1 Monday, 10 July 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.14 p.m.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call

6 the case number, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. Good

8 day to all. Case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd like to greet everyone

10 present: Members of the Prosecution, Defence counsel, the accused, and I

11 wouldn't want to forget to mention everyone else in the courtroom. We'll

12 be continuing with our hearing today on Monday, the 10th of July, 2006,

13 and we have a witness who will soon be called, but first I'd like to tell

14 you something about the admission of documents pending in the case of the

15 witness Manolic and in the case of -- in this case we still haven't ruled,

16 the Chamber hasn't ruled, so before the witness is called into the

17 courtroom, I give the floor to the Defence and the Prosecution so that

18 they can mention the numbers of the documents that they would like to be

19 admitted into evidence.

20 Mr. Kovacic sent a number of letters this weekend. That's the

21 second issue I'd like to deal with. So Mr. Kovacic, I will give you the

22 floor now.

23 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really hate taking up

24 time before a witness is called into the courtroom. However, since you

25 have seen copies of the correspondence between myself and the Prosecution

1 - and I read my letters in collaboration with my colleagues - given that

2 you have seen copies of this correspondence, I will try to be brief.

3 We believe that the Prosecution is yet again acting in a way that

4 is preventing the Defence from preparing in an adequate way for its

5 cross-examination. We have also made this objection with regard to

6 (Redacted), Manolic, Tomislav [as interpreted] and other witnesses. In this

7 particular case the Prosecution informs us of the documents that they

8 intend to use with this witness, and they also inform us of the subject of

9 his evidence, but this is contrary to your decision dated the 30th of

10 November, and it's also contrary to the written -- the oral instructions

11 of the Chamber dated the 3rd of July. That was a discussion held before

12 the witness Manolic was heard. There was a similar objection that was

13 made. The Prosecution has provided information about documents it intends

14 to use through witnesses and about the subject of the testimony in a

15 manner that is not sufficiently transparent, in our opinion.

16 For example, the witness statement, statement given by a witness

17 to investigators of the Prosecution on the 20th of January, this statement

18 was disclosed to us in good time. This statement is quite different from

19 the kind of statements we usually receive. It's difficult to provide you

20 with a precise definition, but in fact it's a sort of summary. It's not

21 the usual type of statement we receive. The language used is almost the

22 kind of language you use in a telegram.

23 And then we have another problem with regard to agreements on

24 events up to April, 1992. Then up until May, 1992, we have no other

25 information. So the Defence can assume on the basis of that statement

1 that the witness won't be examined about the period from April, 1992, to

2 May, 1992, nor will there be any documents from that period of time,

3 because it's quite obvious that during that period of time the witness was

4 somewhere that is not relevant to our case.

5 With that statement dated the 20th of January, 2004, we were also

6 provided with a list of documents, 11 documents, that the witness provided

7 to the Prosecution, but the statement doesn't show that these documents

8 were discussed. We know nothing about the character of these documents or

9 of the objective or the link to the witness's statement. This is

10 important because that could provide us with information that we need for

11 our cross-examination.

12 And then, before this testimony, we received a proofing chart in

13 good time and other documents mentioned that the Prosecution intends to

14 use, and this list is not identical to the list that was provided as an

15 attachment to the witness's statement. Together with the proofing chart,

16 certain documents were listed which were compiled from April to May, 1993,

17 and this is a period that the witness hadn't provided any previous

18 statements with regard to that period.

19 The Prosecution also didn't mention anything about the link

20 between these statements and the witness, nor were we informed of how one

21 could establish whether the witness was involved in the events covered by

22 the documents. We don't know whether he had seen the documents, whether

23 he participated in the compiling of the documents, whether they were

24 addressed to him, whether these documents were addressed to the witness or

25 did the witness simply collect these documents at someone's request, or

1 perhaps on his own initiative when he responded to the request made by the

2 Prosecution for testimony.

3 Today, in the morning, the Prosecution provided us with more

4 information about the expected testimony of the witness and, according to

5 the information provided for today, he mentions the paragraphs in the

6 indictment that are not quite identical to what was mentioned in the

7 proofing chart previously provided, and then there are also certain

8 allegations that are contained in the statement the witness made in

9 January, 2004, on the 20th of January, 2004. So it mentions meetings with

10 General Praljak, and in the information we were provided with, these

11 meetings took place during a period of time that the witness doesn't refer

12 to in his previous statement. Then there are new allegations about the

13 Patriotic League. The witness didn't mention anything about this on the

14 20th of January, 2004. Then there are certain claims about an event on

15 the 20th of June, 1992. Similarly, this wasn't previously addressed by

16 the witness. And finally, there are certain claims about changes made to

17 the public telephone network, and similarly, in the first statement this

18 is not mentioned. So it was only this morning that we found out that

19 these events, these facts might be subjects with regard to which the

20 witness would testify.

21 I have informed the Prosecution about the problems we encountered

22 as soon as we established the existence of such problems. That took place

23 on Saturday. This morning the Prosecution replied to the letter. You

24 have received a copy of the letter. I'm not going to talk above my

25 colleagues, but the Prosecution claims that they're not acting contrary to

1 the rules or to common practice. They also claim that they have disclosed

2 everything in good faith and in good time to the Defence.

3 In conclusion, acting in such a way makes it impossible for the

4 Defence to prepare adequately for its cross-examination, or at least makes

5 it significantly more difficult for the Defence, and acting in such a way

6 is contrary to the instructions issued by the Chamber on the 3rd of

7 November and the 3rd of July, as I've already said. And finally, acting

8 in this manner is contrary to the principle of a fair trial because, I

9 have already said, it's impossible for the Defence to prepare adequately,

10 and I therefore suggest that we postpone the testimony of this witness.

11 Thank you very much.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Scott.

13 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, may it please the Court, Mr. Kovacic

14 appears to have certain -- a certain model that he would like all ICTY

15 witness statements to comply with. There is no such model. I do not

16 write these statements. I do not take these statements. They are taken

17 by investigators, sometimes over a period of years, and I may see those

18 statements for the first time a short time before coming into court.

19 The statement that was disclosed to the Defence is exactly the

20 statement that was taken. Now, if Mr. Kovacic had been -- had taken the

21 statement, perhaps he would have taken the statement differently. I can

22 only disclose what I have to disclose, and what I have disclosed is the

23 statement that was taken in January, 2004. It's not a summary. It's a

24 statement. And Mr. Kovacic knows full well that it looks very similar to

25 hundreds of other similar statements that he has seen, that he and I have

1 both seen over the past seven or eight years. So that's just not -- his

2 characterisation and attacks on the statement are just not fair.

3 The documents that were disclosed, Your Honour, include both the

4 documents that were attached to his statement, which the Defence have had

5 for some months. I emphasise the word "months." They've had those

6 statements -- or documents attached to his statement which were disclosed

7 according to the Rules. Various exhibits or documents were then listed in

8 the proofing sheet -- well, number one, first of all they were listed in

9 the 65 ter exhibit list that was filed in January. So they've been on the

10 witness -- on the exhibit list since January. Beyond that, they have been

11 connected -- specifically connected to this witness through his proofing

12 chart.

13 So they were disclosed with the original witness statement some

14 months and months ago, they were disclosed again in our 65 ter filing in

15 January this year; three, they were disclosed and listed again in the

16 proofing chart that was provided to the Defence.

17 Now, I respectfully submit that's ample notice to the Defence of

18 the exhibits and documents that we intend to use with this witness and/or

19 which indicate the fair scope of his questioning and examination.

20 As counsel indicated, members of the Prosecution met with

21 Mr. Cupina yesterday, and -- and as a result -- and that was the first

22 time anyone from the OTP has had any substantive contact or conversation

23 with Mr. Cupina since January of 2004. In the course of that discussion

24 with him, some additional things were said which, out of fairness, we

25 believed should in fact be additionally disclosed to the Defence and they

1 were disclosed as soon as possible this morning. The meeting went into --

2 as I understand it, went into the meeting -- went into the evening last

3 night, a summary statement was prepared, and it was disclosed to the

4 Defence this morning.

5 Sorry, I'm being signalled by Judge Prandler to slow down. My

6 apology.

7 I don't know what more we could have done, Your Honour, to get

8 that information to the Defence than what's been done. As I said in the

9 letters, Your Honour, and -- well, as I said in the letters, I think it's

10 very unfortunate that we have to get into a practice of exchanging these

11 kinds of letters. Up until this letter, I had intentionally refrained

12 from engaging in this -- such an exchange, and the record will show, if

13 anyone wants to go through the correspondence over the past number of

14 months, will show the number of Defence letters that I simply chose not to

15 respond to, to avoid exactly this sort of tit for tat back and forth and

16 hoped that it would eventually go away. But it now appears that this has

17 become standard practice, I won't say for other Defence but certainly for

18 Mr. Kovacic, and therefore I have no choice now except to respond to such

19 letters in kind so that the record is clear and so that when your court

20 officers and staff see these letters, don't assume that they -- or

21 understand that they are accurate or that they represent the full picture

22 and therefore it's necessary for the Prosecution to respond with its -- at

23 least its view of events. So that's what we've tried to do.

24 Your Honour, I believe there's been complete and fair disclosure

25 concerning this witness and that we are prepared to go forward to offer

1 his evidence today. Thank you.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Kovacic, I have

3 read your letters with interest, as well as Mr. Scott's response. Do sit

4 down. I'll give you the floor when I'm finished.

5 It seems that you are not aware of how investigations are carried

6 out before this Tribunal. Initially, the investigators go to receive

7 statements given by witnesses who might be able to enlighten the Tribunal

8 with regard to events that took place. As you, Mr. Scott, have said, it

9 was on the 20th of January, 2004, that the witness who will be called into

10 courtroom today was heard, and that's when he gave a statement. There

11 were certain attachments to his statement, and these attachments were

12 discussed when the investigator and the witness met. Once this statement

13 had been given, as in the case of other statements, this was provided to

14 the Confirming Judge, and I can inform you of the fact that I was the

15 Confirming Judge. An indictment is confirmed with regard to statements

16 taken.

17 Once the confirmation has been made, the Prosecutor continues to

18 carry out his investigations, and when a witness is heard, in this case in

19 2004, there are certain other -- there is certain other information that

20 crops up. Pursuant to 65 ter, Rule 65 ter, the Prosecution has to provide

21 a summary about the subject of the examination-in-chief, but it's a

22 summary. It's not for the Prosecution -- or it's not necessary for the

23 Prosecution to mention all the areas that the witness will be questioned

24 about. It's a summary, and this summary will also refer to the written

25 statement. So the Prosecution has the right to ask questions on the basis

1 of the written statement, but he also has the right to ask the witness

2 questions about -- about the charges in the indictment that are referred

3 to in the summary.

4 In the summary, it says violations 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20,

5 21, 24, 25 and 26. And the Prosecution said this concerned paragraphs 5,

6 13, 14, 17, 39, 96, 97, 100, 112, 114, 116, 122, 131. In addition, when I

7 read through the sheet of paper that you have seen as well, the accused

8 have been mentioned in a certain order with regard to the questions that

9 will be put. Mr. Pusic is in the first place, then there's Mr. Stojic,

10 third place Mr. Praljak, in fourth place Petkovic, and then Coric and

11 Prlic. So this chart quite clearly shows that the accused who is mostly

12 concerned is Mr. Pusic, then Mr. Stojic, and then Mr. Praljak. This is

13 common practice before this Tribunal, and on a number of occasions you

14 have made submissions stating that the Prosecution doesn't have the right

15 to put certain questions. It has the right to put questions on the basis

16 of the summary that we have here, on the basis of the paragraphs referred

17 to, and also on the basis of what is of interest in the indictment.

18 What do the Rules say? According to the Rules, everything is

19 quite clear. We're interested in Rule 89 and Rule 90. According to 89,

20 the Chamber applies the Rules mentioned in section 3: "A Chamber shall

21 apply the rules of evidence set forth in this Section," and is not "bound

22 by national rules of evidence," Croatian rules of evidence, French rules

23 of evidence, American rules of evidence. This is quite secondary. So

24 that's what is stated in the Rules. It says the Chamber "shall apply the

25 rules of evidence which will best favour a fair determination of the

1 matter before it and are consonant with the spirit of the Statute and the

2 general principles of laws" in cases not otherwise provided for in this

3 section. And paragraph (C) says the Chamber "may admit any relevant

4 evidence which it deems to have probative value."

5 So this is how one proceeds when hearing witnesses. Each time a

6 witness appears, we don't want to find ourselves in a situation where we

7 have to deal with exchanges of correspondence. Things will be a lot

8 clearer as of the 4th of September, because by that time the Prosecution

9 will have provided us with a complete list of witnesses and documents

10 together with the relevant paragraphs. So there will be no surprises once

11 this has been done. But I must note that this witness statement is one

12 that was provided to you a long time ago, and therefore you are in a

13 position to conduct your cross-examination and deal with any problems that

14 you might encounter in the course of your cross-examination.

15 So this is the problem that we are facing, and it's one that I

16 fail to understand. Mr. Kovacic.

17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I fully agree with your

18 position, with your explanation, and I adhere by your -- the principles

19 you have mentioned, except in certain cases, but with regard to disclosing

20 the subject of the examination, with regard to the information provided in

21 the first 65 ter chart, well, all that is correct. However, the

22 Prosecution is providing us with different types of information. Here

23 they're mentioning -- here we're mentioning the fact that there's a

24 conflict of information. We received one type of information in January,

25 we received other information later on, another type of information in the

1 witness's statement. So the Prosecution is saying something that I didn't

2 say.

3 We received all this material a long time ago. There's no problem

4 as far as that is concerned, but I cannot be provided with a statement and

5 all these other charts if on each occasion I'm provided with conflicting

6 information. There's one period, April, 1992, May, 1993, and this hasn't

7 been covered.

8 So my main argument, and that's the purpose of Rule 89, and Rule

9 90. My argument is that things should be transparent, and as the

10 situation is, the situation is not completely transparent because each new

11 document, each new list confuses us.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

13 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may be of assistance. I think what -- I can

14 understand Mr. Scott's position. He's not out in the field. An

15 investigator is sent out to -- to meet with the witness. That

16 investigator is not necessarily a jurist, doesn't have a law degree,

17 certainly is not a Judge or not an investigative Judge. What we see here

18 - and this is a perfect example - is where certain information was

19 provided to the investigator and at some point during the meeting the

20 gentleman provided the investigator with certain documents. We don't see

21 any discussion with respect to those particular documents that were handed

22 over, which begs the question if an investigator is out there to collect

23 information and somebody comes with a bunch of documents, why wouldn't the

24 investigator ask questions? It just perhaps highlights the fact that

25 we're not dealing with trained investigators as one would find in the

1 continental system, and perhaps that's why we're at somewhat of a

2 disadvantage, because now we're being asked -- we're trying to figure out

3 how could this witness possibly discuss these documents when he didn't

4 discuss them with the Prosecutor or the Prosecution's representative in

5 the field. And when you look at the documents that we're presented, he

6 hasn't generated those documents, and that -- and that -- and so that

7 poses a problem for us: How do we prepare for such a witness? And I

8 think that's what Mr. Kovacic was trying to -- to relay to Mr. Scott. And

9 I don't know if that's of any help.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Karnavas. You've

11 dealt with the problem in a very clear way. You have presented it in a

12 very clear way.

13 It's true that when a witness statement is taken he mentions an

14 entire series of events, and certain documents are attached to the

15 statement. I don't know how American investigators or British or

16 Australian investigators proceed, but a French investigator would have

17 said, "We're presenting you with Attachment A which relates to the 21st of

18 May and 21st of June, 1993. It's been signed by Mr. Pavlovic. What do

19 you have to say about this?" And then in the written statement it would

20 say, "The witness stated the following ..." and then he'd comment on each

21 document. That's how one would proceed.

