answer when you say he was on the list of
11 the 115th Brigade, are you talking about Slobodan Praljak or are you
12 talking about Mr. Siljeg?
13 A. No. I'm talking about Mr. Siljeg. He was put there at the
14 intervention of Mr. Praljak. He was made a member of the 115th Brigade,
15 but I don't know when.
16 MR. SCOTT: If the usher could assist us by showing the witness
17 Exhibit 186.1.
18 Q. Sir, this is a report to Mr. Siljeg, dated the 24th of October,
19 1992, and directing your attention to the first paragraph, it says:
20 "Constant combat activity, the town of Prozor and Rama Lake are
21 under the control of the Prozor HV/HVO."
22 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Seric.
23 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, could we talk about the
24 original, which is in Croatian? Nothing else. And let us have the
25 witness read what the document says.
1 JUDGE LIU: Well, has the witness been furnished with the original
3 Witness, do you have the original document?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do, and I also have a copy which
5 must have been coded before it was transmitted.
6 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm sorry. Could we
7 have the two documents compared, and also the document which is
8 handwritten? I'd like to have the report that the Prosecutor is referring
9 to the original which was -- which is handwritten and which is attached
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The original is handwritten, and it
13 says "HVO Prozor," but in the copy it says "HV Prozor." So obviously
14 somebody made a mistake when copying it.
15 MR. SCOTT:
16 Q. Well, all right, sir. That's your interpretation. And you do not
17 agree, then --
18 A. That is the truth.
19 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I protest. It is not
20 the interpretation; it is the original document, what it says. So the
21 witness is not interpreting anything.
22 MR. SCOTT: Well, Mr. President, the original document that I have
23 in the typed version says "HV." So that's why I'm saying -- I understand
24 he's interpreting it, but that's what the original typed B/C/S version
25 says. It says "HV."
1 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Even that is not true, Mr. President.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, judging from the handwritten document, we only
3 see "HVO Prozor," on the third line. We do not see "HV." Maybe there's a
4 problem of translation.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No doubt about that, Your Honour,
6 especially since there is a sign after "HV" which tells us that whoever
7 copied it made a mistake. But this is a coded report. The handwritten --
8 which in its handwritten form is sent to the Croatian Defence Council, to
9 the headquarters of the Croat Defence Council. The document -- the
10 conflict is documented by a large number of documents. The Prosecutor,
11 I'm quite sure, had access to them.
12 MR. SCOTT:
13 Q. Sir, the -- around the same time, not exactly the 24th of October,
14 I'm not suggesting, but in the fall of 1992, Jajce fell to Serb forces,
15 which I think you've referred to several times at other places in your
16 report. Correct?
17 A. Jajce fell towards the end of October. I think it was the 29th or
18 the 30th of October, which means six days after this report.
19 Q. And is it your position also that elements of the Croatian army,
20 the HV, were not involved in that fighting?
21 A. Let us please clear up something. What do you mean by "element of
22 the Croatian army"? And to avoid it in the future. That is, to
23 understand what you mean when you ask me that.
24 Q. Units, elements that are units, individual soldiers and officers,
25 members of the Croatian army, sir.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. That is a very broad term, Mr. Prosecutor. If you do that, then
2 you can call one man from some brigade, you can call him a brigade
3 numbering several thousand men. An individual is an individual. As far
4 as I know, I can name an officer of the Croatian army who was up there,
5 Fikret Cuskic, the commander of the 1st Battalion -- of the first
6 Krajina Battalion who, in May 1992, left from Velesajam from the
7 fairground in Zagreb who became brigadier general of the army in
8 Bosnia-Herzegovina. And I guess there you could find a Croat here and
9 there. Units, I mean units of the Croatian army, those I did not see. I
10 must admit, though, that the material from Jajce is very meager and not
11 much of it has been preserved.
12 Q. Throughout, sir, the first part of 1993, moving from the end of
13 1992 into the first half of 1993, the Croatian army continued to give
14 close support to the HVO in Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
15 A. I think it continued to give logistical support, and I think it
16 did it for yet another army in that area until mid-April. But that is
18 MR. SCOTT: And if I could ask that the witness be shown Exhibit
19 746.01 and 262.01. Would you please give the witness both of those at the
20 same time, to save time.
21 Q. Taking them chronologically, sir, if you look first at 746.01, you
22 indicated earlier today that Mr. Marinovic was the commander of the
23 southern front in 1993. This appears to be a report from Mr. Marinovic
24 dated the 8th of February, 1993, reporting on an inspection of HVO forces;
1 A. Yes. I've seen this document before.
2 Q. Was that common practice, for the HV to give support, to inspect,
3 and then assist HVO forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the first half of
5 A. This is a link between the command of the south east Herzegovina
6 operative zone and Croatian army units from -- well, this is obviously
7 sector south, meaning the southern front, and this is the inspection
8 control of the link towards the Herzegovina corps of the army of Republika
9 Srpska. I think this was the regular practice on the southern front at
10 this link.
11 Q. And if I could ask you to look at 262.01. This is a report from,
12 so the record is clear, again from Mr. Marinovic, the command of sector
13 south, to, among others, chief of staff of the Croatian army,
14 Janko Bobetko again about the plan of engagement I'm looking at the first
15 introductory paragraph under the addressee section on the basis of
16 demonstrated need and the order of the chief of the Main Staff of the HV
17 and according to the plan of engagement of the commander of sector south.
18 Another HVO unit inspected and supported by the HV; is that correct, sir?
19 A. I have already said, and so let me clarify it once again. The
20 link between the HVO and HV in this area was, with these two brigades
21 only. The first Brigade from Capljina and the 4th HVO Brigade, this is
22 March, so it came from three municipalities, and the front line was in the
23 eastern part of Herzegovina, and I think this was the regular practice of
24 the Croatian army, to visit the troops and carry out inspection because of
25 the position of Dubrovnik. It was important to include the positions of
1 these units in the map.
2 Q. And these units, these HVO units, were actively involved with the
3 115th HV Brigade; correct?
4 A. I didn't go into 1993 at the southern front, but I think that with
5 these two brigades of the HVO, there were also three Croatian army
6 brigades engaged. Well, 115, as likely as not -- if you have it
7 somewhere. I didn't read the document. And there should have been, I
8 presume, 116th from Metkovic, and of course the 163rd -- 163rd Brigade
9 of the Croatian army from Dubrovnik, and from time to time, from the area
10 of Zagreb, individual battalions from Zagreb brigades came to reinforce
11 the troops in that area, both reserve and guards.