22 Unfortunately, in the case of the work carried out by

23 investigators from this Tribunal, we can see that we have lists of

24 documents that appear, but the witness concerned doesn't make any comments

25 on these documents to the investigator. And today we will be presenting

1 the witness with documents, but the witness didn't make any statements

2 with regard to these documents when he made his written statement. So

3 this is the actual problem. But it's been partially solved because the

4 proceedings are adversarial and, as a result, the witness will mention

5 what his -- the position is, and you'll be able to cross-examine the

6 witness with regard to his statements.

7 Ideally, however, the witness would have already commented on the

8 documents attached to his written statements. Unfortunately, this was not

9 done. So I do agree with you as far as this issue is concerned.

10 Mr. Scott, as we have now managed to identify the problem, you'll

11 be able to clarify the situation for us too.

12 MR. SCOTT: Two points, Your Honour. In looking at the statement,

13 first of all, one of the comments, one of the complaints that's been

14 raised is that the -- there's not been adequate notice that events related

15 -- concerning 1992, excuse me, were -- would be covered by this witness,

16 and I just this moment ago -- it really didn't take more than a few

17 minutes, I just now went back through the statement very quickly and there

18 are a number of references throughout the document that talk about events

19 in 1992: Paragraph 7, paragraph 8, paragraph -- excuse me, paragraph 17,

20 paragraph 19. It's just simply not accurate -- paragraph 35. It's simply

21 not accurate to say the document gives no indication of addressing events

22 earlier than 1993, and the statement -- that's just not at all what the

23 statement says.

24 Secondly, Your Honour, in terms of the documents and in defence of

25 my investigative colleagues, this was a situation, and this is a situation

1 that happens not infrequently, and again Mr. Kovacic is well aware of this

2 from his work with this Tribunal since 1998 when he and I worked together

3 on the Kordic/Cerkez case on opposite sides again. He knows full well

4 that what frequently happens in this situation and what happens here is

5 that when a witness is met in the field, documents are presented to the

6 investigator which neither the investigator nor the interpreter nor anyone

7 has seen for the first time. And anyone who has a copy of Mr. Cupina's

8 statement, paragraph 38, it says the following: "Below is the list of

9 documents that I have turned over to the investigator from the Tribunal,"

10 and then it lists annexes A through annex K.

11 Now, as I said in my letter, Your Honour, this happens in the

12 field. Now, I don't know exactly what the schedule was. I don't know

13 exactly what the circumstance was when the -- this investigative team met

14 with this witness. They may have had a limited time. They may have had

15 reasons they had to be back in Sarajevo later that night. There could be

16 a jillion different reasons. They show up for a witness, they may have

17 allocated a couple of hours to see the witness, they meet that witness,

18 and the witness for the first time handles them -- hands them a bundle of

19 documents, untranslated, all in B/C/S. Now, at that particular moment the

20 investigators may not have any opportunity or time sufficient time or

21 preparation to take the -- take the witness through those documents in any

22 sort of prepared way. So it's not a situation where the investigators

23 prepare the interview in The Hague, took with them certain documents to

24 ask the witness about, which of course would have been prepared ahead of

25 time, and proceeded in such a fashion.

1 This was a situation quite the opposite. This is a situation in

2 which the witness himself unexpectedly provided the investigative team

3 with a number of documents in the field on the spot, and only -- only

4 certain things could be done to deal with the documents, if at all, at

5 that particular moment. So that is the situation.

6 I don't think that, in my respectful submission, in this respect I

7 don't think American or British or French investigators work that much

8 different than others. I think it's unfair. I think it's unfair to

9 suggest that one system's investigators are superior to the others. I

10 have worked with some very fine -- I've worked with some of the best

11 investigators in the world in the United States. I've also worked with

12 some of the poorest investigators in the world in the United States, and I

13 think that's true in every system in the world, including all those

14 represented on the Bench. So I think it's an unfair statement by counsel

15 to attack the statement in this way. Thank you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Murphy.

17 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, just for the sake of completeness, I

18 think we should note that it was only last week that the Trial Chamber

19 rendered an oral decision regarding the disclosure of new information to

20 the Defence in a case in which the Prosecution, at a late date during a

21 proofing session, for example, became aware of certain information that

22 had not previously been disclosed. That was on the 3rd of July. The

23 transcript reference begins at page 4249, I believe.

24 Your Honour, if the Trial Chamber will recall, there was some very

25 explicit guidance given to the parties at that time, part of which was

1 that when such information comes to the attention of the Prosecution, it

2 should be made instantly available to the Defence by e-mail, telephone, or

3 fax, contacting the Defence so that they should be in a position to

4 prepare a cross-examination.

5 There was also more general guidance given as to the -- the -- the

6 general period of two weeks prior to the testimony of a witness, during

7 which disclosure of the relevant documents should be made. And, Your

8 Honour, just for consistency, I think we should not conclude the

9 discussion without at least referring to that decision.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, it is true that we

11 gave that ruling on the 3rd of July, and I have it before me, and it

12 referred to new points which did not come up during the written statement

13 or testimony. Then it is up to the Prosecution to inform the Defence

14 within a deadline.

15 Now, with respect to the 20th of January, 2004, statement, were

16 there any new points that you would like to ask the witness about, examine

17 him on? And if that is the case, when did you inform the Defence thereof?

18 MR. SCOTT: There are points, Your Honour, that --

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Scott.

20 MR. SCOTT: There were points, Your Honour, that were added, that

21 were amplified on by the witness which we felt should be additionally

22 disclosed. All -- many of these points -- sorry, not all. I don't want

23 to overstate. Many of these points were covered in the documentation that

24 was attached to his statement and in the exhibits that were identified by

25 the Prosecution previously. So I'm not going to say that is that most of

1 these things, they were entirely new, but he indeed said some things that

2 we thought should be disclosed.

3 Now, this -- the preparation of this witness was completed at --

4 shortly before 10.00 p.m. last night, and the additional disclosure was

5 made this morning. So I'm not sure how much faster the Prosecution can

6 turn around that information. If it receives that information sometime on

7 Sunday day evening and turns it over on Monday morning, I'm not sure, Your

8 Honour, how we're supposed to do any better than that.

9 As in terms of the previous guidelines given by the Chamber last

10 week, the Chamber may recall that Mr. Cupina was a fill-in witness, if you

11 will, when other witnesses would not -- were not available, and had

12 already been scheduled previous to the guidelines given last week, and of

13 course we couldn't possibly comply with all -- strictly comply with all

14 guidelines last week. Unfortunately, I have not yet developed any sort of

15 a time machine that allows me to go back in time to do such things.

16 However, we wanted to use the time wisely and use the time this week. Mr.

17 Cupina was disclosed some days ago, and is indeed prepared to testify to

18 use the available court time.

19 I should say to balance this presentation, Your Honour, as the

20 Court knows from last week, there was also another witness scheduled for

21 later this week, and because indeed it turned out to have been some

22 problems with the disclosure - some of the CDs didn't work, some of them

23 -- there were other problems with the CDs and translations - we indeed, I

24 think -- I hope Defence counsel will confirm, postponed that witness out

25 of -- out of -- out of those concerns, based on those concerns. So I

1 think the Prosecution has acted in good faith on both counts. We have

2 done everything we can to prepare this witness and present as much

3 information to the Defence as possible. It probably isn't perfect,

4 perhaps we'll never be able to meet up -- to live up to Mr. Kovacic's

5 standards, but we're doing the best that we can.

6 Thank you.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. The Judges would

8 like to have the witness shown in. Would Madam Usher bring him in,

9 please.

10 MR. KARNAVAS: And while we're getting the witness, Your Honour,

11 we do have to deal with the issue of exhibits from the previous witness,

12 if we could do that at some point. I just -- as a reminder.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. I haven't forgotten

14 that. In principle, we'll do that tomorrow when we get through this

15 witness.

16 [The witness entered court]

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. First of

18 all, I'd like to check to see if you can hear properly in your own

19 language. If you can, tell me that you can hear and understand.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can hear you and I can

21 understand you as well.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Could you give me

23 your first and last name and date of birth now, please.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My name is Suad Cupina. I was born

25 on the 11th of November, 1951, in Mostar.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And what is your profession --

2 profession or occupation now?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I am a professional deputy in the

4 Assembly -- or, rather, the cantonal Sarajevo Assembly.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, have you ever testified

6 before an International Tribunal before or a national court on the facts

7 that -- and circumstances that took place in your country in 1992 and 1993

8 and 1994, or is this the first time that you're testifying?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I have never testified either before

10 an International Tribunal or a court in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is the

11 first time that I am testifying.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. I'm now going to ask

13 you to read out the solemn declaration.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

15 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You may be seated, Mr. Deputy.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 WITNESS: SUAD CUPINA

19 [Witness answered through interpreter]

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I saw you coming in with a large

21 binder under your arm and I saw all the Defence counsel looking at what

22 you were bringing in, so I'm going to tell you that you're going to have

23 to answer questions without looking at the binder. You can put it down by

24 your feet. You do not have the right to consult those documents. So I

25 hope you've understood that. The documents must be set aside.

1 I'm going to give you some brief information about the proceedings

2 and how they are conducted. You are, first of all, going to be answering

3 questions put to you by the representatives of Madam Carla Del Ponte and

4 those people who you have already met after, as we have heard, yesterday

5 at 10.00, which was very late indeed, but the Prosecution had no means of

6 seeing you before that.

7 Once the Prosecution has completed its examination-in-chief, and I

8 have been told that that will take one and a half hours, dealing with

9 basic issues, you will then be answering questions put to you by the

10 Defence. They are the Defence teams of the six accused, and they are

11 sitting to your left. I don't know the order in which the Defence teams

12 will be asking their questions, but they will be conducting what we call

13 the cross-examination.

14 The four Judges sitting in front of you can also ask you questions

15 at any point in time if they consider that necessary and if they believe

16 your answers could provide additional explanation. If you have any

17 difficulties whatsoever during the examination, please don't hesitate to

18 let us know.

19 Now, for technical reasons we have to make pauses after one and a

20 half hours of sitting, so the next break will be at approximately 3.40.

21 We make 20-minute breaks and reconvene after that. So today we shall be

22 working until 7.00 p.m., and tomorrow we start again at 9.00 and work

23 until 12.30. Then we'll have a lunch break and go on working from 2.00 to

24 5.15, and I hope by that time we'll have completed your examination and

25 cross-examination and you'll be able to go back home either Tuesday

1 evening or Wednesday morning.

2 So that, in general terms, is how the proceedings are conducted

3 and what you can expect, because you have been called as a Prosecution

4 witness to give testimony with regard to certain facts and circumstances.

5 Having said that, Mr. Scott, without further ado, I give you the

6 floor.

7 Mr. Karnavas.

8 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder if there's

9 anything in the binder that the gentleman brought over that was not

10 provided to the Prosecution, which means that it wasn't provided to the

11 Defence. If that is the case -- if that is the case -- and if the

12 gentleman brought that material in order to look at it, I would ask that

13 he make it available to us to copy it. We could do so during the break.

14 It wouldn't be any inconvenience to the gentleman.

15 And I see he's shaking his head, so I assume he brought it for his

16 own personal use and doesn't wish to share it with us.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

18 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I've also observed the witness has in

19 front of him a book which I don't believe will be tendered by the

20 Prosecution but I believe may deal with certain subjects of his testimony

21 and may it be made clear to the witness that that book should also remain

22 closed until referred to, please. Thank you.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As I said a moment ago, keep

24 your documents closed. You will just be answering questions put to you by

25 the Prosecution unless they show you some documents. But since last

1 night, if the Prosecutor provided you with documents that you have there,

2 are those some of the documents that you have beside you?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure I understood, Your

4 Honour. I didn't understand your question.

5 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, these are documents that the witness

6 brought with him personally, they were not provided to him by the

7 Prosecution. I have explained to the witness, on meeting him briefly

8 today, that he would not be able to use those documents in court unless

9 some specific leave was given by the Chamber.

10 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may interject here. Two points:

11 First of all, I'm not suggesting that the Prosecution provided those notes

12 to the gentleman; however, if the gentleman is going to be looking at

13 anything that's in that binder that was not provided to the Prosecution or

14 to the Defence, I would object. I would like to see it in advance.

15 That's number one.

16 Number two, when the gentleman closed his binder, I can see from

17 my vantage point that he has a sheet of paper that's inside the binder but

18 very visible. There you go. He's pulling it out right now. And so --

19 yes.

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] These are the instructions.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is that piece of paper,

22 Witness?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Several instructions for witnesses

24 with respect to interpretation. Nothing more than that.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: I have to ask. I have to ask. It looked like --

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: -- to me, so I just needed to ask.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Having settled that point, it is

4 3.00, Mr. Scott. You can begin your examination-in-chief, and you have 40

5 minutes before the break.

6 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. President.

7 Examination by Mr. Scott:

8 Q. And good afternoon, sir.

9 A. Good afternoon.

10 Q. Sir, just to -- the Judge touched on some of your background but

11 let me touch on it just a bit more. You were born in Mostar, sir, in what

12 year?

13 A. On the 11th of November, 1951.

14 Q. And I understand that you lived there more or less continuously

15 until 1970 when you moved away for a time. You returned to Mostar in

16 approximately 1980, and you have generally lived in Mostar since 1980; is

17 that correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. I understand you are a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovina, you are of

20 the Islamic faith, and I also understand that your wife is of the Roman

21 Catholic faith; is that correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to object to that, to making references

24 to one's spouse as if that is something to be given credit for, for the

25 purposes of credibility. I don't think it's proper under these

1 circumstances.

2 MR. SCOTT:

3 Q. Sir --

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Continue, Mr. Scott.

5 MR. SCOTT:

6 Q. Sir, I understand that you are a -- or have been quite -- quite

7 talented and skilled in karate and there was a time when in fact you were

8 the European champion in karate; is that right?

9 A. Yes. I am the multiple champion of the former Yugoslavia, as a

10 sportsman. I was the team selector for Yugoslavia and of

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina now. And Bosnia-Herzegovina has the best team in the

12 history of sports.

13 Q. Is that an interest that you have in -- in common with Mr. Coric?

14 A. Yes. Mr. Coric was a pupil of mine in karate, and he came to

15 Mostar in 1986 because his father wanted him to come and asked me to help

16 him with respect to university and the machine engineering faculty, and he

17 -- the club, the Dzemal Bijedic -- at the Dzemal Bijedic University was

18 one of the most successful clubs in Yugoslavia.

19 Q. Sir, I understand you have a bachelor's degree in economics from

20 Mostar and you also have a master's degree in physical culture; is that

21 correct?

22 A. Yes. I graduated from the high school of economics in Sarajevo,

23 graduated from the faculty in Mostar, and am now -- I have now gained an

24 MA in the sphere of physical culture and I'm on my way to getting a Ph.D.

25 Q. Now, I'm not going to go through every detail of your previous

1 occupations and that sort of thing, or education, but in 1986 you began

2 working for a tourist agency in Mostar. Sometime in around 1990 or 1991,

3 were you a member of the reserve police? Did you become a member of the

4 reserve police in Mostar?

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry, I have a little question in between. You

6 are working on a Ph.D. in economics or in physical culture?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sports.

8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

9 MR. SCOTT:

10 Q. Sir, sometime in 1990 or 1991, did you become a member of the

11 reserve police in Mostar?