12 Q. In fact, both at the time when the Serbs -- excuse me - the Croats
13 and Muslims together were fighting the Serbs, and later, when the Croats
14 were fighting against the Muslims, military support flowed from Croatia to
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina in very large amounts; correct?
16 A. The military support flowed, no doubt. The size of it, I wouldn't
17 know. HV logistics documents were accessible to me only in part.
18 Q. And that support, sir, continued into the time during -- when the
19 HVO was fighting against the Muslims; correct?
20 A. Well, from the very inception of the HVO until the end of the war,
21 that is, from April 1992 until, say, late autumn 1995, the Croatian army
22 provided logistical support to the Croat defence council. I believe I've
23 said somewhere that this same applied to Muslims, with the break in the
24 support during their conflict, during the war of the Muslims against the
25 Croats, that is, for about a year.
1 Q. In addition to material support, sir, isn't it true that a very
2 large percentage of the HVO officer corps either had been or were at the
3 time of their service in Bosnia-Herzegovina HV officers?
4 A. A small percentage of officers, not large, as you are claiming. I
5 doubt that there were ever more than 100, 100 men in the HVO. That is, I
6 do not think that more than 100, 150 men, members of the HVO, came from
7 the Croatian army. After Prozor, which is interesting, in the agreement
8 between Mr. Tudjman and Mr. Izetbegovic, where Mr. Praljak was appointed a
9 member of the joint command, I do not understand what you are trying to
10 say with this, except perhaps that Mr. Izetbegovic -- that
11 Mr. Izetbegovic's term of office had expired, during which he was a lawful
12 president, so this could only be the signature of the president of the
13 Party of Democratic Action, and you can bat your eyes as much as you
14 like. I'd merely like to quote to you something from an officer of the BH
15 army referring to this.
16 This is footnote 104, please. This was noted in his diary by
17 Mirsad Catic, an officer in the BH army, commander of the technical group
18 1, on the 13th of November, 1992. I quote:
19 "Jagonjac and Praljak are in some joint staff which is to be in
20 place of the Supreme Command in Sarajevo. What will this bring about, who
21 to obey. Divjak and Karic are confused."
22 General Divjak at that moment is an ornament in the joint staff,
23 and Mr. Karic, Mr. Karic, is one of the high-ranking officers,
24 high-ranking officers of the BH army. I believe that --
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, Witness, we understand what you are going to
2 Mr. Scott, your question, please.
3 MR. SCOTT:
4 Q. Sir, when you talk about 100 to 150 persons, my question to you
5 specifically was about officers, senior officers in the HVO, many of them
6 were senior HV officers; correct?
7 A. I wouldn't say that all of these individuals were high-ranking
8 officers of the HV. Some of them were high-ranking officers in the
9 Croatian army, specifically the highest-ranking ones were the already
10 mentioned General Praljak, General Roso. I think that sometime in the
11 beginning, that is, in April or May, for a short while a brigadier
12 Gotovina, he was a brigadier then, brigadier Crnjac, made quick
13 appearances, but they were at the level of brigades. There were some
14 officers, especially towards the end of 1993, in the Croat defence council
15 who had the brigadier level in the Croatian army. So they should -- they
16 ought to be high-ranking officers. But there are not as many of them as
17 you are claiming. And then I think that from that period there is a
18 circular letter sent to all brigades which allows to establish the exact
19 number of all the levels. I'm surprised that you don't have it.
20 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, certain questions that you do not ask
21 this witness again and again. I think the question you asked has no
22 fundamental difference with the previous one.
23 MR. SCOTT: The reason I asked it a second time, Your Honour, was
24 because it wasn't answered the first time.
25 JUDGE LIU: Well, he answered this question. It's quite clear to
1 us they are officers. There are 100 to 150 officers. That's enough.
2 MR. SCOTT:
3 Q. And that included, did it not, sir, Milivoj Petkovic, who at one
4 time was the head of the HVO for a substantial period of time? He was a
5 senior HVO; correct?
6 A. Yes. I have forgotten him. I believe that he was there before
7 the HVO came. I think that he was the head of the mortars, artillery, in
8 the Split operative zone.
9 MR. SCOTT: If I could ask the witness to be shown at the same
10 time, please, Exhibits P121.2 and 786.01. It should be in the second --
11 what was the second bundle originally.
12 Q. Is it correct, sir, that Exhibit 121.2 is a time indicating that
13 Mr. Petkovic, Colonel Petkovic, at the time had allegedly left the HV
14 army, and on Exhibit 786.01 is when he returned to the HV army, to the
15 HV? Correct?
16 A. Yes, that is correct.
17 Q. And during a period of time, he was the head of the entire HVO
18 army, was he not, before Slobodan Praljak?
19 A. He was effectively, from April 1992 until September 1994, except
20 for the period between July 1993 and, I believe, March or April 1994, was
21 the first soldier of the HVO. But he remained the chief of the Main
22 Staff, and during that time the function of the commander of the HVO was
24 MR. SCOTT: If the witness can be shown Exhibits 134.11 and
1 Q. Exhibit 134.11, sir, is an order from the Minister of Defence,
2 Gojko Susak, dated the 5th of June, 1992, sending 13 soldiers to the
3 southern front. Among those, you may notice Miro Andric, Blaz Andric,
4 Branko Kozul, Mirsad Sivac. And if I could direct your attention, please,
5 to Exhibit 359.2, all those men listed here as part of the 101st HV
6 Brigade, these officers, were still in Bosnia in May 1993, correct?
7 A. Yes, correct. Colonel Andric, at the time of the second report,
8 was a member of the joint command of the army of the HV and the BH army --
10 THE INTERPRETER: I apologise.
11 A. And the BH army. And I've had the opportunity to see this
12 document, and what you're trying to say is probably that some of the
13 officers' term of service stopped, and for some of them it continued.