12 A. On the 19th of September, 1991. I became a reservist of the

13 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and I was

14 activated into the reserve police force of the Republic of

15 Bosnia-Herzegovina, which means that on the 19th of September, 1991, upon

16 the arrival of the Serb and Montenegro reservists on the territory of

17 Mostar municipality.

18 Q. And there did come a time when you became not only that you were

19 essentially mobilised or activated, but did you serve both in the police

20 and did you later serve as a soldier during the war in Mostar?

21 A. Yes, that's correct. I did work within the wartime reserve

22 station with the wartime deployment of the Ministry of the Interior of the

23 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and it was called the war police station,

24 which encompassed the area from the entrance of Mostar until -- up until

25 the old bridge or, rather, the right bank of the river Neretva next to the

1 police station in Kamena Zgrada. After that I continued working as a

2 member of the BH army.

3 Q. All right. Some of these things, sir, we will come to in a few

4 minutes. In terms your background, is it correct that you wrote a book

5 about some of the events in Bosnia-Herzegovina published in 2006?

6 A. I published the book sometime in January, 2006. The publishing

7 house is the Society of Intellectuals of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I'm the

8 author of the book, and I printed it in Des, which is a firm in Sarajevo,

9 and it is entitled "The Defence and Treachery -- and Traitors Related to

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina." It's part of the truth as I see it.

11 Q. And does this book cover primarily the period 1991 to 1995?

12 A. That book encompasses that period, and I deal with Serbian Fascism

13 and Tudjman's Fascism, or, rather, the aggression against

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina and all the people who took part in breaking up the

15 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

16 Q. Now, during the 1990s, is it correct, sir, that the -- the media

17 publication Oslobodjenje published a series of articles prepared or

18 written by you focussing on your experiences and the experiences of others

19 during the war in Mostar?

20 A. In 1993, upon my arrival in Sarajevo with the gentleman from

21 Oslobodjenje or, rather, another paper called Vecernje Novine, I published

22 articles about a series of events that took place in Mostar. It was a

23 series, 16 in Vecernje Novine. It was not only a story told by me but it

24 concerned many of the other people that took part in the happenings of

25 Mostar during that period of time.

1 Q. And, sir, the last question on your background: Are you currently

2 writing a second book on the war, that is the Balkan war in the -- roughly

3 again the period 1991, 1995?

4 A. As I call the first book Book One, the second and third books are

5 nearing completion, and if I have the financial means, I hope to publish

6 it shortly.

7 Q. Now, sir, with this background in mind, can I have -- ask for the

8 registry's assistance in showing you Exhibit 1376, P 01376. And once you

9 see that, sir, and if you need the -- to see other pages or want to scroll

10 down or what have you, you just need to ask for the courtroom staff to

11 assist you in looking further at other parts of the document.

12 But if you've seen that document, can you just -- I'm not asking

13 you any questions about the content of the document at the moment, but can

14 you just tell us -- first of all, tell us what this document is and the

15 approximate date of its preparation.

16 A. This document is a sequence of events that took place in Mostar

17 and the surrounding parts already in September, 1992. The Cultural Club

18 of the Muslims compiled an analysis of all the events in the

19 socio-political life of the town of Mostar.

20 In 1993, an analysis of the state administration in the territory

21 of Herzegovina was compiled on how to establish legal power and authority,

22 because the HZ HB toppled the entire state system in Bosnia-Herzegovina in

23 the Mostar area.

24 Q. All right. If it will assist you, can you look at the last page

25 of the document and tell us the date of its -- that the -- the date of the

1 document. I don't want to say publication necessarily, but the date

2 indicated on the document.

3 A. That document was typed out in February, 1993. The authors of the

4 text are Maslo Sead - he is the current ambassador of Bosnia-Herzegovina

5 in Copenhagen, Denmark - then there was Hamdija Jahic, who is an active

6 duty ambassador today in Sofia, Bulgaria; and Ismet Campara, who lives and

7 works in Mostar.

8 Sead Maslo is married to my sister Merima.

9 Q. Can you tell us, sir, what were you doing in terms of vocationally

10 or in the military, or what were you doing as of February, 1993, when this

11 document was finalised?

12 A. At that time, in February, 1993, that is, around the 14th of

13 February I went to Sarajevo with a friend of mine, the late Midhat Hujka.

14 That was on the 14th of February, 1993, and I informed the republican

15 authorities about the situation in Mostar, about all the developments and

16 trends in the legal sphere, political sphere, jurisprudence, on a social

17 level and social -- and so on, and brought with me a number of documents

18 which violated the official legal system by the HZ HB, as it was called.

19 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may interject here, Your Honour. Mr. Scott's

20 questions are rather specific. I assume that he has a reason for those

21 questions. I would expect the gentleman, who is rather educated, to

22 answer the questions. It makes it difficult for me to object otherwise,

23 because I'm going to be objecting on the basis of the question, and I

24 don't wish to interfere with the gentleman's narration, but he should

25 stick to answering the questions.

1 Secondly, I wish to point out that the document is dated. We

2 don't know whether this is the exact date. He can read what the date is;

3 it doesn't mean that this was actually created. And I would like some

4 foundation more before we go into this document, or otherwise I will be

5 objecting strenuously as to this document being used through this

6 particular gentleman, because again, as I point out, when the gentleman

7 spoke with the Prosecutors or the representative of the Prosecutor, he did

8 not see fit to show it to them and discuss it with them at the time that

9 he gave his interview. Now, obviously, he can't wait to discuss the

10 document, and this is sort of an ambush.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. So what is the link

12 between that document and the witness, apart from the fact that one of the

13 three authors is his brother-in-law?

14 MR. SCOTT: I was about to get to that, Your Honour, and the

15 question -- I did put a specific question to the witness, which I'll come

16 back to in a moment. For the most part I don't take any quarrel with --

17 have any quarrel with Mr. Karnavas's comments, except that again, Your

18 Honour, it's just -- it's completely unfair and inappropriate to say --

19 when he says -- Mr. Karnavas says on line 10 of page 29: "... he did not

20 see fit to show it to them and discuss it with them at the time that he

21 gave his interview. Now, obviously, he can't wait to discuss the

22 document, and this is sort of an ambush."

23 Your Honour, that is just unfair commentary. For the reasons

24 indicated earlier, there is nothing to suggest that this witness did not

25 see fit to discuss it earlier. That is pure commentary by Mr. Karnavas,

1 and it's inappropriate.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: There is nothing in the statement that shows that

3 the gentleman tried to speak with them and the OTP didn't want to hear him

4 at the time.

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It's really an unfair assumption that you make.

6 There is no reason to make such an assumption. It has been explained that

7 we do not know exactly what happens at the moment when these documents

8 were handed over, so cynical remarks like he did not see it to be fit are

9 not in their place here. Please, Mr. Karnavas, keep fair. You ask

10 fairness of others.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes. And they have a translator at the time that

12 they're doing the interview. When the gentleman provided those documents,

13 the translator could have looked at them, but there's nothing in -- in his

14 statement at the time where he discussed the documents. Now we're going

15 to hear for the very first time since 2004 what these documents mean to

16 this particular gentleman. It is an ambush to the Defence.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Scott. The document

18 that has suddenly appeared, would you ask your questions so that we

19 understand how the document appeared and what the document is that you

20 wish to examine him on. Perhaps he knows about the document because of

21 his brother-in-law, but anyway, ask the question.

22 MR. SCOTT: All questions were intended to be asked about ten

23 minutes ago, Your Honour, before these interventions. It's not really

24 fair to say that the document suddenly appeared. The document was

25 provided in 2004, not suddenly.

1 Q. Mr. Cupina, please listen directly to my question and answer

2 specifically the question that I ask you in this regard, and we'll take

3 this in steps. I asked you, by way of background leading into this

4 matter, can you tell the Judges what you were doing, what activities you

5 were engaged in in approximately February, 1993; January, February, 1993.

6 A. Already on the 6th of June, 1992, I was appointed the commander of

7 the military police of the Mostar region. On the 20th of June, 1992, I

8 was unable to get approval from Mr. Boban for us to form the police

9 jointly, because they insisted on a separate police of their own, that

10 there was no Bosnia and Herzegovina in existence, that they would be

11 making their own state, so that I went underground and informed the state

12 top officials about events in Mostar.

13 Before that, in September, 1992, a Muslim council was established

14 and my brother was its president. This was a circle of intellectuals who

15 prepared a series of documents --

16 MR. MURPHY: I'm going to add my voice to that of Mr. Karnavas.

17 The witness is being non-responsive to the question and clearly is taking

18 advantage of each question to say exactly what he wishes, and he'll have

19 the opportunity to do so, but it's important that it should be done one

20 step at a time, and I ask that Mr. Scott please proceed by way of question

21 and answer.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Scott, if you're

23 asking questions, it's for us to get to the documents. So the witness

24 must answer in such a way that we know whether the documents are linked to

25 him, either by way of his being the author or because of the contents.

1 MR. SCOTT:

2 Q. Sir, if you will put exhibit -- I guess what -- we can do it

3 differently. If you will put Exhibit 1376 aside for the time being, or

4 mechanically, technologically, put it aside, and we'll do this a different

5 way.

6 When you were activated by -- as a member of the military police,

7 how long did you continue to act in that position?

8 A. Well, officially I did not hold that position for a long time

9 because it was not possible. And in order to avoid any conflicts, we did

10 not activate the military police. And the way I worked was to send the

11 records to the Ministry of the Interior and to the army of Bosnia and

12 Herzegovina from the field so as to keep Sarajevo informed. Maybe from

13 the 16th of June or, rather --

14 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection.

15 MR. MURPHY: Objection.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: The gentleman does not wish to answer questions. I

17 understand he's a politician, and I'm trying to be fair. God knows I want

18 to be fair to the gentleman, but he has to answer questions. Now,

19 Mr. Scott is struggling here. I'd like to help him out: Who, what,

20 where, why, how?

21 MR. SCOTT: I'm not struggling, Your Honour.

22 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, it seems to be struggling. He can ask

23 chronologically, and maybe we can make it easier for the gentleman. We

24 don't need to hear all this other stuff, but he can go step-by-step. The

25 question was: How long? Now, he can tell us, and then the next question

1 is: How were you able to carry out your function? And then he can go

2 into a long narration. And then what did you do? And then what happened

3 next? That's how direct examination's done. It's simple, it's by the

4 book: Who, what, where, why, how? Describe and explain. That's it.

5 Nothing complicated about this. But the gentleman must answer the

6 questions. We're going to hit -- you're going to have an opportunity to

7 tell his entire story, but it has to be fair to us as well.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Scott, try to

9 put questions to the witness so that he can tell us exactly when he was

10 the commander of the military police. First, it would be interesting to

11 know who appointed him to that position. We'd like to know which period

12 was concerned, why he didn't exercise his duties, et cetera, et cetera.

13 So try to go in chronological order, if possible.

14 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And if the witness doesn't

16 provide you with a clear answer to your question, put the question to him

17 again. Try to make sure that the witness doesn't go off on a tangent.

18 MR. SCOTT: I appreciate all this assistance -- all the assistance

19 I'm getting in the courtroom, Your Honour, having done this for some many,

20 many years, 27 years, but I'll try to do better, of course.

21 Q. Sir, we'll go back. We'll go back to the very beginning and we

22 will take it one step and one day at a time if we have to.

23 You said that at some time during -- and it's left the page now.

24 If you can please look at the -- I was going to say the page but you don't

25 have that page any more.

1 When were you first activated as a member of the police?

2 A. On the 12th June, 1992. Appointed to that position by Commander

3 Sefer Halilovic.

4 Q. And how long did you continue in that position, sir? [B/C/S on

5 English channel].

6 A. Officially, I was never relieved of that office but I reported. I

7 sent regular reports.

8 Q. And what was your actual position at that time? You said you were

9 first activated as a member of the police. Were you a -- what we might

10 all a line -- a line police officer or what position did you hold as of

11 the 12th of June, 1992?

12 A. Apart from that, I maintained a direct line with the Ministry of

13 the Interior of Bosnia -- of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I sent regular

14 reports to the minister, who at that time was Jusuf Pusina, the minister

15 of the interior, that is.

16 Q. As guided by the president, please listen and answer specifically

17 my question. My question to you: What was your position as of the 12th

18 of June, 1992? Did you have a rank; were you a commander, were you a

19 captain? That's the only question I'm asking you at this moment.

20 A. At that time, I was just an ordinary operative worker who sent

21 regular reports to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I was

22 promoted to the rank of officer, I believe, in 1996 only.

23 Q. What was the nature of these reports that you've told us you were

24 sending to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and whose direction or

25 to who were you sending those reports?

1 A. I sent these reports to the Ministry of the Interior, to General

2 Sefer Halilovic, meaning also the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to

3 political leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

4 Q. You mentioned earlier -- and I just use this simply as a benchmark

5 and then we can go forward or backwards depending on your answer. You

6 mentioned some pages ago in the transcript that at one point you

7 approached Mate Boban about forming a joint HVO-Muslim police force. Do

8 you recall that? My first question is: Do you recall when you said that

9 earlier?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. And approximately when did you have this conversation or meeting

12 with Mr. Boban?

13 A. When I received the order that I would be made commander on the

14 20th of June, 1992. I went for talks to Grude where Mate Boban was, and

15 Mr. Maric as his secretary. This took place in a hotel, and I believe it

16 is down there by or in the bowling alley. Apart from them, Senad Saja was

17 with me where we talked about the resubordination of the military police

18 of the HVO to the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of the army of

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina to legal organs, and Mate Boban refused that, and he --

20 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, the question was, "Approximately when

21 did you have this conversation with Mr. Boban?" May we please have the

22 next question.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said on the 20th of June, 1992.

24 MR. SCOTT:

25 Q. You can --

1 A. At the hotel in Grude.

2 Q. I will ask the next question. You had this meeting with Mr. Boban

3 and you've already described it to us now, at least in part, twice. I

4 won't ask you to repeat it again except to tell us -- tell us what

5 Mr. Boban's response was to your proposition that the HVO police should be

6 subordinate to the police of Bosnia and Herzegovina. What was his

7 response to that?

8 A. Mr. Boban's response was that he did not recognise the leadership

9 in Sarajevo, that he did not recognise the Republic of Bosnia and

10 Herzegovina, that this would be the state of the Croats, the so-called

11 HZ HB, that he would not recognise anything coming from Sarajevo, and he

12 offered to me what I just said a while ago.

13 Q. What did he offer to you, because I'm not sure if we got that or

14 not. What did he offer to you?

15 A. Mr. Boban offered me to choose any position within the HZ HB, to

16 choose a flat in Croatia because I have two children, and as he knew that

17 I was a karate sportist and so were his nephews, he said that he would

18 provide for me. And I said, no, never. I said, however, that it would be

19 good to have a joint police between the Croatian and the Muslim police,

20 and I also said that it was good because Coric Valentin was my pupil, was

21 on the other side.

22 MR. KARNAVAS: If we may have a point of clarification, Your

23 Honour, just for the record, and I'm sure that Your Honours are probably

24 interested. He indicated that he was an operative worker. That's what he

25 was back on 12 June, 1992. Appointed, I assume, by Halilovic and not

1 until 1996 when he got the rank of officer. Then he went on to say that

2 he would be made a commander and that's why he went to see Mate Boban on

3 20th of June in 1992. I guess the question is what rank is he at that

4 point in time? Is he still an operative worker? Who sent him there? On

5 what basis is he there? I think these are very critical, because

6 obviously we want to check all of this.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. I've noticed that he was

8 rapidly promoted, but in 1996, given that initially he was an operative

9 worker -- well, it was in 1996 that he became an officer. So perhaps

10 there is something that ought to be clarified here.

11 MR. SCOTT:

12 Q. All right. Mr. Cupina, I don't know if it's partly -- if there

13 are some problems with translation going on or you and I are just having a

14 problem communicating. If it's my fault, I apologise for that.

15 You said a moment ago when you were appointed as a police officer,

16 activated as police officer in June of 1992, or when you were first --

17 excuse me, when you were first activated, you held the rank of, if I can

18 use the term, a line police officer. You were a police officer without

19 any particular higher rank, not captain, not anything like that.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Your Honour. Excuse me. First of all,

21 this is leading, and secondly he said he was an operative worker. I mean,

22 there's a difference. I don't know what an operative worker is.

23 MR. SCOTT: Well, maybe if Mr. Karnavas would let me ask a couple

24 of questions, I can get there, Your Honour.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: He can ask an open-ended question. He's telling

1 him now, "You were a line police officer."

2 MR. KARNAVAS: That's what he told us.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Cupina, you said that you

4 were an operative worker. What does that mean exactly?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I try to explain this very

6 slowly?

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In the war police station which was

9 called Carina and which encompassed almost half of the city, I was one of

10 the leaders, meaning that in this station I had a position of leadership.

11 After that, as I was now ranking and as we were, as members of the

12 Patriotic League, associated with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

13 and sought to bring Bosnia-Herzegovina to recognition by the United

14 Nations, we didn't have any ranking. Ranking was introduced only later,

15 and I believe that I was conferred a rank by the -- by a decision of the

16 Presidency. What counted for me was to do my patriotic duty for Bosnia

17 and Herzegovina.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But you -- when you were the

19 chief of the military police station, did you have a rank or were you just

20 acting as chief there?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was just performing a function, an

22 office, because at that time, as far as I know, there were no ranks, there

23 was no ranking. We were just issued orders to perform such-and-such duty

24 without being conferred any rank. That was the situation in Sarajevo.

25 Apart from the order, I didn't get any rank.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you were acting

2 as chief. Did you have a military uniform or civilian clothes?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I wore a military uniform at the

4 time, which I changed depending on the need.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But when one is a member of the

6 army, one has a rank. One is a general, an ordinary soldier, a private,

7 an officer, a non-commissioned officer. You had no rank of any kind?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I had no rank. I was a

9 commander of the Patriotic League of the city of Mostar, inter alia, but

10 there were no ranks at the time. I was only given to understand that I

11 was the commander of the police region of Mostar, encompassing the whole

12 region of Herzegovina. This was the police organisation at the time.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How many members of the military

14 police did you have beneath you?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have any military police.

16 Because of the impossibility to cooperate with the HVO, the government in

17 Sarajevo would not allow the operative side, the so-called HZ HB, to

18 capitalise on that situation for conflicts. So I did my work there as

19 best as I could, which is to say sent written reports.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If we have understood this

21 correctly, you are responsible for the Patriotic League. You were

22 appointed as chief of the military police, but you say that you didn't

23 have any policemen under you. And then you went to see Mr. Boban, and you

24 told him that you were the chief of the military police; is that correct?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I received -- when we received

1 this order, we were supposed to agree with the HVO about the establishment

2 of the military police, but the HVO did not accept that. And then I

3 informed the government in Sarajevo, and I made a staffing schedule which

4 I sent via Mr. Spago from Konjic, but we never got a concrete answer.

5 Only we were told that this would be done when times were better, but that

6 we were to do everything to prevent the situation from escalating into a

7 conflict.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you received an order from

9 Mr. Halilovic and he appointed you as chief of the military police in the

10 Mostar area.

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes, that is correct.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Scott, please

13 proceed and let's try to see things clearly.

14 MR. SCOTT:

15 Q. Sir, confirm for us, when did you receive the appointment from

16 Mr. Halilovic as chief of the military police, the question that the

17 president just put to you. Approximately when was that?

18 A. 12th of June, 1992.

19 Q. Now, were you -- is that the position that you held as of January

20 and February, 1993? If not, then I'll ask you to explain to us any

21 different -- what had happened and what different position you held.

22 A. Until the end of the war, I was never relieved of this office in

23 written form, but I always maintained contacts with the political,

24 legislative, executive, and judicial authorities in Sarajevo, and I

25 collected documents and reported on all developments in Herzegovina.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But in order to carry out your

2 duties, were you alone or were you assisted by anyone?

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As I was discharging that duty, we

4 had our people in the Muslim council of Herzegovina who were

5 intellectuals, and they set up expert teams which compiled -- compiled

6 reports on developments in HZ HB, which was -- and then the members in the

7 Patriotic League were always the -- under pressure from the HZ HB, gave us

8 reports to refer them on to Sarajevo, both from the Ministry of the

9 Interior and from the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

10 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, you mentioned breaking at 20 to 4.00. If

11 you'd like to do that.

12 MR. KARNAVAS: Just for the record, that's a non-response

13 response. It's not responding to the question. I mean, what was he

14 doing? I guess, Mr. President, your question was very specific. I mean,

15 it seems to me it's a one-man military police for the entire Herzegovina

16 region, and he's not being concrete, and perhaps because there maybe some

17 confabulation, I dare say.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, you have studied, you're a

19 deputy right now, so you understand the question. You say that you were

20 the chief of the military police. If that's the case, then one has to

21 carry out investigations. One has to forward these investigations to the

22 military prosecutor if there is a military prosecutor. One has to compile

23 reports and forward them to the Ministry of Defence or to the Ministry of

24 the Interior. And similarly one has to work within a certain frame work,

25 within an certain established structure, and now you're telling us that

1 you had certain intellectuals who provided you with assistance. I must

2 say that I have absolutely no idea as to what sort of tasks you carried

3 out in your capacity as chief of the military police. Is there anything

4 you could tell us to clarify what the exact nature of your position was?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. The military -- it was

6 impossible to form the military police in order to avoid a conflict. This

7 position of mine remained. It was a vacancy but it was never filled, if

8 you understand me. After that, I regularly went to Sarajevo and I saw

9 people from the legislative and executive branches of authority and I sent

10 reports about the situation in Herzegovina. Practically, in practice, the

11 military police could not be set up without a conflict erupting, which is

12 what the HZ HB wanted. They threatened that if we were to set up the

13 military police, that they would create conflicts. So that is why we did

14 not establish one. I sent reports as operative reports, as I've said, to

15 Sarajevo via satellite telephone or via courier about all developments in

16 Herzegovina, and I even went to Sarajevo myself.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And did you have an office of

18 your own, a telephone, an address?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I did not have an office. I did not

20 have an address. We kept changing places because of the repression by the

21 HVO because they persecuted everyone who was working for Bosnia and

22 Herzegovina, and in particular people who were working to set up districts

23 because it was an obligation to set up a district of Mostar according to

24 the regulations, the republican regulations of Bosnia-Herzegovina. So we

25 did not have military police in the sense of having prisons, nor did we

1 want any prisons, but the HVO did set up such prisons, which was contrary

2 to regulations in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We did not want to have that kind

3 of a structure.

4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You name yourself commander and a commander is

5 someone who commands and there must be something to command. In fact you

6 seem not to have been anything like a commander. Were you not rather

7 something under the title, perhaps, of commander, like a secret agent, a

8 kind of a spy, and maybe a shadow, potential commander? Was that your

9 position?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] My position was exactly like this:

11 I was to analyse the entire situation in the territory of Herzegovina and

12 Mostar and to inform people, because they wouldn't let us set up a

13 military police. The HVO wouldn't let us, and the HZ HB wouldn't let us.

14 They threatened us with death, with repercussions and reprisals, and so on

15 and so forth, because they themselves had formed all these structures

16 already.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] There is another question that

18 one of the Judges would like to put to you.

19 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, I would just like to try

20 and understand the situation you were in at the time. There was a

21 government that had been established in Sarajevo, and the government gave

22 you the task of establishing the military police, and you had the position

23 of commander, but this was never an effective position. You never had any

24 policemen or soldiers who were under you because the HVO had its own

25 forces present in the area. Is that in fact your explanation? You were,

1 in a certain sense, a member of the resistance?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Exactly. The HVO wouldn't allow the

3 forming of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It wouldn't allow the

4 forming of the military police of Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially not

5 for the region of Mostar. The region of Mostar did not exist in their

6 book. It was the so-called HZ HB. It was not Herzegovina. But that was

7 in keeping with their regulations of the creation of their HZ HB state.

8 And I was one of the greatest enemies, if such a state was structured and

9 organised, that is.

10 Our people thought that we should not escalate the conflict by

11 seeking the formation of these structures so that we would desist from

12 that idea. You can see in the video footage that I was with all the

13 officials during the war period in the area of Herzegovina, starting with

14 President Izetbegovic and then with Zlatko Lagumdzija, with all people who

15 were trying to help Bosnia-Herzegovina remain a state in every possible

16 positive way.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll have the break

18 now and we will resume at 4.10.

19 --- Recess taken at 3.46 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you may proceed.

22 MR. SCOTT:

23 Q. Sir, with the background of the last half hour, let me go back to

24 specifically the time period January and February of 1993. Do you

25 understand the time period that I'm focusing on, January, February, 1993?

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Now, can you tell the Judges very concisely, in a short and direct

3 answer, what were you doing in Mostar? What were your responsibilities,

4 if any, if you held any official post? What were your responsibilities in

5 and around Mostar as of that specific time period, January, February,

6 1993?

7 A. In January and February, 1993, I gathered information on the

8 events, on the negative acts of the so-called HZ HB in the territory of

9 Herzegovina, and I carried out these duties, as I have already said, as a

10 policeman and member of the army.

11 In September, 1992, I handed over some material to the government

12 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was in Zagreb. I continued to gather

13 material so as to inform about the overall situation in Mostar, about the

14 political, legislative, and judicial situation.

15 Q. All right. Now, in --

16 MR. KOVACIC: If I may, just for the record. There is nothing in

17 the statement of the witness -- 20 January statement, nothing about

18 January and February, 1993. So it's an entirely new subject.

19 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, we had this discussion earlier today. I

20 don't know if we have to have the same discussion again. The statements

21 were disclosed, the documents were disclosed, and the documents are, which

22 they've all had for months, were included in what's been disclosed and

23 what's in the Prosecution exhibit list. So --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Continue.

25 MR. SCOTT:

1 Q. Sir, in this particular capacity, did you provide any information,

2 documentation to either Mr. Campara, Mr. Hamdija Jahic, or to Mr. Sead

3 Maslo during that time period?

4 JUDGE PRANDLER: Let me ask the witness to wait for a moment. I

5 would only like to clarify one issue there in -- in actually in lines -

6 let me see - 13 and 14 -- 12, 14. It was written and also I heard in the

7 translation that, "In September, 1992, I handed over some material to the

8 government of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which was in Zagreb." I believe that

9 the witness was probably had in mind not Zagreb but Sarajevo. I don't

10 know if it is the case, so probably the transcript could be clarified and

11 -- and corrected in this respect. Thank you.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I? I did hand it over to Zagreb

13 because Mr. Alija Izetbegovic was in Zagreb as well as the Vice Prime

14 Minister, Zlatko Lagumdzija. There was Alija Spahic, Jusuf Pusina, and

15 the Minister of Development Dizdarevic, and that was the first time that I

16 provided all documents on what was being done by the HZ HB in the

17 territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the official government of Bosnia

18 and Herzegovina. After that, I went on a trip in the free territory of

19 Bosnia and Herzegovina with Mr. Zlatko Lagumdzija.

20 MR. SCOTT:

21 Q. Sir, going back to my question then, during this time period

22 January, February of 1993, were you providing -- talk about gathering

23 information and providing reports? Did you provide information,

24 documentation to either Mr. Campara, Mr. Jahic, or Mr. Maslo?

25 A. As for Mr. Campara, Mr. Jahic, and Mr. Maslo, well, we are friends

1 and we would exchange information on a daily basis.

2 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... my question was did you

3 provide them with any information? And you either did or you didn't.

4 A. Yes, I did.

5 Q. And what -- now, will you tell us about your relationship with

6 these -- one or more of these gentlemen, whichever ones you were

7 associated with at that time.

8 A. We were friends and all three of them worked on the protection of

9 the AVNOJ border in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

10 Q. Now, can I ask the registrar to please display to you again

11 Exhibit P 01376.

12 MR. KARNAVAS: And while that is being done, Your Honour, just for

13 the record again, in the gentleman's statement there is a gap between

14 April, 1992, in paragraph 8. In paragraph 9 it then begins with 9 May --

15 May 9 and May 28, 1993. There is a complete gap for that period. And so

16 to point -- as Mr. Kovacic has indicated, this is on new material. Any

17 documentation regarding -- that was -- that is between that period we

18 would object to being introduced because we have actually no reason to

19 believe that this gentleman was associated with anything with respect to

20 any papers during that period of time, during the gap period. There is

21 absolutely nothing to describe what the gentleman was doing. This is all

22 brand new.

23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, again, apparently counsel, when they read

24 the witness statement --

25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise. Just a minute. Could

1 we first establish whether this is a document? Then we can decide whether

2 we should linger on this document and whether we should use it with this

3 witness. The witness said that all the signatories were still alive, but

4 this document hasn't been signed. I would like to draw your attention to

5 that fact.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Scott. You were going

7 to ask the witness a question about a document that --

8 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. I'm sure that all the counsel on

9 the other side have wonderful ideas on how I should conduct

10 cross-examination [sic], but one has one idea, another has another idea.

11 I have to ask a series of questions. One question probably won't ask all

12 the questions, but if we can proceed -- if I can be allowed to proceed as

13 best I can, as poorly as that might be, I would appreciate being able to

14 move forward on that.

15 In response to the questions, however, Your Honour, that's been

16 raised by Mr. Karnavas -- the issue raised by Mr. Karnavas, again, Your

17 Honour, I don't know. I don't know what the problem is. Mr. Kovacic has

18 said, yes, in fact we've had this statement for a long time. No problem

19 with that. No problems at all. Now, perhaps they didn't read the last

20 page of the statement, page 8, which specifically lists these documents.

21 Annex I, dated February, 1993, Analysis of the State Administration, et

22 cetera, et cetera. Annex J, February, 1993, Proposal to the Commission

23 Within the Board for State Government Administration. Now, that's in his

24 statement. I don't know what the problems are when they say this is not

25 in the statement. There it is, and the documents were provided and the

1 Defence have had those documents for a long time.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm not suggesting that we did not -- that the

3 statement does not reflect that documents were attached or presented by

4 this gentleman to the OTP. What I'm saying is in the narrative, in the

5 witness's statement there is a jump between April, 1992, and 9 May, 1993.

6 There is nothing there for that period. The rest -- and this is on page

7 2. The rest -- which is where the statement begins. For the rest of the

8 statement, it covers the period post-May, 1993. Now we're being

9 referenced to a document that is of February, 1993. There is absolutely

10 nothing in his testimony as to what he was doing, nothing that would link

11 the gentleman during that period of time. That's what we're pointing out.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, ask the witness what

13 he was doing between April and May, but I do believe that he has already

14 answered that question, but ask him to repeat his answer to tell us what

15 he was doing in April and May, 1993.

16 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.

17 Q. Witness, you've heard the question. Mr. Cupina, can you tell the

18 Judges, please, and again please answer specifically the question, please

19 be concise and direct. What were your activities in April and May, 1993?