14 MR. SCOTT:
15 Q. The man Zeljko Akrap, which is mentioned in Defence Exhibit
16 D2/77, he was another of these HV officers serving in the HVO, wasn't he?
17 A. Yes. The case is the same as with Mr. Andric.
18 Q. Now, in your testimony, sir, both in your testimony on Tuesday and
19 in your report, I put to you that you have been careful in the selection
20 of the words you've used to describe these, the status of many of the HV
21 soldiers or officers, and I'll refer you to page 18, at least in the
22 English version. I'll give you a footnote. Page 18 of your report. It's
23 before -- it's right after Exhibit -- excuse me - footnote 151. You say:
24 "Which were in documents mostly recorded as volunteers." And in
25 your testimony on Tuesday, sir, you said: "They were regarded as
1 volunteers." My question to you, sir: Were they -- it's not whether they
2 were recorded or regarded as volunteers, but were they in fact volunteers?
3 A. I would adhere to what I have written in here. The only unit that
4 we can discuss and talk about, whether it was a volunteers' unit, is the
5 5th Guards Brigade. From the 5th or 6th July 1993, it was down there in
6 Herzegovina. Later on it moved to the area of Prozor and Gornji Vakuf.
7 And that unit, with a short interruption, had the strength of one infantry
8 battalion, and this may raise an issue of the number of the volunteers.
9 As for the others, the 1st and the 2nd Guards Brigade are volunteer
10 brigades. I was in the war with some of their men. And reserve brigades
11 could not be sent if the members didn't want to go. They were usually
12 very small, except for one battalion from Slavonia which was composed of
13 the 5th Guards Brigade and the 127th Brigade of the Croatian army.
14 Obviously, I would like to draw your attention to the 175th Brigade. That
15 brigade was mobilised and composed of deserters and was sent down there to
16 the area of Prozor i.e., it was never complete as one battalion. Its
17 corps was undoubtedly volunteer, but the officer corps were volunteers,
18 whereas its men were mobilised on the request of the president of the HZ
19 HB sometime in October 1993 or maybe in September of that same year.
20 Q. Mobilised by whom, sir?
21 A. They were mobilised by the authorities of the Republic of Croatia,
22 like they mobilised in 1992 for the purposes of the BH army. I believe
23 that there is an agreement on the return of conscripts to their respective
25 Q. Sir, they may have been volunteers in one sense, they may have
1 volunteered to go to Bosnia, but they were, and continued to be, HV
2 soldiers; correct?
3 A. Yes. They retained -- if you are referring to the members of the
4 HV, they have retained the rights of the members of the Croatian army,
5 which was customary after the request of Mr. Spegelj dating back to the
6 7th April 1992. So both Croats and Muslims who went down there had the
7 right to retain the status of members of the Croatian army upon their
9 Q. In fact, one example of that in Exhibit P122.1 specifically says:
10 "All who go retain all the rights of HV soldiers, including monthly
11 salaries," correct?
12 A. I believe so.
13 Q. So the question -- saying, using the terminology "volunteers,"
14 isn't it correct, sir, doesn't get us very far in this sense, if the
15 Croatian Minister of Defence Jozo Susak says: "I want a brigade of
16 volunteers to go to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and a brigade of people volunteer,
17 they're still -- it's still the HV, isn't it?
18 A. We again arrive at the same thing. It is not Susak who wants a
19 brigade. It is Spegelj who wants a brigade of Muslims for the war in
20 Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that brigade was indeed sent down there. It
21 was the 7th Krajina Brigade, which later on was incorporated in the BH
22 army. And I really don't know when and how many stopped their status in
23 the Croatian army.
24 Q. And in fact, sir, these were not volunteers in the sense of being
25 independent of an organised HV effort at all, were they? These weren't
1 just individuals who just happened to go to Bosnia; they were part of the
2 Croatian army. Correct?
3 A. They retained the status of the Croatian army, but I don't have
4 any proof, and I don't believe you do either, to show that the Croatian
5 army retained control over them when they moved into Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina. Maybe you should be a bit more cautious when you put forth
7 such allegations. I really haven't seen this. I'm sure that you must
8 have had more time to inspect the documents in the state archives.
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Seric.
10 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I've
11 patiently waited for both the question and the answer, and I would like to
12 draw your attention to the fact that despite your previous warning, the
13 Prosecutor repeats himself. One answer is given, and then the question is
14 repeated again. So that really means that we are going to be here for
15 another 14 months in order for the Prosecutor to finally get the answer
16 that he really wants to hear.
17 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, we understand where are you leading
18 to. We quite understand. I think we have already get what we want in
19 this aspect.
20 MR. SCOTT:
21 Q. Sir, isn't it correct that all these, and if we need to go to the
22 transcripts, presidential transcripts, we will, that these people sent as
23 "volunteers" were sent by President Tudjman as the commander-in-chief by
24 Susak as the Minister of Defence, even knowing that they would call them
25 volunteers but they were being sent as an organised effort by the Republic
1 of Croatia? Correct?
2 JUDGE CLARK: Mr. Scott, I think the witness answered that when he
3 said that there's no evidence that after these volunteers who retained
4 rights went to Bosnia and Herzegovina, that they remained under the
5 control of the army. So logically, the next step for you to take would be
6 to put that piece of evidence in rebuttal or move on.
7 MR. SCOTT: I would be happy to move to the next piece of
8 evidence, and that would be, then, presidential transcript 13, PT13. If
9 that could be shown to the witness, please. You may wish to show him PT14
10 at the same time.
11 Q. Sir, if I can direct your attention to -- if you again, please,
12 use for reference the numbers on the upper left corner - excuse me - upper
13 right corner of the Croatian-language part of the exhibit that's been
14 given to you, and if you look for the numbers R 0156977, beginning toward
15 the bottom of that page in the conversation or statements attributed to
16 the president, and for the English readers, page 1 of Exhibit PT13. You
17 say there was no evidence of this. Let me put this to you. Starting at
18 the words "right until now, in June, I called the minister and the chief
19 of headquarters, and at the beginning of July I asked, I told them, in
20 Bosnia-Herzegovina war is now being waged for the area of the border of
21 the Croatian state. Accordingly, one has to do everything to help this
22 area to hold out. It is not the same to us whether the border of the
23 Croatian state, that is, will be Jajce, with Travnik and only with Novi
24 Travnik, Vitez, Busovaca. In diplomatic talks we have not given up
25 on Kiseljak and Kresevo, but we have agreed that this is in so we might
1 achieve this to, so that the Muslim state at the request of Europe should
2 have the conditions for territorial existence. We, that is, have given up
3 on Kresevo, that is, agreed that Kresevo and Kiseljak should be in the
4 Muslim state. It was kind of a situation since war is being waged, we
5 don't know when they took Vares, but Kiseljak has become important to us,
6 so that we can link up with Busovaca and with a whole entire territory
7 here," it says.
8 Now the next paragraph:
9 "We had to do all this, of course, under the cover of sending
10 volunteers, but gentlemen from the ministry and the minister and the chief
11 of the main headquarters, people say correctly that when we brought they
12 did not get this help from Croatia in time."
13 Skipping down a couple of paragraphs:
14 "So it is the task, your task, of all you who are here, for us to
15 hear what you have undertaken and what forces to send there to make sure,
16 materially and in personnel, that we defend these areas. The borders of
17 Croatia plus these -- this here, we have an agreement with Fikret Abdic
18 if the union does not endure, that then this joins Croatia, that is, the
19 borders of the Croatian state are like this, and clearly with this."
20 They were sent, organised, and directed by Republic of Croatian
21 government; correct, sir?
22 A. If this is authentic, then you are close enough. Your allegation
23 does seem to be pretty correct. But there is something further on in the
24 text, and if I may, I would like to read it to you.
25 Q. Under the Rules, sir, I suppose you can say or read anything that
1 you want.
2 A. There is a sentence on page 4, or R 0156980, the last passage:
3 "Therefore, please find people who will go, because they are not
4 needed in the Croatian state, in the Croatian army. A hundred pilots or I
5 don't know what, and they tell me there are no pilots there who would fly
6 to bring here where the destiny of the Croatian state is being resolved
7 for the future."
8 Now I would like to comment upon this, if I may. This is a good
9 document in favour of the Prosecution; however, we are still talking about
10 very few members of the Croatian army in that area. In my footnote 150, I
11 gave you a heap of documents where you can -- in which you can see what
12 their number really was. And regardless of this very interesting
13 transcript that I would be very grateful to receive from you a copy of,
14 still there were very few men down there, according to my estimate, their
15 number never exceeded a light brigade, which then raises the question of
16 these efforts, as you call them; i.e., it was not possible to carry out
17 any such effort.
18 Q. We're not going to go through every presidential transcript, I can
19 assure the Chamber, at this time.
20 Sir, are you suggesting that this same Republic of Croatia that
21 was fighting against the Serbs to establish the future borders of the
22 Croatian state, and by your own admission, they were there extensively in
23 1992, that the Republic of Croatia was willing to stand by and lose the
24 war to the Muslims in 1993? Is that your position?
25 A. No. I just wanted to say that this is the way you interpret
1 things. But I would like to offer a different kind of interpretation.
2 This is -- this was the war for territories, which was launched in April
3 by the BH army, and that the Croatian army symbolically on the ground,
4 that is, members of the Croatian army, helped to maintain the Croatian
5 Defence Council, and what was the character of the attack of the BH army
6 is illustrated by my footnote 152. Rasim Delic, the chief of the Main
7 Staff, i.e., the chief of the Main Staff of the BH army, at the beginning
8 of 1994, in front of the congress of Bosnian intellectuals, said, amongst
9 other things, that the HVO was defeated militarily, and thus the concept
10 of the Croatian community Herceg-Bosna, which had only survived the
11 engagement of very significant forces of the army of the Republic of
12 Croatia, otherwise they would have completely vanished from these
13 territories, vanished both as a political and a military force. As I
14 said, the Croatian forces were meager, and General Delic forgot to say one
15 thing here, they would have disappeared as an ethnic group. So this is
16 the right that we were talking about yesterday and that the right for
17 suspension. And you can find the confirmation in every place that the BH
18 army, as they say, liberated from the HVO.
19 Q. Sir, the Chamber has evidence that Slobodan Praljak, on the 14th
20 of March, 1992, was appointed as an assistant Minister of Defence of the
21 Republic of Croatia. Did he stop being an assistant Minister of Defence
22 during the time that he was the chief of the HVO in 1993?
23 A. Yes. During that period, I believe he wasn't an assistant
25 Q. What do you base that on?
1 A. When he returned to the HV, he was appointed an advisor to the
2 minister in charge of the military archive. And I also believe that I saw
3 an order on his discharge dating back to July 1993.
4 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Mr. President. Just to follow up on Judge
5 Clark's guidance, I'm just trying to mark which exhibits we will perhaps
6 simply save for rebuttal, not to prolong this any longer than necessary.
7 Could the witness please be shown Exhibits 562.12 -- 562.12, and
9 Q. Sir, starting with 562.12, it appears to be a communication by
10 Brigadier Zarko Tole, described in the document as chief of the HVO Main
11 Staff, addressed to the president of the Republic of Croatia personally,
12 to the defence minister of the Republic of Croatia personally, dated the
13 9th of August, 1993, talking about a meeting with the head of the Croatian
14 army, General Janko Bobetko, and the commander of the southern front, who
15 you've identified for us today, Mr. Marinovic, requesting a number of
16 items in support of the HVO, including tanks, to send the 1st Battalion of
17 the 5th Guards Brigade. Is that correct, sir? Is that consistent with
18 your findings of the HV involvement in the Mostar region in August of
20 A. I think that this document refers to Gornji Vakuf, and indeed
21 sometime in August there appeared a Tactical Group. I believe this is
22 what they called it - of the 5th Guards Brigade, composed of a complete
23 brigade. So it was not a battalion in the establishment sense, but I
24 believe that the strength of that unit was an incomplete infantry
25 battalion, some 600 men altogether. And this is interesting to provide
1 comment upon your previous documents about Mr. Marinovic. This shows you
2 how forces were pulled out from the southern front, the wing, or the link,
3 where you tried -- purported to put the HVO under the complete control of
4 the HV. I believe that this enclosure that is mentioned of the corporeal
5 of the 5th Brigade would clarify things much better. But in any case, in
6 August of 1993, I mentioned that in one of my footnotes, gives you the
7 strength of the 5th Guards Brigade in that area.
8 Q. In the last part of the communication for Mr. Tole, he says:
9 "Following a conversation with the commander of the 5th Guards
10 Brigade, Brigadier Kapular, we're setting forth his proposal and
11 submitting it to you as a special attachment."