20 MR. KARNAVAS: April, 1992, to May, 1993.

21 MR. SCOTT: I'm reading from the transcript, and that's what Judge

22 Antonetti asked for. Perhaps you would like to correct Judge Antonetti.

23 Go ahead.

24 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. Prosecutor, you are well aware that in the

25 statement between paragraphs 8 and 9 there is a gap. That's the gap that

1 I'm referring to. There was no testimony, nothing was given by this

2 witness to the investigator. Documents were presented. I have no

3 objections to the documents being going through, but I think we need to

4 know what the gentleman was doing during this period.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, it's very simple: Between

6 April, 1992, until May, 1993, as far as you can remember, are you able to

7 tell us what position you held and what duties you carried out?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Between April, 1992, I was the

9 president for the commission -- from May, 1993, I was the president for

10 the exchange of prisoners. In April, I was a soldier, like everyone else,

11 and I was involved in the defence of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

12 I was on the left bank, and we did everything that was necessary.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] With your permission, let's

14 start with April, 1992. In April, 1992, what were you doing?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I'll be very brief. From

16 April, 1992, onwards, I was first the commander of the Independent

17 Battalion for the defence of Mostar. That was in April, 1992.

18 On the 12th of June, 1992, I was the commander of the military

19 police in the Mostar region. As of that date, until when I was appointed

20 as the president of the commission, I held that position. I didn't lose

21 that position. I wasn't dismissed from that position. After having held

22 that position, I was a commissioner for Mostar, a commissioner for

23 Energopetrol. That was in July, 1993, I think.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: The witness mentioned the

25 date the 12th of the 16th, 1992. He probably meant the 12th of the 6th,

1 or the 12th of June.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Scott.

3 MR. SCOTT:

4 Q. Sir, again, we've lost the transcript on the page, but were you

5 providing -- did you provide information around this time to Mr. -- Either

6 Mr. Campara, Mr. Jahic, or Mr. Maslo?

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. And what was your relationship or -- at that time with these three

9 individuals? I mean from a professional perspective. You told us you

10 were collecting information. From the activities that you were engaged in

11 at that time, what was your relationship with these three individuals?

12 A. An exceptional relationship, because before the war Maslo was the

13 republican inspector for administrative and legal affairs, and Mr. Jahic

14 was in the Executive Board of the Municipal Assembly of Mostar.

15 Q. How about Mr. Campara --

16 A. Similarly, Mr. Campara was also in that situation. We had known

17 each other for a long time, we were all in Mostar, and we found ourselves

18 in a similar position for the defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

19 Q. Now, if you can look at Exhibit P 01376. If you still have that

20 in front of you or not. Do you recognise that document, sir?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And can you tell us very briefly, what is that document as you

23 know it?

24 A. Well, it's an analysis of the situation, administrative situation

25 of the state and the territory of Herzegovina and how to establish the

1 legal authorities. There was an analysis of the administrative structure

2 before the war and of what happened when the HZ HB was established. We

3 know who was the president of the Assembly, who the vice-president of the

4 Assembly was at the time: Milivoj Gagro was the president of the

5 Assembly, the President of the Executive Board was Bajric, then Mumin Isic

6 was the secretary.

7 Q. I'm going to stop you there, sir. You've answered my question.

8 Did you provide information and documentation to the three gentlemen named

9 previously for the purposes of them preparing this report?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Did you participate, sir, in the preparation of this report, then?

12 A. Well, in an indirect way, yes.

13 Q. And in what indirect way?

14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: In a direct way.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Maslo and Jahic would often come to

16 see me in my flat and we'd try to agree on how to draft this and how to

17 draft this in accordance with a legal document. It's because I was an

18 economist.

19 MR. SCOTT: All right. Your Honour, just for clarification's

20 sake, one the reasons I asked the follow-up question was what was

21 indicated as the answer but has been corrected. The witness said he was

22 involved in the preparation of the report in a direct way.

23 Q. Sir, what did you understand the purpose of this report was and --

24 well, let's take it that first. What did you understand the purpose of

25 the preparation of this report was?

1 A. The purpose was to analyse the entire situation before the war, in

2 the course of the war, and when the HZ HB was established in the territory

3 of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or, rather, when this entity, the HZ HB and the

4 HVO were established.

5 Q. And can you tell us, sir, was this report then transmitted to

6 someone or something?

7 A. Well, as I've already said, it was translated to Sarajevo, to the

8 Ministry of the Interior, or, rather, to the government. They had all

9 those reports. We sent reports to the government and also to Jusuf

10 Halilovic, who was in Zenica.

11 Q. Do you recall who in the government in -- in the government of

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina in Sarajevo? Do you have any recollection of the

13 particular individual or individuals who received this report when it was

14 transmitted?

15 A. It was sent to the Ministry of the Interior. It was sent directly

16 there, and I told Mr. Jusuf Halilagic about it. He was a republican

17 inspector for administrative and legal affairs. Before the war he was

18 based in Zenica, and I asked him to forward it to the government once he

19 had received it. So it went through two channels.

20 Q. And I next ask the ushers to show you -- the usher to show you,

21 please, Exhibit P 01619.

22 Sir, can you tell us if you recognise that document; and if the

23 answer is yes, can you tell the Judges what the document is.

24 A. Yes. It's an analysis of the current authority in Mostar

25 municipality. On the 9th of April, the municipality of Mostar had already

1 been occupied by the so-called JNA, and naturally by other formations, the

2 SDS, and formations from Serbia and Montenegro. They appealed to the

3 decision on withdrawing the JNA units from the territory of Bosnia and

4 Herzegovina, and this was a decision adopted on the 27th of April, 1992,

5 by the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and having appealed to this

6 decision, the Crisis Staff of Mostar, which was to all intents and

7 purposes the Executive Board of the municipality of Mostar, on the 29th of

8 April they adopted a decision according to which government authority

9 should be handed over to the HVO. However, it's quite clear that not all

10 powers handed over. Later on, a commission for special purposes was

11 formed and then they made -- then they set up a putsch in the HZ HB.

12 Q. Would you look, please, at the last page of the document P 01619,

13 and tell us who prepared the report and if that's one of the same

14 individuals listed on the previous report.

15 A. Yes. This document was compiled by Sead Maslo. The document

16 refers to the events that transpired during that period of time.

17 Unfortunately, a military putsch was carried out and the HVO of the HZ HB

18 took over and the legal authorities of Bosnia-Herzegovina no longer

19 functioned, in fact, from the 15th of May, 1992, onwards.

20 Q. In -- you're saying in Mostar; is that correct?

21 A. Yes, yes, in Mostar. I'm talking about Mostar.

22 Q. Sir, on this report did you have anything to do with the

23 preparation of this report? Did you provide information to Mr. Maslo?

24 Did you provide documentation to him?

25 A. Mr. Maslo cooperated with me on a daily basis. We provided each

1 other with reports, and we cooperated with each other and we forwarded

2 them, naturally, to institutions that were responsible for such matters.

3 Q. And can you tell the Court, who was this report transmitted to?

4 A. The report was forwarded to the government again, and it was sent

5 to Jusuf Halilagic. All the reports were forwarded to Jusuf Halilagic in

6 the republic, the inspector for legal affairs. And if we couldn't provide

7 the reports, it was his responsibilities to provide the reports to the

8 legal organs of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

9 Q. Just so the record is clear, when you say this man was the -- an

10 inspector for republican and legal affairs - I'm just looking at the

11 transcript - which particular ministry or agency or authority was he part

12 of?

13 A. Before the war he worked in the Ministry of Justice and now he's

14 the secretary of the Ministry of Justice of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

15 Q. You mean at the present time?

16 A. Now he is the secretary, and before the war he was the republican

17 inspector for administrative and legal affairs. I think that was the name

18 of that department.

19 Q. So this was in the Ministry of Justice at the time these reports

20 were being communicated to him; is that correct?

21 MR. KARNAVAS: That's leading, and that's not what the gentleman

22 answered. He was asked twice. So the question is what is he doing during

23 the war, not before and after.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes.

25 MR. SCOTT:

1 Q. That was my question back to you, sir. When you said you were

2 transmitting this report to this gentleman on line -- page 55, line 6, you

3 referred to him as the inspector. For which ministry was he working at

4 that point in time --

5 MR. KARNAVAS: Again, it assumes -- again it assumes that he's

6 working for a particular ministry. He can just ask the question: Who is

7 he working for?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, yes. Yes. For the Ministry of

9 Administrative and Legal Affairs, as far as I know. And all these

10 documents were the Constitutional Court in September, 1992, as evidence in

11 order to annul the decisions of the so-called HZ HB, because these were

12 crucial documents with regard to what took place in Mostar and

13 Herzegovina.

14 MR. SCOTT:

15 Q. Let me ask you to please to be -- let me ask you to please be

16 shown Exhibit P 00219.

17 Sir, can you tell the Judges whether this was one of the documents

18 that you gathered and collected and passed on to these other gentleman

19 writing these reports at that time?

20 A. Yes. For a certain period of time these people were in the

21 Municipal Council in July: Hamdija Jahic, Senad Kazazic, Sead Maslo.

22 This was the proposal of the SDA. And when they saw that these documents

23 didn't have to do with the -- well, they -- they resigned on the 3rd of

24 August, 1992, when they saw what these documents were about.

25 Q. If you'll stop there for a moment, please. Who resigned?

1 A. Senad Kazazic. I think that he was responsible for

2 reconstruction, development. Then Sead Maslo, then Hamdija Jahic. These

3 were the individuals who resigned. There was Mumin Isic as well. The 3rd

4 of August they resigned from the SDA and the letters I transmitted to the

5 government that was in Zagreb at the time.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may interrupt for a second. The gentleman is

7 being shown P 0219. What I seem to have is somewhat different. It

8 doesn't have any of these names. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but my colleague

9 and I are -- are a little perplexed. What is exactly the gentleman

10 referring to, and what document?

11 MR. SCOTT: He wasn't referring to that -- Your Honour, my

12 understanding of his testimony - I'm sure I'll be corrected - is that he

13 recognised the document, and he mentioned that as/when this document

14 became known to a number of people over the next period of time until

15 August of 1992, these people then resigned their positions on the basis of

16 becoming aware of these developments. That's what I understood his

17 testimony to be.

18 Q. Is that correct, sir?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. Could you look -- could I please ask the witness to be shown

21 Exhibit P 00485.

22 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I'm sorry. Is the witness identifying

23 the last exhibit, number 219? I'm not sure whether he authenticated or

24 identified it or not at this point, so perhaps that could be clarified.

25 MR. SCOTT: I believe he testified, Your Honour, this is one of

1 the documents that he had collected and provided to the people preparing

2 the report. I believe that's what he said.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, perhaps you should

4 ask him whether the document P 219 is one he was aware of or whether the

5 persons under Article I were relieved of duty before that.

6 MR. SCOTT: Sorry, Your Honour. Give me a moment, please.

7 Q. Well, rather to take the time, sir, to find it -- try to find it

8 in the record, let me ask you: Is Exhibit P 00219, is that a document

9 that you had collected around this time and provided to Mr. Maslo and

10 others at the time that they were preparing their report?

11 A. Yes.

12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, but I have

13 to acknowledge that I have a great deal of problems in following all this.

14 The witness should remember that he is under oath, under the solemn

15 declaration. He said he sent these documents to the official authorities

16 who discussed them when the decisions of the Constitutional Court were

17 taken in 1992. From the reports, we can see that they were sent in in

18 February, 1993. The witness is now showing us another document in which

19 Mr. Maslo and Jahic, he says, took part in the body that he's talking

20 about now. Now, I really don't know whether the witness has mixed

21 everything up, which is quite probable, or is he not telling the truth to

22 this Court? I can't follow his testimony at all.

23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, again I think that's an overstatement. I

24 agree it perhaps isn't the clearest testimony that one could wish for, but

25 I believe that what was said was he collected a number of documents, he's

1 confirmed the documents as they've been shown to him, and then he has gone

2 on -- then he has gone on to add a number of other pieces of information

3 about that. As I understood what he said about the document in the

4 Constitutional Court, he said these were very important documents that I

5 gathered they were later transmitted to the government and were in

6 relation to the --

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Document P 219, the one we have

8 on our screens, sir, take a look at that. You have it on the screen. It

9 is the document. It is a decision signed by Mr. Topic on the 21st of May,

10 1992. Now, this particular document, who did you hand it over to, send it

11 to?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I've already said that all the

13 documents that I gathered I sent to the government -- handed over to the

14 government in Zagreb. And I also said that the people who at the time

15 were appointed by the SDA gave statements that they no longer wished to be

16 in the government, because the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was being

17 overthrown, and I handed that over. And then I said that they were

18 documents which later on the Constitutional Court would take as valid and

19 would challenge all the HZ HB decisions working on the territory of

20 Herzegovina and Mostar.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. We're at

22 zero again. You say that you handed over this document to Sarajevo and

23 that you also transmitted it to the persons whose names were mentioned a

24 moment ago, and then you added that these documents allowed the -- the

25 contents of them allowed the Constitutional Court to make its ruling, to

1 render its decision.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is one of the documents that

3 were evidence to prove that Bosnia-Herzegovina was being overthrown.

4 That's just one of the documents to prove that.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How do you know about that,

6 Witness?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I know that because all this

8 was contrary to the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was common

9 knowledge how the executive powers were established. And there was a

10 putsch by the HZ HB, and these were all illegal decisions of

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina. None of them relied upon the laws and bylaws of

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So that is your own

14 interpretation of that, is it?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is the interpretation given by

16 all the legal men, all the lawyers; that all these documents were largely

17 contrary to the laws and legal provisions of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott -- yes,

19 Mr. Ibrisimovic.

20 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. In

21 paragraph 21, the Prosecution says that the Constitutional Court decision

22 was brought in far before the witness having mentioned this document and

23 -- as having been provided to the Constitutional Court. So in fact, the

24 Constitutional Court could not have used this document at all.

25 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, there are two decisions of the

1 Constitutional Court, the first one declaring illegal and unconstitutional

2 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, and the second decision declaring

3 illegal and unconstitutional the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna. Both

4 of those decisions are in evidence already. They've been admitted. I

5 don't know off the top of my head the exhibits numbers. I'm sure if I

6 have a moment I can look them up, if necessary. And the timing of those

7 will be apparent on their face; one was earlier, the second one was later.

8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, but Mr. Scott is now

9 testifying instead of the witness. The witness said that the decision was

10 taken in 1992, and we know that for sure, that this decision does not

11 relate to the Republic of Herceg-Bosna. So the witness said, I sent off

12 the material which helped the Constitutional Court to make its decision in

13 1992. And the material is dated -- the documents are dated 1993. And I

14 am telling you what the record reflects and what the witness said.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, the Constitutional Court

16 made two decisions. To the best of your recollection, the documents that

17 you sent to -- or took to Sarajevo, were they before the two decisions

18 taken by the Constitutional Court? Was that before?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, what you've just said here,

20 that dates to the 21st of May, 1992, this particular document. And as far

21 as I can see on the screen, that is the date, the 21st of May, 1992. I

22 see no other document in front of me here. That's the only document that

23 I can see on my screen.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And to the best of your

25 recollections, the Constitutional Court decisions were made at what date,

1 on what date?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The 19th of September, 1992. That

3 was the first decision. And the second decision I can't remember exactly

4 what date that was. I think it was the 19th of September, 1992. That one

5 I remember. I think that's how it was.

6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, but I don't

7 want it to appear that I am intentionally causing a misunderstanding. The

8 witness has spoken about the second document now, but he also said that he

9 sent document 01376, which is an analysis of the state -- state

10 administration in Herzegovina, how to establish a legal authority in

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and he said that he sent that to the government of

12 Bosnia-Herzegovina in Zagreb, that he handed it over. And I'm saying that

13 that document is February, 1993, that that's the date of it. He said

14 documents in the plural and did not refer to a document in the singular.

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to explain?

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You want to say that the

17 Constitutional Court took its decision in September, 1992. It would

18 appear that document -- your brother-in-law's document was drafted in

19 February, 1993. Therefore, that is posterior to the decision of

20 September, after the September decision.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Let me tell you, I'm talking about

22 the first decision made by the Constitutional Court. To avoid any

23 misunderstanding, that is these documents that I took to Zagreb. Now, as

24 far as the other decisions are concerned, I took them to Sarajevo.

25 Because there was a meeting of the government in the Palace Hotel, and I

1 was there. So that was for the first decision. As for the other

2 decisions, they were taken to Sarajevo or Zenica. I don't want to lead to

3 any misunderstandings here. I'm not very well-versed in matters -- or

4 don't have the habit of testifying.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

6 MR. SCOTT: Just for the record, Your Honour, in terms of the

7 comment that I was testifying, I was responding specifically to the

8 question raised by Mr. Ibrisimovic, and I take it Mr. Ibrisimovic was not

9 testifying either, but I was responding to the objection that he raised,

10 and that's the reason for my statements.

11 Q. Sir, can I ask you to be shown, please, Exhibit P 00485. Do you

12 have that in front of you, sir? Can you look at that just enough to

13 recognise what it is, and if you do recognise it, can you tell the Judges

14 what it is.

15 A. This document I do recognise, yes. It is the decision to delete

16 the words "Territorial Defence" in all the documents of the Croatian

17 Defence Council because they considered that to be linked to Serbia and

18 Montenegro, and they didn't even give -- allow us to form the Territorial

19 Defence, which was a department in the Kamena building in Mostar.

20 Q. Sir, can you tell the Judges, is this a document that you gathered

21 and provided in reports, either directly or indirectly, to the government

22 of Bosnia-Herzegovina?

23 A. Yes. Yes.

24 Q. Sir, I'd like to move your attention forward, please, to

25 approximately May of 1993. Can you tell the Judges, please, around that

1 time, did you become a member of a certain commission? And if your answer

2 is yes, I will ask at the end that you describe what the commission was.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. What commission were you appointed to at that time?

5 A. The president for the Commission of the Exchange of Soldiers and

6 Civilians of the 4th Corps.

7 Q. And who placed you in that position?

8 A. Officially, I never saw that document, but I received information

9 according to which President Izetbegovic had established a commission

10 which was outside the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina and a commission in

11 Mostar as well. So they informed me about that. Commander Pasalic said

12 that he and I would take part as president of the Commission for the

13 Exchange of Soldiers and Civilians of the 4th Corps.

14 Q. All right. Would you briefly tell the Judges what kind of

15 activities this commission then became involved in in approximately May of

16 1993.

17 A. The commission was involved in gathering all individuals together,

18 all those arrested by the HVO on the territory of Mostar and further

19 afield in the region because the HVO, on the 9th of May, attacked, and we

20 had no information about the elderly, women, and children. And we tried

21 to ask the parents of children to give us the names and surnames of their

22 children, which concentration camps their nearest and dearest were to be

23 found.

24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. Witness, you have just used the word,

25 the term "concentration camp." Was that the normal terminology at the

1 time you were acting as the president of that commission?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me tell you. As far as we

3 were concerned, it was a concentration camp, because to take someone from

4 their own home, to abuse them, rape them, beat them, and subject them to

5 various torture, take them to the Heliodrom, which already in June, 1992,

6 was prepared to take in and abuse people like that kind, kill them, rape

7 them and so on, keep them without food, everything that was contrary to

8 civilisational trends.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ibrisimovic.

10 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President, perhaps there's

11 an error in the transcript, but it remains unclear who was the president

12 of the commission; Mr. Pasalic or the witness or both of them.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Answer that, please, Witness.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me tell you. You saw in

15 the text that it was first signed by Pasalic, and underneath his signature

16 there is my signature. But as he had combat assignments and assignments

17 elsewhere, he asked me to act as president, although in the document it

18 says that he was the president of the commission. And on the other side,

19 you have the other names.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the commission, did it have

21 any offices, premises, headquarters?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, the commission did have an

23 office in the main street, and it was Marsal Tito Street, opposite the

24 social accounting service building. It had an office there and there it

25 had a number of staff, about seven employees, two women among them. I

1 think there was Mr. Pitic and Mr. Zulovic, then there was Jakirovic, and

2 Pijavica [phoen], Saric, and so on. I don't want to name all the names

3 now.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And the people who were

5 employed, who were they paid by?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it was like this: We had no

7 water, no electricity, the BH dinar was prohibited. We had nothing. We

8 had no humanitarian aid. We were just captured there in that enclave,

9 under siege from all sides, and we did our best to survive. So nobody

10 thought about salaries or I don't know what money could have been used to

11 pay us in any way. No, we received no salaries. We weren't paid.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Please continue,

13 Mr. Scott.

14 MR. SCOTT:

15 Q. If the registry can please show you Exhibit P 02344. Can you

16 tell, sir, what this document is and, if so, how it relates to your work

17 on this commission.

18 A. As far as I can see from this on the screen, it is a document on

19 the basis of which we compiled another document. This is an agreement in

20 Medjugorje between Mr. Sefer Halilovic and Mr. Milivoj Petkovic, and on

21 that basis we received instructions about what we were supposed to do.

22 That's as far as I'm able to see from this. To conduct an exchange, all

23 for all. And we compiled a document like that. Not the one on our

24 screens, but anyway, it followed on from this document, the one that we're

25 looking at now.

1 Q. Well, that's my question. What did you do, then, to engage, to

2 implement the agreed exchange or exchanges?

3 A. When we were told of the agreement, when the agreement was

4 reached, I think in the building of what was formerly the lottery of

5 Bosnia-Herzegovina and the premises of another centre, regional centre, we

6 met there with HV representatives, with the European Monitors, military

7 and civilian. You have their names and surnames. We compiled a document

8 to conduct an exchange, all for all, and that all people, especially

9 civilians, women and children, should be released from the concentration

10 camps. And as far as I remember, we had nobody who was captured at that

11 time.

12 Q. What was the name of the commission that you worked on at this

13 time, specifically in May, 1993, if you recall the name of the commission?

14 A. The commission was for the exchange of soldiers and civilians.

15 The 4th Corps Commission for Exchange of Soldiers and Civilians. That's

16 what it was called.

17 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, just for clarification: Can we take it

18 that the witness is authenticating or identifying this document between

19 General Petkovic and General Halilovic which appears on our screens in

20 English and that he is able to identify and authenticate it? Thank you.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This document, Witness, did you

22 have knowledge of it when you presided with Pasalic over the commission

23 for the exchange of prisoners? Did you know about the document?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, let me tell you. Mr. Sefer

25 Halilovic, I think, came to the left bank on the sixth day and then went

1 to Medjugorje and had a meeting there with Mr. Milivoj Petkovic, and he

2 informed us that this agreement had been reached so that we could go ahead

3 and work on the ground in the territory. I think that he came with him on

4 that occasion, and Bojadzic was there too. He was a brigadier. When we

5 received that information, UNPROFOR arranged a meeting on the territory of

6 the HVO, and they continued work.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You say as we were informed.

8 Who informed you?

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I was informed by General Pasalic.

10 General Pasalic informed me. He had direct links.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] General Pasalic had met General

12 Petkovic and General Halilovic, had he?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Whether they met or not I don't

14 know. It was my job to accept it and start implementing it. That is to

15 say UNPROFOR was the mediator. We never had any direct links. It was the

16 international community who acted as the go-between.

17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could you answer the president's question as to

18 this document.

19 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, if I may intervene.

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Did you ever see this? May I ask this question?

21 MR. SCOTT: There is a problem with the translation of what's on

22 the screen, Your Honour, so the witness may not be seeing the correct

23 document.

24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: That's another matter.

25 MR. SCOTT: I've been informed, please, that there may be a

1 translation or loading error in e-court and what the document has on the

2 screen -- what the witness has on the screen may not be the appropriate

3 document or the translation, which may indeed account for some of the

4 confusion in the last few minutes. Could -- I am told that at the end of

5 the document 00481493 is the B/C/S version of this document. Page 4 of

6 the document, the B/C/S document starts.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: The record should reflect that the gentleman was

8 answering questions from Mr. Scott based on what was on his screen. What

9 was on his screen was English. So either he was making it up or either

10 there's -- I don't know what to make of it, but obviously -- does the

11 gentleman read English? He was shown an English document from which he

12 was testifying. So if he doesn't read English, how can he possibly

13 validate a document and testify from it? I mean, it just defies logic.

14 MR. SCOTT: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Mr. Karnavas always

15 jumps to the worst possible interpretation of an event. Always.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: His task.

17 MR. SCOTT: I assume -- we can ask the witness if we need to. My

18 goodness. The witness can probably read the names Petkovic and Halilovic.

19 He can probably read the date. In the context of the questions being put

20 to him he probably figured out what the document was. Now, until just a

21 few minutes ago, since it wasn't on my screen and I wasn't alerted to the

22 fact that the right document wasn't on the screen, so can we have a little

23 bit of reasonable flexibility in terms of courtroom procedure. The

24 witness was shown the document. Now apparently it's on the screen.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps he understands English.

1 Do you understand English, sir? Do you know English?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Enough for me to be able to

3 understand many things that are said, but no, I don't speak English.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So a document in English, you

5 could at least get the gist of what it says, could you?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, in some parts, yes, but not --

7 I don't speak fluent English and I can't actually say that I understand it

8 all.

9 MR. SCOTT: I think that's a fair explanation, Your Honour. He

10 could read enough to know what the document appeared to be to him. That's

11 what he said.

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry if I insist. Can the witness now be

13 shown the B/C/S --

14 MR. SCOTT: Sure, of course.

15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: -- document and then tell us if he has seen it

16 before.

17 MR. SCOTT: Of course. We're there.

18 Q. Now that we have the correct document, I hope, sir, on the

19 screen. Well, the one I have -- sorry.

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No, it's still in English. Now it's good, yes.

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I be allowed to answer? On the

22 basis of this document we compiled a document the HVO and the BH army. We

23 weren't able to rely on some other document in the presence of European

24 Monitors, military and civilian. So I couldn't have used another

25 document. There was just one document, this one here. I think that's

1 quite understandable.

2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And you did actually see it? You are familiar

3 with this document?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay. Thank you.

6 MR. SCOTT:

7 Q. Sir, can you tell the Judges, in your involvement with this

8 commission --

9 MR. KOVACIC: I apologise, Your Honours, but it took me a little

10 time to check it out. We are aware of the document, we've seen it before,

11 but that document was not on the list, on the two lists provided to us by

12 the Prosecution in advance having to do with this witness and his

13 testimony. The Prosecution was very kind as to give us a separate review

14 and to tie up all the documents envisaged for this witness, but it did not

15 include that particular document. We were not told that we were being --

16 we would be dealing with that document, and this raises a problem for our

17 defence and the preparation of the Defence case.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

19 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, we will have to check the records.

20 I do not have all these things committed to memory. Excuse me.

21 [Prosecution counsel confer]

22 MR. KOVACIC: Maybe -- [Interpretation] Not to create a

23 misunderstanding, I'm talking about the proofing chart. I'm referring to

24 the proofing chart, and I'm talking about this document here.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: It's not on the list.

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] It's not on either of them.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues] ... because I've

3 been objecting quite a bit this afternoon, but it's not on there. But if

4 he can establish a foundation, I personally have no objection to the

5 gentleman testifying, but it's not on the list and I think Mr. Kovacic

6 does make a valid point, and I'm sure it might be an oversight on the part

7 of the Prosecution.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kovacic has just told us,

9 Mr. Scott, that document P 2344 was not on the proofing chart.

10 MR. SCOTT: Well, Your Honour, I -- I'll have to -- sorry. I will

11 have to do some additional checking, Your Honour. I'm looking at a

12 document which says "Exhibits for Prosecution witness Suad Cupina," and on

13 that document it is listed on the second page. It is the one, two, three,

14 four, five, sixth item listed on that page. Now, if some page was left

15 out or dropped, or the wrong page was inserted, I can't tell you, Your

16 Honour, without making further inquiries, but I'm looking at a document

17 which specifically lists 2344. I mean --

18 MR. KARNAVAS: It's not, but it doesn't matter. As I said, if

19 they can lay a foundation, I have no objections to the gentleman

20 testifying about a particular document, as long as they lay a foundation,

21 though we -- we're pretty organised here, as everyone else is, and we just

22 don't have it, but again we're not saying that there's any foul play here.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please continue, Mr. Scott.

24 MR. SCOTT:

25 Q. Sir, when you were involved in this commission, can you tell us

1 about -- did you meet with counterparts on the other side, that is the

2 HVO, for the purposes of arranging exchanges?

3 A. Yes, I did.

4 Q. And can you tell us who, sir, some the people on the HVO side were

5 that you dealt with during this period?

6 A. Mr. Maric, Mr. Puljic, I believe, and on our side it was I myself,

7 Mr. Pasalic, and representatives of the international community, but as

8 far as I could see, they only represented numbers there because all the

9 meetings were followed by the Supreme Commanders of the HZ HB HVO from the

10 area of Mostar and Herzegovina.

11 Q. Well, sir, I don't know what you mean, perhaps others don't

12 either. When you said "they only represented numbers," what do you mean?

13 A. Well, what I mean, they went out at all times to sort of consult

14 like some sort of office personnel charged with some particular office,

15 clerical duties. People who were not there to say something specifically

16 carried no weight, in other words, and we actually did all the substantive

17 work in all the talks.

18 JUDGE PRANDLER: Mr. Scott, may I interrupt you for a moment?

19 MR. SCOTT: Of course.

20 JUDGE PRANDLER: Thank you. I would only like to ask the witness.

21 He once mentioned that he was the -- if I understood him correctly, that

22 he was at one time, at least, the commander of the Independent Battalion.

23 I would only like to ask you, sir, if you continued to be a commander of

24 the Independent Battalion at that time when this document was signed, that

25 is 12th of May, 1993. Independent Battalion was composed of mainly the

1 Muslim Bosniaks.

2 THE INTERPRETER: The witness said before --

3 JUDGE PRANDLER: I would like you to clarify if that battalion

4 still existed in 1993. Thank you, sir.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Independent

6 Battalion was named after an anti-fascist unit celebrated in the Second

7 World War in Mostar. It existed since the beginning of April and on, but

8 at that particular time it did not exist. The 4th Corps and the Mostar

9 Brigade existed on that date, and the 4th Corps, I believe, was formed on

10 the 16th or 17th of November, 1992, and the Mostar Brigade in the

11 beginning of July, 1992, I believe. So that the Independent Battalion

12 actually became part of the Mostar Brigade and the Mostar Brigade, with

13 other units, the 4th Corps. And finally, on the 12th of May, 1993, the

14 4th Corps and the Mostar Brigade were there with these other formations

15 such as the Independent Battalions, the Pod Velez Battalion, and other

16 units. That's as far as I can recall it now. And the Nevesinje Battalion

17 as well.

18 MR. SCOTT:

19 Q. Sir, so far I believe you mentioned, if I heard you correctly, you

20 mentioned dealing with, on the HVO side, Mr. Puljic and Mr. Maric. When

21 you attended these meetings around this time, did anyone else on the HVO

22 side participate in the meetings and conversations about exchanges?

23 A. Well, officially those were the people, but in that room of the H

24 -- everybody who was somebody in the HVO leadership in the Mostar area --

25 area came in every now and then, into the room, and then they went out.