12 Now, sir, if you'll direct your attention to Exhibit 559.1, it
13 appears to be a request from Slobodan Praljak to the Ministry of Defence
14 to Gojko Susak. We ask you to place HV officers brigadier Zarko Tole and
15 brigadier Ivan Kapular, at the disposal of the HVO General Staff."
17 A. Yes. One can see it from this request. Except that I'd like to
18 correct you. This is Stanko Matic's signature, and he's one of the
19 assistants to the command -- to the chief of the Main Staff of the HVO.
20 But I'd like to comment, to make a comment. We come to what I said in my
21 report, after all, and what I said that between October 1992 to July 1993,
22 there are no members or larger groups -- by larger groups, we mean
23 platoons of the Croatian army, and there are none of them in the territory
24 of Herceg-Bosna. It only happens other events in Mostar, that is,
25 following the 30th of June, 1993, when an HVO unit with Muslim members
1 betrayed the unit and crossed over to the BH army side.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Scott, I think it's time for a break.
3 MR. SCOTT: Very well, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE LIU: So we'll resume at a quarter to 6.00.
5 --- Recess taken at 5.19 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 5.51 p.m.
7 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
8 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I've significantly shortened the
9 remaining exhibits for these purposes, but I'm afraid you'll see an
10 expanded bundle for rebuttal purposes. But we'll try to finish in the
11 next few minutes.
12 JUDGE LIU: What do you mean by "next few minutes"?
13 MR. SCOTT: I hope in 15 to 20 minutes.
14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
15 MR. SCOTT:
16 Q. Sir, you were talking before the break about the 7th Guards
17 Brigade and in your report you say this was the second-most-involved HV
18 unit in Herzegovina. Is that correct?
19 A. Professional, the second in terms of its strength.
20 Q. And do you recall where it was that they were engaged, 7th Guards?
21 A. I think I can follow from sometime in November, that is,
22 October/November 1993, one can see them in the area of Gornji Vakuf, but
23 their strength not going beyond an incomplete company.
24 MR. SCOTT: If I could ask the usher to please provide the witness
25 with the following four exhibits, which I think will be the last exhibits
1 that we'll use: 712.3, 745.3, 780.2, and 842.1.
2 Q. If I can ask you, sir, to look first at 712.3, a communication
3 from Zeljko Siljeg, commander of the operation zone, on the 13th of
4 December, 1993, and if I could ask you to look at, please, section headed
5 "Capital D," D as in dog. Do you see where it says "we would like you to
6 see the decision or solution for a part of the forces of the 7th Guards
7 Brigade, Branko Predragovic claims that Dragovic had received an order
8 from General Janko Bobetko that prior to 15 December the unit should
9 withdraw from Skopje, which should be the Skopje or - I'm not going to try
10 to pronounce that version, excuse me - battlefield. My question to you,
11 sir: Would this document be consistent with the 7th Guards Brigade was in
12 the area of Gornji Vakuf in late 1993?
13 A. That agrees with what I said, that a company of the 7th Guards
14 Brigade was in the area at the indicated time.
15 Q. And do you recall, by the way, the name of the 7th Guards Brigade,
16 what they went by?
17 A. During the war, it was called PUMA. That was its war name.
18 Q. And in your report, you also mention the HV 1st Guards Brigade.
19 Was the 1st Guards Brigade known as the Tigrovi, or Tigers?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you also mentioned the 2nd HVO Guards Brigade, and was their
22 name the Gromovi, or Thunder?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Now, you said that the 7th Guards Brigade was the second most
25 extensively involved HV unit in Herzegovina at that time. What was the
1 first -- that was the second. What was the first most extensively
2 involved HV unit?
3 A. I've already said that. The 5th Guards.
4 Q. And what was the name of that unit, other than "5th Guards" in the
5 sense of PUMA of Gromovi, what was the name of that unit?
6 A. Sokol, Pokum [phoen].
7 Q. And is it correct, sir, that many of these professional units,
8 both HV units and, for that matter, HVO units, received their salaries
9 through the Croatian army in late 1993 and continuing into early 1994?
10 A. It is -- personally, I don't think I really saw many documents
11 about that, but this is a widespread claim, and I do not think it is
12 brought into question.
13 Q. Let me show you one specific instance, then. If you could look at
14 Exhibit 745.3. This is a correspondence from a man named Dragan Curcic,
15 the commander of the Ludvig Pavlovic unit to the commander of the southern
16 front, as you've identified him earlier, Mr. Marinovic, dated the 5th of
17 February, 1994. And does not Mr. -- or Colonel Curcic request the payment
18 of war allowances for our unit from the southern front?
19 A. From this letter, it seems beyond doubt. But let me say
20 something concerning the Ludvig Pavlovic Battalion. As I've already said,
21 Ludvig Pavlovic emerged in June 1992, and it was an offspring of the Kralj
22 Tomislav, that is former Daidza's regiment, when it split into its Croat
23 and its Muslim part. Some of those men had contracts signed with the
24 Croatian army, so that part of the men -- some men of this unit were paid
25 by Croatia, that is, received -- and others were getting much lower
1 salaries, because they only had their contracts with the HVO. I know,
2 because that unit shared the barracks with my 1st Guards Brigade in
3 Capljina. Dragan Curcic, they only had its army post in Vrgorac.
4 Otherwise it was an exclusive HVO unit.
5 Q. In fact, sir, for all practical purposes, both financially and
6 otherwise, in terms of the make-up of the unit, wasn't the Ludvig Pavlovic
7 Brigade an HV unit throughout the war?
8 A. Ludvig Pavlovic Brigade, as far as I know, never received any
9 orders -- no. Let's first explain this. This is a battalion, and an
10 incomplete guards battalion. When Bobetko left the southern front, I
11 never saw an HV's order issued to that unit, and it was under no
12 obligation to us, that is, the military archive of the Ministry of Defence
13 of Croatia, to turn over the material, so that I think - I repeat - I
14 haven't seen a single document, any proof to corroborate your claim.
15 Later on it became part of the 2nd Guards Brigade of the HVO. That is, it
16 simply vanished as a unit.
17 Q. When you say "a battalion," this was a battalion of a guards
18 brigade, how large a unit at that time was a battalion? How many soldiers
19 and officers?