1 Berto Pusic and all other people who had powers in the connection

2 whatsoever, so that I can't really put my finger on it. I have to say --

3 I cannot say they were not there. They were there in a way. They, as I

4 said, came in and went out. At a certain point, in fact, Jadran Topic

5 sent everybody out of the meeting room, including international

6 representatives who were signatories of the all-for-all agreement.

7 Q. All right. Sir, if you'll stop there, please. On the transcript

8 you were going quite quickly. You mentioned the name, at line 24 of page

9 74, you mentioned the name Pusic. The transcript didn't get the first

10 name. Can you tell us the first name of this individual that you did --

11 if you do know, and if you did mention it.

12 A. Berto, Berto Pusic.

13 Q. Do you know what his involvement in these matters were at the

14 time?

15 A. I know that he was a member of their National Security Service or

16 what have you, I believe from July, 1992. There were different

17 commissions, three or four commissions there and, inter alia, he was

18 there.

19 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... you understand we're talking

20 about May, 1993, not July --

21 A. Yes, yes. From July he was all of that.

22 Q. In May, 1993, what was Mr. Pusic's involvement in these matters?

23 A. He was in constant contact with these two, giving them

24 instructions.

25 Q. Who's "these two"?

1 A. Maric, Puljic. Should I explain further?

2 Q. Not yet. Now, you said that they --

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.

4 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I'm

5 afraid there is a confusion here. Is the witness referring to one

6 specific event or is he generally describing the situation? I really fail

7 to understand.

8 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I believe if we go back into the

9 transcript, we've been talking now about a series of meetings and

10 communications that this witness was involved in during the approximate

11 period May, 1993, and I asked him a number of people -- who he was

12 involved in, and we've come back to it a couple of times and he's

13 mentioned at least three particular individuals now; Mr. Puljic,

14 Mr. Maric, and Mr. Pusic, and he just said that -- he's also mentioned --

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Jadran Topic.

16 MR. SCOTT: Go ahead.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To simplify matters, when you

18 were a member of this commission, did you personally see Mr. Pusic?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, yes. I know -- I know him

20 from the time we were children and young people. I think that Savo Pudar

21 was his friend when they were young.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you knew him.

23 Did you see him at the meeting that concerned prisoner exchange?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I did.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] On which date?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] On all those dates when we came for

2 such meetings, he was there throughout that time.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As of which date was he present

4 at all the meetings?

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The report which I made is from May

6 till mid-June. So that should correspond to that period.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And when he was there with you

8 and Mr. Pasalic and Mr. Maric, were representatives of the international

9 community also in the hall where meetings were being held?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, they were.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Scott.

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I add? Do you recognise Mr. Pusic in the

13 courtroom?

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, I do. I can. He is over

15 there.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know all of them. We all lived in

18 the same city.

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] I'd just like to ask another

21 question. How was Mr. Pusic dressed, Mr. Pusic who was in the hall?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, he's sitting right by Valentin

23 Coric. I'm still not senile, I hope.

24 THE INTERPRETER: If the interpreter heard the witness right.

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] He is right there, sitting by that

1 column.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.

3 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Will you just please say

4 what his first name is. Mr. Pusic's, that is. Just tell us the name of

5 Mr. Pusic.

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I know that his name is Berto or

7 Brko Pusic. I know him very well, and I know that this is what they call

8 him.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Scott.

10 MR. SCOTT:

11 Q. Sir, going back to Judge Mindua's question, I'm afraid he has the

12 same problem as I do. Please listen specifically to the question and

13 answer the question, and I believe Judge Mindua said how was Mr. Pusic

14 dressed, during the time that you were meeting with him, if I understand

15 the question. At the time, how was Mr. Pusic dressed, back in 1993?

16 A. He was wearing an HVO military uniform.

17 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I'm not sure that was the intent of

18 Judge Mindua's question. I think it was more directed to identification.

19 I don't want to put words into His Honour's mouth.

20 MR. SCOTT: I'm reading what's in the transcript. Sorry, Your

21 Honour, if I misinterpreted your question. I was reacting to the

22 transcript. In any event, I guess both questions have been answered,

23 perhaps.

24 Q. Sir, could I ask you to look at Exhibit P 02512. Do you see that,

25 sir? Do you have that in front of you? Could you tell the Judges what

1 that document is.

2 A. That is the document of the negotiating team to implement a

3 cease-fire agreement in Bosnia-Herzegovina, concluded between General

4 Milivoj Petkovic and General Sefer Halilovic, and here in the preamble we

5 refer to that, and we also indicate the negotiating parties to it. That

6 is a document of the Commission for the Exchange and Liberation of All

7 Civilians in the area of the army of BH; i.e., the HVO.

8 Q. Sir, you were asked earlier if you had seen the document, the

9 agreement signed by Mr. Petkovic and Mr. Halilovic. At the top of this

10 document, does this document indicate that it's in -- pursuant to and in

11 reference to that agreement?

12 A. Yes, it does. Yes, and I did see that document, the previous one

13 you referred to.

14 MR. SCOTT: Can the witness please be shown Exhibit P 02882.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But first of all I'd like to go

16 back to document 2512. I'd like to see the last page of this document.

17 Sir, you can see the document before you. How is it that you

18 haven't signed beneath your name?

19 A. Yes, my signature is there under number 2. Yeah, it is there.

20 The commission of the BH army, under number 2.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. I apologise.

22 MR. SCOTT:

23 Q. Sir, if we could then go to Exhibit P 02882.

24 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Mr. Scott.

25 MR. SCOTT: Sorry. Exhibit P 02882.

1 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Ibrisimovic.

3 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I should like to

4 say that we have spent much more time on the document which Mr. Scott just

5 showed to the witness where the witness was not present, in fact, but we

6 have events where the witness was present and actually signed the

7 document, and as this is about my client, Mr. Pusic, I think it would be

8 in order to actually read out who was attending the meeting, but Mr. Scott

9 is simply skipping over that particular fact.

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. The witness has signed, and we have

11 even discussed the signature issue on the last page. I do not quite

12 understand your question, Mr. Ibrisimovic.

13 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I wish the witness

14 to explain who was also representing HVO at this meeting, who else was

15 also representing HVO at this meeting. And the BH army as well.

16 MR. SCOTT:

17 Q. Sir -- sir, you've heard the comment that was made. If you can

18 provide any additional assistance as to who attended the meeting on the

19 25th of May on the HVO side other than Mr. Puljic and Mr. Maric, if you

20 know.

21 A. I said a while ago there were these two, and apart from them there

22 was all of the military leadership. There was the Jadran Topic, and Berto

23 Pusic, and Petar Zelenika, and many other people came and asked and

24 inquired about what was going on, what the people there were doing. I

25 cannot recall all the names.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're saying that on the 25th

2 of May, in addition to those on the list - you are under number 2 - you're

3 saying that there were several other individuals, including Mr. Pusic.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So why isn't Mr. Pusic's name on

6 the document?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know that. He was their

8 chief. I don't know why they signed the document and why he didn't.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Generally speaking, a chief, a

10 head, signs documents. So how would you explain the fact that this

11 document hasn't been signed by him?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well -- well, I really don't know.

13 We did know, however, that Berto was the be-all and end-all for all

14 prisoners in the territory in Mostar. He was the one who captured people,

15 who released people. He did so for money. I can tell you that we had

16 information about Kovacevic's mother to that effect. He was working I

17 don't know according to whose orders, probably from on high, but I can

18 tell you, for instance, that in 1992, at Dzemal Bijedic University, the

19 military police set up an investigating prison and they maltreated people

20 there from 1992, 1993, including Serbs; everybody who was against the HZ

21 HB. So if one wanted someone liberated, released, you had to go and talk

22 to Berto Pusic. We do not skirt that issue because that is the truth.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: To get back to the document itself, was this

24 document written and signed on the same day the negotiations were held and

25 concluded?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as far as I can recall, this

2 is the way it was done, because when this first document was drawn up on

3 this -- at this first meeting on the 25th, we all placed our signatures on

4 it in the presence of the international community, and of course we could

5 not attend a single meeting without the international community attending.

6 It was impossible.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

9 MR. SCOTT: I don't know if it's still been pulled up or not, but

10 if we could go to Exhibit P 02882. Perhaps that's what's on the screen

11 now.

12 Q. Do you see that? Sir, if you can see that document, and again, if

13 you need to see more of it, the registry can assist you by scrolling

14 through the document, but looking at this document, can you tell the

15 Judges what it is.

16 A. That is a work report of our Commission for the Liberation and

17 Exchange of Civilians and Soldiers for the period from the 21st of May to

18 the 21st of June. For a month, in other words. What information we had

19 collected we had translated into this report, and that is it.

20 Q. And, sir, could you look -- with the assistance of the usher, if

21 they can take us to the last page of that document, which is ERN 03495743.

22 Can you just confirm, Mr. Cupina, that that is your signature, that you

23 signed this document?

24 A. Yes, this is my signature on this document, and also the signature

25 of Amer Bilalovic, who was currently employed with the Ministry of the

1 Interior, in Sarajevo.

2 Q. So, sir, is it correct, then, this is a report that you prepared

3 and signed, or was prepared at your direction?

4 A. That is a report of our commission and the commission had a number

5 of people who all helped draw up the report. I've already listed the

6 names and surnames of the people who were involved in the exchanges. I

7 believe I failed to mention -- I omitted to mention Mr. Buljko, the

8 interpreter.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I can see that next to your

10 signature, to the left, it says "Approved by Amer Bilalovic." Who is this

11 person?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That is a security officer of the

13 41st Motorised Brigade of the 4th Corps. But as we were friends, we had

14 him also sign the document to the effect that he had received one. That's

15 it.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll have a break

17 now and that will give everyone enough time to read through this document.

18 It's 20 to 6.00 and we will resume at 6.00.

19 --- Recess taken at 5.40 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 6.02 p.m.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, we have another hour

22 until we adjourn. It would be good if you could conclude your

23 examination-in-chief today so that the Defence can cross-examine the

24 witness tomorrow. You have taken an hour and eight minutes up until now.

25 MR. SCOTT: I'll see what I can do, Your Honour. I did -- yes.

1 It's been just a little over an hour, believe it or not, in the actual

2 time that I've taken myself at this juncture, but ...

3 Q. Sir, do you recall a meeting in connection with your work on

4 behalf of the Commission for Exchanges? Do you recall a meeting on the

5 27th of May, 1993, involving UNHCR?

6 A. Are you referring to this humanitarian meeting with the Commission

7 for Humanitarian Aid and Social Protection?

8 Q. If that's the meeting you recall, sir. I'm -- just do you recall

9 a meeting on the 27th of May, 1993, involving UNHCR?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And do you recall who else -- was anyone there on behalf of the

12 HVO?

13 A. I couldn't really say with regard to that meeting.

14 Q. In a report or other documents that we may see today or the Judges

15 may see in this case, there is sometimes reference to an exchange being on

16 the basis of "all for all." Now, that may seem obvious at some level but

17 can you tell the Judges, in connection with an exchange, what does it

18 mean, "all for all"?

19 A. In the document that we signed, representatives of the

20 international community were also present and all members of the military,

21 all civilians, in zones of both entities, and it was said that they had to

22 be released unconditionally in the territory where they lived and worked.

23 It was said that all the civilians and all the members of the military had

24 to be released unconditionally.

25 Q. That's -- okay. All persons on one side. But how about the

1 exchange on the other side? Again, please listen to my question: What is

2 an "all for all" exchange?

3 A. It means if the ABiH has soldiers or civilians who have been

4 arrested, they have to release them, and similarly, the HVO has to act in

5 this way. However, we always implemented what was on paper. However, the

6 HVO never provided us with a single document, nothing about any detainees,

7 nothing about anyone killed or expelled. They didn't allow us access to

8 concentration camps. They obstructed access and wouldn't cooperate with

9 us. Everything's just orally transmitted. We never received anything on

10 paper from them.

11 Q. Before we go forward, can you give the Judges again in the

12 exchange -- in the area of activity of exchanges, what would be a

13 different model. If not all for all, what other kinds of exchanges were

14 there at this time?

15 A. Apart from such exchanges, our commission didn't forbid such

16 exchanges. There were exchanges of individuals. Individuals were

17 involved in that. Our commission was never involved in such exchanges.

18 But as I have already said, according to our information, Berto Pusic was

19 the main person responsible for such exchanges. Whenever it was necessary

20 to exchange somebody for money, for gold, for real estate, et cetera, in

21 many cases such people got involved.

22 MR. MURPHY: The witness is simply not answering the question.

23 Would Mr. Scott please control the witness and ask him to answer the

24 question.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sir, please provide a precise

1 answer to the question put to you.

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Very well.

3 MR. SCOTT:

4 Q. Sir, can you share with the Judges any observations that you care

5 to make about the conduct of the HVO in connection with exchanges and

6 releases during your dealing, during the time that you were dealing with

7 them on these topics?

8 A. First of all, we compiled a list of soldiers who'd remained at HVO

9 positions. We compiled this list on the basis of information from the

10 parents of soldiers because the documents on the soldiers remained in the

11 territory of responsibility of the HVO. Then we compiled a list of

12 individuals who had been expelled, of children and parents who had been

13 expelled to concentration camps, and then we had lists on those who were

14 in hospitals. However, we never received any such documents from the

15 other side, from the HVO. We never received a single such document. They

16 only listened to what we had to say and then acted in a very arrogant,

17 impudent way. They did everything so that the exchange couldn't take

18 place on the principle all for all that had been agreed on.

19 Q. In connection with exchanges or releases, sir, can you tell the

20 Judges to where or to what locations, in your experience, would prisoners

21 and persons that had been detained, where would they be released to?

22 A. Refugees, people who had been expelled, who had been sent to

23 concentration camps from the -- well, they'd be held at the Heliodrom,

24 Dretelj, the Velez stadium, Dzemal Bijedic University. That's where they

25 would detain them. We never knew how many of them they had released. We

1 received partial information, incomplete information from various

2 individuals. We never had complete information. However, when people

3 crossed over to our side, they would make statements about the terrible

4 torture they'd been subjected to by the HVO.

5 Q. All right. Do you know whether some people were released to

6 Croatia or to other countries? If you know.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to object on the leading nature. I

8 understand the gentleman is having a problem with the witness - excuse me,

9 sir - but Mr. Scott should not be leading. This is critical information.

10 MR. SCOTT:

11 Q. Sir, I'll restate my question to you. Please listen very

12 carefully to my question. When persons were released or exchanged and

13 they came out of the custody of the other side, from the HVO in

14 particular, do you know where their people were sent, where -- to where,

15 what locations they were released to?

16 A. People were sent to positions near the Hit, near the Bristol

17 Hotel, and then towards Tekija, near Donja Mahala. That's where they sent

18 some people, usually elderly people, women and children. They wanted to

19 burden the ABiH in this way. Some people were sent to other countries,

20 abroad. Some people were converted to a different faith. I've written

21 about this in my book. And I explained in my book that in 1994 that

22 Bishop Peric wrote a letter to Jadranko Prlic and asked him to stop

23 converting Muslims to the Christian faith. We had a list of 159

24 individuals who were concerned. Unheard of things were done. I couldn't

25 describe such things in one sentence.

1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I apologise. The witness gave a

2 statement about his work from the 24th of May to the 21st of June. We

3 have read through the report that we hadn't read previously. The witness

4 hasn't said anything about this period. Could we establish whether he

5 knows anything about this because of the work he was involved in, or is

6 this all hearsay information and pure speculation?

7 MR. SCOTT:

8 Q. Sir, a moment ago you said that some were sent abroad. Can you

9 tell us what you know about that.