20 A. A professional battalion of the Croatian army and the HVO numbers
21 760 men, but the formations varied in size. I think that in 1994 to 1995,
22 Ludvig Pavlovic numbered some 350 men. I know that the Bruno Busic
23 regiment was to have 2.000, it had 60 [as interpreted]. But in real life
24 it had 620 men. I don't know as far as the Convicts Battalion is
25 concerned. I think that Vitezovi, the 9th, might have been a hundred men
1 strong. And as for the Croatian army, professional battalions also varied
2 in size from perhaps 15, the 8th light assault, to perhaps 200 in the 7th
3 Guards. So that the term "battalion" needs to be treated with caution,
4 and one should try to establish the actual strength. And as for the
5 Croatian army at the time that we are talking about, that is, members of
6 the Croatian army in Bosnia and Herzegovina, I think that documents allow
7 not only to glean the strength but also every individual.
8 Q. Is it correct, sir, that you mentioned the Convicts Battalion in
9 this context because it was considered a professional unit?
10 A. I believe I quoted somewhere a document from early 1993. This is
11 a covert -- a big report which considers it a professional unit.
12 Q. And sir, would you agree with me that the fighting that was going
13 on in the second half of 1993 between the Croats and Muslims, we're not
14 talking about large NATO-type armies fighting each other, were we, in
15 terms of quality of equipment, in terms of size of units, in terms of
16 professional forces? Correct?
17 A. I must admit that I don't understand this question somehow. Could
18 you perhaps clarify it in some way?
19 Q. Let me ask the question differently. In the circumstances, and
20 given the nature of the fighting that was taking place in the area at the
21 time, would you agree with me, sir, that even a unit of between 300 to 600
22 professional soldiers, well-equipped and disciplined soldiers, could make
23 a significant difference on the battlefield?
24 A. Well, I wouldn't really agree with your claim, but I think it
25 suffices to analyse their war career in Bosnia during that period of time.
1 And I believe that yesterday or the day before yesterday I already said
2 that these units were mostly engaged around villages, that is, at
3 features, or to simplify, hills. And I can give an example of the 5th
4 Guards. In the latter half of 1993, it was on the Gornji Vakuf front, and
5 of nine sectors of that front line, it held one sector, and the other, the
6 remaining sectors, were held by the HVO. And more often than not, these
7 units were used for the defence. And as I personally witnessed the
8 arrival of even such small units meant significant psychological support
9 to the HVO.
10 Q. Is it true, sir, that also during the war, and even after the war
11 in the terms of the war in terms of the Bosnian Croat war, even in early
12 1994, mid-1994, that many HVO officers, if they had not already been HV
13 officers, became HV officers?
14 A. I'm not aware of that case.
15 Q. Let me show you, just as one example, Exhibit 780.2. This is an
16 appointment by President Franjo Tudjman of an officer named Predrag
17 Mandic, from Siroki Brijeg, to the rank of colonel in the HV army. Did
18 you ever know a Mr. Mandic during any of your tours of duty in Bosnia?
19 A. I've heard of Mr. Mandic. He was in Bosnia. But as far as I
20 know, he was only a member of the HVO. But basically, this is what I've
21 already told you regarding Zeljko Siljeg, that some HVO officer -- for
22 some HV officers, it was a question of status or social prestige to be an
23 officer in the Croatian army, and so this is how they acquired this status
24 of officers in the Croatian army.
25 Q. Finally, sir, I asked you on -- I asked you yesterday if, because
1 of your involvement with the archives in Zagreb you are aware of the fact
2 that -- or I put the question to you about the taking of the -- many of
3 the HVO documents to Croatia for the purposes of concealing or keeping
4 them from international investigators. And sir, if I can direct your
5 attention to Exhibit 842.1. And if you can find -- in the English version
6 it is page 23; in the Croatian version, sir, if you could find the
7 heading -- the section VI, or the English, if you can read it, which, in
8 the course of your testimony, it appears that you can read a fair amount
9 of English. Whichever is easiest for you. Who was, by the way, Markica
11 A. Markica Rebic, as you can see from this, was assistant minister
12 for security affairs of the Republic of Croatia.
13 Q. And did not Mr. Rebic, indicated here as a deputy minister, write
14 to President Franjo Tudjman, on the 4th of June, 1998, and reporting on
15 the activities of his organisation:
16 "When HVO archives became a serious problem in the course of
17 preparation of General Blaskic's defence with respect to the substance of
18 the subpoena, and ICTY's request involving HVO officials, this service, in
19 cooperation with the HIS, took action and measures to protect the HVO
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Krsnik.
22 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I truly do not know
23 what is the relevance of this, in the light of the indictment of my client
24 and generally. We heard today very many irrelevant things, but this now I
25 do not want to gloss over this. How is this document relevant to the
1 indictment? I repeat my question.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, I believe that yesterday this question was
3 brought up, and this witness has been working here for quite a
4 considerable time. The Prosecution asked the question yesterday, and
5 today he showed him a document if he knows or has reason to know such
6 things happened. That's quite logical.
7 Witness, you may answer that question.
8 A. Very well, except that I couldn't find. That allegedly is not
9 important. Yesterday I said clearly that I was engaged in putting this
10 material into order. I do not know who, how, when, and why brought, or
11 rather, transferred this material. All I did was to put this material in
12 a shape which allows it to be used. I had no hand in anything else
13 concerning this material. So my task was strictly professional.
14 MR. SCOTT:
15 Q. Sir, my final question to you is this: You told us you worked
16 for three different directors of the Croatian intelligence service HIS,
17 the second being Miroslav Tudjman, the third one being Ozren Zunec, and
18 during that time, sir, and your work with these documents, you never
19 learned and you were never told that in fact these documents had been
20 taken out of Bosnia-Herzegovina to keep them from subpoenas and requests
21 coming from this Tribunal; is that your testimony?
22 A. Well, first I'd say -- I'd put it as follows: My task was
23 unambiguous and I was assigned to this task -- I started doing it
24 reluctantly only when I was told that would be removed from the military
25 archive for two months. And after I saw how things stood, I said this was
1 two years' worth of work. And then, as I have said, and you repeat it
2 now, there were three different directors who were protagonists of
3 different political options and that at that time in the Croatian press
4 there was on a rampage something that was called intelligence work, and I
5 think that I didn't use the name, but nevertheless I was -- my name -- I
6 figured in the press as some kind of a collaborator of Markica Rebic's who
7 was destroying the material, the records down there. And after all that,
8 I really felt quite uninclined, disinclined to talk with anyone, and I do
9 not think anyone tried to talk to me. I was assigned to do something, and
10 I believe I did it very well. I wasn't even asked to write a single
11 report. Which also speaks about the nature of my work. This was a hot
12 potato, which everybody ignored, and it was my task to put it in order.
13 Q. Sir, on your answer, one follow-up question, then: Which
14 documents or what documents were marked -- was Markica Rebic destroying,
15 as you just said on line 16?
16 A. I only said that the press, and more specifically, Nacional, which
17 is a weekly, claimed that while I was there, nothing was destroyed. I
18 don't know whether some things like that happened later on. Later on, all
19 this was transferred into the state archives, and I doubt that anything
20 was destroyed. These were the so-called intelligence wars within the
21 Croatian intelligence community, and I was a scapegoat, and I was named
22 not by name, although some later tried to explain that this referred to
23 somebody else whose name I saw in this document that is dated 1998.
24 MR. SCOTT: No further questions, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE LIU: Any re-examination, Mr. Seric?
1 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Re-examined by Mr. Seric:
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Marijan, my questions will follow up on the
4 questions asked by my learned friend Scott.
5 Did Muslims want an independent state of Croatia with a border on
6 the Drina during the Second World War?
7 A. Yes. At the beginning, it was a very strong movement in 1941, and
8 then in 1942, 1943 there appeared a stream of autonomous, which tried to
9 create some sort of a Muslim state. I must admit, I am not clear on the
10 borders within which they wanted to have that state. And they tried to do
11 that by sending letters to Benito Mussolini the Italian dictator, and to
12 Adolf Hitler, the German dictator.
13 Q. Did Muslims, and to what extent, belong to the Ustasha movement?
14 A. According to some estimates, every fourth member of the army of
15 the independent state of Croatia, both Ustasha as well as the Home Guards,
16 were of Muslim ethnic background.
17 Q. What side was Franjo Tudjman on?
18 A. Franjo Tudjman was a partisan. He belonged to the Communist Party
19 of Yugoslavia, i.e., to its military wings, also known as partisans, the
20 adequate English term for that would be the guerrilla.
21 Q. From the historical sources that you have collected, can you tell
22 us what was the strength of the BH army in late 1992 or in spring 1993?
23 A. It is very difficult to say, and I've already said that the
24 commander of the 3rd Corps, when talking to the representatives of the
25 HVO, he bragged that he had 40.000 men, which means, if this was true,
1 that only the 3rd Corps, which was deployed in the area of Central Bosnia,
2 that it was more numerous than the entire HVO.
3 Q. What can a unit consisting of a thousand men do against such a
5 A. It could maintain two neighbouring villages and a few elevations
6 between them. A brigade has about 4.500 men. This is the norm. And it
7 can defend a line of nine kilometres. And if the region is mountainous,
8 then it can hold up to 12 kilometres of the line. And in the attack
9 actions, this is halved, which means up to six. The HVO and the HV units,
10 especially the professional units of the HV, mostly had less than 2.000
11 men, except for maybe the 5th Guards, which had somewhat over 2.000 men.
12 Q. Mr. Marijan, did you work on collecting and analysing documents
13 relative to the aggression of the Yugoslav People's Army and Yugoslavia
14 against Croatia?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Has that material been given to the Prosecutor's office here in
17 The Hague for the case against Milosevic?
18 A. I believe that it was, some of it.
19 Q. Did Mr. Scott or any other Prosecutor contact you with regard to
21 A. Yes, I have been contacted by the Prosecution, but not Mr. Scott.
22 Q. In those contacts, did somebody belittle you as a professional, as
23 an expert, and deny your qualities, as this has been done in the past two
24 or three days?
25 A. No. I have been able to dispel some of their prejudices about
1 Mr. Milosevic and I've been able to pinpoint some of the shortcomings and
2 the failures that their teams have been -- have done when they were
3 studying the role of Milosevic in the war against Croatia.
4 Q. Mr. Marijan, have you ever been compensated by this Court for this
5 expert study?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Are you aware that this was under way?
8 A. No. I hear it now from you.
9 Q. And now my last question. Is it your opinion, Mr. Marijan, that
10 Yugoslavia was a historical anachronism?
11 A. It was an historical failure.
12 Q. And to your mind, is Bosnia-Herzegovina an artificial concoction?
13 A. Unfortunately, yes, it is.
14 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Krsnik.
15 Re-examined by Mr. Krsnik:
16 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Marijan, I will be very brief. I would like
17 to clarify some things that you either were not able to express properly
18 or you were interrupted in the middle of your explanations. I'm afraid
19 that a lot of things have not been explained thoroughly here.
20 A. I'm going to write a book about this, you can rest assured.
21 Q. That would be a very good idea. I've been writing one myself.
22 Mr. Marijan, kindly tell the Chamber: Are you familiar with the
23 Dayton Accords and the Washington Accords?
24 A. Yes, in broad lines.
25 Q. Do you know that the Washington Agreement has recognised all the
1 laws of the Republic of Herceg-Bosna and that the same was done by the
2 Dayton Accords and that these laws are applied to this very day in the
3 Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, in the entity where Muslims and
4 Croats live together?
5 A. I must admit that I was not aware of that.
6 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the Washington agreement envisages
7 the possibilities of a confederation of that same federation with the
8 Republic of Croatia?
9 A. Yes, I'm aware of that.
10 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
11 MR. SCOTT: This is re-examination and not leading questions,
12 Mr. President.
13 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, I believe that your question is out
14 of the scope of the cross-examination. Please move on.
15 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Marijan, kindly repeat whether the Washington Agreement
17 envisages any sort of confederation with the Republic of Croatia.
18 A. Yes, a confederation of the Republic of Croatia in
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina has been envisaged.
20 Q. I know that you are not accustomed to the workings of a court, so
21 some of the names that you have mentioned, people are not familiar with
22 the ethnic background of some of the names as we are. You have mentioned
23 an officer of the Croatian army by the name of Fikret Cuskic who was
24 engaged in the area of Jajce. Can you please tell us what was his ethnic
25 background and what was his lot?
1 A. Mr. Fikret Cuskic is a Muslim by ethnic origin, a good soldier.
2 He was a Captain First Class of the Yugoslav army in Varazdin. Then he
3 moved and joined the Croatian army. He was an officer of the 1st
4 mechanised Brigade of the Croatian army and then the commander of the 1st
5 Krajina Battalion, and then, after the fall of Jajce, he was the commander
6 of the 17th Krajina Brigade of the BH army, which is regarded as the best
8 Q. Can you tell us, in very short lines: Was that a common
9 occurrence in 1992 and in 1993, and what do you know about the arrival of
10 the volunteers from the former socialist Republic of Bosnia, and later on
11 only Bosnia, in -- that is, Bosnia-Herzegovina, in 1992, so when the
12 volunteers came and joined the war in the Republic of Croatia and their
13 return when the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina started? Do you know anything
14 about that? Did you study that phenomenon?
15 A. You're talking about 1991 and Croatia and then return in 1992 to
16 Bosnia and Herzegovina?
17 A. No, I didn't study that.
18 Q. And my last question: I would like you to be shown the Exhibit
20 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] I think that there are some
21 clarifications needed here, and I'm going to ask you some questions about
22 this exhibit.
23 Q. Please tell us: Where and when did you first see this document,
24 and what do you think about its authenticity?
25 A. I already said that I saw this document for the first time in the
1 book --
2 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I object. Before the witness answers.
3 JUDGE LIU: Yes, Mr. Scott.
4 MR. SCOTT: I object to the question, Your Honour. What is the
5 basis for this witness to express a view on the authenticity of a
7 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, you might ask your question in
8 another way, because we have heard that this witness has some views about
9 this document.
10 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] This is exactly what I wanted to hear
11 from this witness, his views on this document. When my learned friend was
12 examining him, he was not allowed to express freely his views of this
13 document, and this is what I want to hear from the witness: What are his
14 views of this document?
15 A. I already said that I saw this document twice. Both times in the
16 books by Muslim authors, and I said that the first part underneath the
17 conclusions is very strange but that this is a document that -- and that
18 the agreements with Franjo Tudjman that are mentioned here, that there
19 must be the minutes of these agreements that would then confirm whether
20 this is a forgery or whether this is an authentic document. I don't have
21 these minutes. Mr. Prosecutor may have them. I personally, I will
22 probably know in a month or two whether this is authentic, because I have
23 submitted a request for the insight into the transcripts of the president
24 of the Republic.
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I have no
1 further questions.
2 JUDGE LIU: Well, thank you very much, Witness, for coming here to
3 give your evidence. Frankly speaking, I learned a lot from your report
4 and from your testimony.
5 Madam Usher will show you out of the room. We all wish you a
6 pleasant journey back home and your success in your future research.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honour.
8 [The witness withdrew]
9 JUDGE LIU: Mr. Seric, at this stage, are there any documents to
11 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. These are the
12 documents that we discussed during the direct examination, and I have
13 already dictated their numbers for the transcript, and so these are the
14 documents: D259 to D278, that I'm tendering for admission. And
15 obviously, the expert report by this witness, which is D2/79.
16 JUDGE LIU: Any objections from the Prosecution side?
17 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. These documents are admitted
19 into evidence.
20 MR. SERIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, kindly, just a
21 technical matter. I heard from our interpreters that our translation may
22 have some ambiguities, and Judge Clark rightly asked me who translated
23 it. So I would kindly ask you to allow us to again translate this
24 document via the translators service of this Court, to make this
25 translation more accurate than the one that we have now. I know that it
1 may take some time, but it would assist us greatly, and I am asking for
2 your indulgence in this matter.
3 JUDGE LIU: Well, your request is granted. We'll send it to the
4 translation section and have it translated into proper English.
5 Yes, Mr. Scott. At this stage, do you have any documents to
7 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, as the Court may have observed, since
8 there was a selection process going on during the direct examination, I
9 would be most appreciative if we could submit the selected documents in
11 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Would you please submit that request early next
13 MR. SCOTT: Yes, I will.
14 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much.
15 So next Monday we'll sit in the afternoon and hear the last
16 witness in Mr. Naletilic's case, another expert of history. Am I right,
17 Mr. Krsnik?
18 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm going to send you a
19 confidential submission for your eyes only, and now I would not be
20 prepared to answer that question, for the reasons of confidentiality.
21 JUDGE LIU: Yes. I hope I could read it tomorrow, so that we
22 could arrange the hearings for the next week.
23 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I don't want to pry into something
24 confidential, but on the other hand, I don't think it's fair. It
25 sounds -- I can only infer, of course, but it sounds to me that there may
1 be some question about this witness in the schedule, and to be perfectly
2 transparent, I'm not anxious for either myself or my staff to work the
3 next three days for a witness who doesn't appear, and I mean that quite --
4 the next three days, between now and Sunday, or Monday morning, if he's
5 not going to be here.
6 JUDGE LIU: Well, Mr. Krsnik, would you please indicate in which
7 area these filings will --
8 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really don't know --
9 I'm trying to learn English, and because I see how important that is. Are
10 we in two different courtrooms? I'm not -- I was not talking about the
11 witness who should appear on Monday. He will be here. He will testify.
12 And I just referred to the previous witness. I am preparing a submission
13 that is very confidential, and you are going to receive it next week.
14 JUDGE LIU: Well, you may file it in ex parte motions for that.
15 MR. KRSNIK: Yes.
16 JUDGE LIU: But not confidential --
17 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] Certainly.
18 JUDGE LIU: [Previous translation continues] ...
19 MR. KRSNIK: Sorry. It's wrong word. Ex parte, yes.
20 JUDGE LIU: Yes. Well --
21 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, Mr. President. I'm confused now. Because
22 are we talking about a confidential, a non-public filing served on
23 counsel? Are we talking about an ex parte filing not served on counsel?
24 Because in the transcript just now, it's not clear.
25 MR. KRSNIK: [Interpretation] It's an ex parte submission. My
1 learned friend --
2 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry. Mr. President, concerning a witness who
3 has already testified, I object to that. How are we to know to respond to
4 something said secret about a witness who has already testified?
5 JUDGE LIU: Well, since it's an ex parte filing and supposed to be
6 confidential, we are in no position concerning with the contents of that
7 filings. We'll make our decision when we receive it. Of course, in the
8 meantime we'll bear in mind the interests of the Prosecution in this
10 Having said that, we'll resume next Monday afternoon.
11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.39 p.m.,
12 to be reconvened on Monday, the 23rd day of
13 September 2002, at 2.15 p.m.