10 A. Many people were sent abroad. Many people were forced to go

11 abroad. Many wanted to cross over to the left bank, but to do so they had

12 to write over their property to members of the HVO. My own sister Merima

13 Maslo is an exemplary case. She had a child -- children 6 and 9 years

14 old, and she had to go from Mostar to Citluk and try some -- to find an

15 exit of some kind. If friends from Croatia hadn't come to collect her,

16 she would never have managed to reach another country. My brother Mirad

17 was in Tumur [phoen]. He was held there for a month. I'm talking about

18 my family and what they experienced. He ended up in the Gasevci camp. I

19 can provide you with many other examples.

20 Q. Where was the Gasevci camp, if I heard you correctly? Where was

21 that camp located?

22 A. It was located in Croatia.

23 Q. And did he remain at that location or did he go somewhere else?

24 A. The International Red Cross provided him with the paperwork he

25 needed to go to Switzerland, and he now lives there in Singal [phoen].

1 Q. Can you provide the Judges any information on how it was

2 determined which people would be released to Croatia or third countries

3 and which ones would not?

4 A. They had rules of their own. It depended on the position of the

5 prisoner, on his position in the social hierarchy. That's how they

6 decided. Not a single member of the military, not a single adult was

7 allowed to go to the ABiH or, rather, to the left rank of the Neretva.

8 Only women and children were allowed to do so. These other individuals

9 were selected on the basis of their statements or, rather, on the basis of

10 whether they would provide them with their house, flat, money, et cetera.

11 So that's how they would select them and then send them to third

12 countries.

13 Q. When you said just now on the basis of their statements, and you

14 went on it say "or, rather," and I don't know whether you were adding

15 something or correcting that. When you said "on the basis of their

16 statements," what did you mean?

17 A. Yes. There were statements that they gave.

18 Q. Such as?

19 A. Well, statements according to which they would sign over their

20 property, their flat to someone else. That's the information we received,

21 and we forwarded all the documents on such events to the Ministry of the

22 Interior who was responsible for gathering such information. As far as I

23 know, at the time the chief of the MUP in Mostar was Ramo Maslesa. And

24 this was provided to Alija's institutions in the Republic of Bosnia and

25 Herzegovina.

1 Q. Can I ask the registry to please show you Exhibit P 02884.

2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: In the meantime, I would like to go back to the

3 lists. The witness has spoken of the lists that they established on the

4 basis of information from parents and others, and I suppose these are

5 lists of people who you supposed were held by the HVO. Did you also

6 provide lists of the people who were held on your side, and did the HVO

7 not present lists of people either they held or people they suspected you

8 held? I hope I made myself clear.

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, as far as the ABiH is

10 concerned at the time, as far as I knew, no one was detained. No

11 civilians or other people. Croats who lived on left bank can confirm

12 this. As far as the right bank is concerned in the HVO's zone of

13 responsibility, this is how we compiled those lists, but they never

14 allowed us to see the people they had. We couldn't check or when they

15 released them -- released them from concentration camps and under what

16 conditions. For a very long time I don't think they even allowed the

17 international community to have access to such information.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Would it then be correct to say that if you did

19 not hold any person detained, there could be no question of any exchange?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] We discussed the subject of

21 exchanges, and they then compiled a list. I don't know how many people

22 were included. And all those who said they wanted to cross over from the

23 left to the right bank were given the possibility of doing so. All those

24 who wanted to live in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in any part of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina could do so. The HVO wouldn't allow people to choose

1 the part of Bosnia and Herzegovina they wanted to live in or the territory

2 they wanted to live in.

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

4 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, perhaps you could inquire from the

5 witness how is it then earlier he said that the ABiH always complied,

6 meaning that they were exchanging whatever prisoners they had, although

7 now he's saying they never had any, while the HVO wasn't. It just seems

8 to me to be illogical, but maybe in the gentleman's mind there's some, you

9 know, information that he's not telling us.

10 MR. SCOTT: Can I -- can I try to -- sorry, go ahead.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Please. Primarily you are questioning the

12 witness. Please.

13 MR. SCOTT: Let me try to see if I can help the confusion on this

14 point.

15 Q. Sir, you've heard the comments in the last few minutes. Perhaps

16 you misunderstood, whatever. There were times when there were exchanges

17 between people that were held on the ABiH side and people that were held

18 on the HVO side; is that correct? There were some exchanges?

19 A. There were exchanges, but as far as I know, they were looking for

20 two soldiers or some soldiers, but as far as I know they were not

21 officially soldiers.

22 Q. Are you saying -- when you go back, and we may be about to lose it

23 -- I guess we already have lost it -- hold on a moment.

24 Sir, you don't have this on your screen any more, but on page 90,

25 line 5, starting at line 5, you were talking about this: "Your Honour, as

1 far as the ABiH is concerned at the time, as far as I know, no one was

2 detained, no civilians or other people. Croats who lived on the left bank

3 can confirm this."

4 You were talking at the time about Croats on the left bank. Are

5 you -- were you -- are you talking there about whether Croats who still

6 lived on the east side had been taken and been detained and kept in

7 custody?

8 MR. KARNAVAS: I object to the form of the question. He can ask

9 to clarify his answer --

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. --

11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No.

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, the -- this idea that questions

13 must not be in any way leading is a rule which in American law of evidence

14 may exist. I wonder where you take any such rule in our Statute or in our

15 Rules of Procedure.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, I'm glad you mentioned this, because this is

17 the second time you keep pointing to the American system, and I wish to

18 remind the Trial Chamber that when -- when a party calls a witness, it is

19 the witness that needs to testify. By asking a leading question, a

20 leading question suggests the answer, so therefore it is the lawyer that

21 is -- that is providing the information rather than the witness, and to

22 have the Prosecutor now coach the witness with what he might have meant in

23 that instance, we're not getting what the witness might have but, rather,

24 we're getting what the Prosecution is suggesting. And so what I'm asking

25 is a party, whether it's the Prosecution or the Defence, when they call a

1 witness, they should elicit information from the witness.

2 Cross-examination, it's a different technique. But on direct it should be

3 the witness that is should be testifying. And if there's an unclear

4 answer from the witness, the witness should be asked to clarify it by

5 asking him simply could you please tell us who, what, where, why, how,

6 rather than suggesting to the witness what the answer might be. That's

7 because otherwise, when we get back to the record, which you're going to

8 have to use to establish, you know, findings of facts, you are not going

9 to be able to know whether it was the witness's information or whether it

10 was information imparted by the party to the witness. That's why.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you're quite

12 right, but contrary to what takes place in the USA or common law

13 countries, the Judges will read what the question is and will see what the

14 answer is. If the question is leading, the question put by the

15 Prosecution is leading, we'll see what should be done. So rest reassured.

16 However, you are quite right in saying that the Prosecution should

17 not suggest answers to the witness. So the Prosecution has to be careful.

18 However, sometimes the Prosecution tries not to waste time, therefore

19 suggests certain things, and that's a risk one takes. However, the answer

20 shouldn't be provoked by the question when cross -- when

21 examination-in-chief is being conducted.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I might ask that -- add, sorry, I also agree in

23 principle. We have had no "Do you still beat your wife?" type questions

24 here. That's the one that really is bad. What happens, if you look at

25 the transcript, is that we have a countless number of interventions of you

1 where you take up an issue with the Prosecutor, who then, after a couple

2 of lost minutes, asks the same question in a slightly different way. It

3 makes practically no difference, and all that happens is that we lose an

4 amazing amount of time by this.

5 When a question is abusively leading, then that's a different

6 matter, but I can hardly remember one like that. And now and then, as the

7 President has said, it's kind of a shortcut that is made here, and we have

8 to go easy about it. This is not a pedagogical exercise where someone

9 must be taught how to do it exactly. The essence is that the truth can

10 come forward.

11 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, may I be heard very briefly on that,

12 because evidence is one of the few things in life that I have some claim

13 to know a little about.

14 Your Honour, I have also, like Mr. Karnavas, I think, been a

15 little disturbed by references from the Bench to practice in America. In

16 fact, as the President said, some restraint on the mode of direct

17 examination is common throughout all common law adversarial systems, and

18 Your Honour, with all due respect, trials in this -- in this Tribunal are

19 in fact adversarial proceedings, and the importance of that is that when

20 we -- we are not joining with the Prosecution in a coordinated

21 presentation, as is the system in the civil law countries where everybody

22 knows what the totality of the evidence is before we begin and all that's

23 needed is clarification. What's happening here is that two adversarial

24 parties are presenting their cases. And although Your Honour is quite

25 right in saying there's nothing in the Rules that requires the absence of

1 leading questions, in fact there is a Rule that requires the -- the Trial

2 Chamber - this is Rule 90(F) - to exercise control over the mode and order

3 of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to make the

4 interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the

5 truth.

6 Now, I know that sometimes the view is taken that the distinction

7 between common law and civil law that the civil law is more oriented to

8 the ascertainment of the truth, but it's our humble submission as common

9 lawyers that that is our goal also. We may do it in a different way, and

10 our experience suggests that when the Prosecutor can effectively testify

11 for the witness by asking leading questions, it becomes difficult then

12 distinguish what is the Prosecutor's testimony and which is the witness's,

13 and that does not aid the ascertainment of truth.

14 So, Your Honour, there is, in my respectful submission, a certain

15 practical wisdom in exercising a limited mode of control over the

16 examination. I'm not suggesting that we try these proceedings on common

17 law rules of evidence, simply that there should be some limited control in

18 the interests of efficiency.

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The controversy is certainly not very deep, and I

20 will leave it at that because otherwise this becomes a seminar, and that

21 is again a loss of time I would be responsible for. I'm sorry.

22 MR. MURPHY: Yes, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, try to make up for

24 lost time. But at the same time, you should avoid asking leading

25 questions.

1 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.

2 Q. Mr. Cupina, I'm going to try to --

3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Mr. Scott, please.

4 MR. SCOTT:

5 Q. I'm going to ask this one more time because I think there is

6 perhaps some confusion in the courtroom, or a reasonable question, I'll

7 give you one more chance to answer the question and I'll give up and

8 perhaps the Judges or others will want to follow on.

9 You've told us several times now that there were exchanges between

10 people held which the ABiH and people held by the HVO. I think the

11 question that people are asking in the courtroom is how can people be

12 exchanged unless both sides are holding people? Do you understand the

13 dilemma?

14 A. I do.

15 Q. So what people, if any, were the -- was the ABiH side holding that

16 were used for the purposes of conducting exchanges or used that were

17 involved in exchanges?

18 A. The gentleman from the HVO provided a list of people who had to be

19 transferred by us from the left to the right bank.

20 Q. And what about the people that were released or exchanged by the

21 ABiH?

22 A. I was referring to these individuals who moved around freely in

23 the town, and the army then handed them over and they went to the HVO

24 positions, with the exception of Igor Kapor, who was a problem when an

25 exchange was to be organised because he was a Croatian soldier and the

1 documents about him show that he was a Croatian soldier. They also asked

2 Suad Nametak, an ABiH soldier, to cross over to his -- to their side, and

3 for that reason the exchange was cancelled at the end.

4 Q. Can I ask you, sir, to look -- or to be shown Exhibit P 02884. If

5 you can see enough of that document to tell us, sir - and if you can't,

6 we'll try to show more of it to you - can you tell the Judges what that

7 document is?

8 A. This is a report on the work of the Commission for Social

9 Protection and Humanitarian Aid for the period from the 21st of May, to

10 the 21st of June, 1993.

11 Q. And are you familiar with that report? Have you seen it before

12 today?

13 A. Well, yes. I have it in my archive as well.

14 Q. What was the work of this other commission that was going on

15 parallel to the work of the commission that you were also involved in?

16 A. We were in the same premises, the same offices, and this was our

17 joint work, more or less, related to social welfare and protection and

18 humanitarian aid, and just like Mr. Pavlovic says here, that was what we

19 did and I was in contact with him all the time.

20 Q. Now can you tell the Judges, was there a time in connection with

21 this exchange work in which you provided some video material, a video to

22 the HVO?

23 A. I think that Television Croatia made a video of our soldiers of

24 the 4th Corps and the 1st Mostar Brigade who had been captured, and it was

25 in the Vranica building. And the parents would ask us every day about

1 this, because somebody brought in the video, I don't know who, and we

2 handed the video over to the representatives of the international

3 community, and I think the Red Cross as well.

4 Q. Did you provide a copy of the video to anyone connected with the

5 HVO?

6 A. As far as I remember, that copy was handed over to the HVO

7 representatives, but they all said they had nothing to do with it. We

8 never actually received any information about those people during that

9 period of time.

10 Q. Do you recall the particular individual or individuals on the HVO

11 side to whom the video was handed or given?

12 A. As far as I remember, we gave it to the commission, the

13 negotiating commission and the representatives there, because I had nobody

14 else to talk to. It was the negotiating commission which sent it on

15 further, upwards to their superiors.

16 Q. And do you recall, sir, during this time in negotiations, the

17 individuals on the HVO side that you were dealing with on a regular basis?

18 A. There was Maric, Puljic. They would have contacts with us. Pero

19 Zelenika, Jadran Topic, Berto -- Brko Pusic, rather. I think there was

20 Lugonja, Dr. Lugonja. A series of people. I can't remember all their

21 names just now, but I know that it was jam packed with people. Everybody

22 came to these meetings, everybody who was anybody in Mostar, who occupied

23 HVO posts or HZ HB posts.

24 Q. Let me next direct your attention to Exhibit P 02897. Perhaps

25 that could be enlarged a bit. Thank you.

1 Sir, can you look at that document and can you recognise it; and

2 if so, tell the Judges what it is.

3 A. Yes. This is a document which says that accommodation should be

4 found for displaced persons from the following municipalities: Nevesinje,

5 Gacko, Bileca, and other areas. And that was the area under the

6 occupation -- under the Serbian occupation, occupation by the Serbian

7 army. And we wanted to put these people up before they could go home, so

8 accommodation for the displaced persons and refugees, as well as providing

9 food, shelter, and so on.

10 Q. And looking at the document, sir, can you tell us whether you

11 signed the document? It may need --

12 A. Yes. I signed that document, as far as I remember, and I made a

13 proposal as to how all those displaced persons could be put up throughout

14 the territory of Mostar municipality so that all the local communes be

15 represented or, rather, that people be put up in facilities in all the

16 local communes.

17 Q. Did you make this proposal to the HVO?

18 A. Well, I did put forward that proposal. However, they rejected it

19 straight off because they did not want the balijas, as they called them,

20 on their territory, to have balijas on their territory.

21 Q. Just so the record is clear, maybe it is to most, but when you

22 said in your previous answer "so that all the local communes be

23 represented" - and perhaps it's a translation issue - what do you mean by

24 "local communes"?

25 A. Well, in that area, the ones I mentioned. There were facilities

1 capable of providing accommodation to these people. There was a nursery

2 school. There was -- there were various facilities. Usually nurseries,

3 kindergartens, and so on, that could be adapted to accommodate the people

4 coming in. That's what I mean. There was a hotel as well, Sokol, and a

5 student hostel. Things like that. Buildings and facilities where the

6 displaced persons and refugees could be put up for brief periods of time

7 and could be adapted in a short space of time as well.

8 Q. Sir, can you tell the Judges the approximate date that you ceased

9 being involved officially as the head of the Exchange Commission on the

10 ABiH side.

11 A. Well, that was when they asked us to go for the exchange to

12 Jablanica, across Dreznica, the new road made by the HVO for its own

13 purposes. Sometime towards the end of 1992 and beginning of 1993. And I

14 ceased to be a member because I didn't feel safe on that territory. And

15 the Spanish Battalion, at a few meetings, was driving an APC to prevent us

16 from being targeted by any of the groups and the RPGs, or whatever the

17 weapons were called. And I think that the representatives of the

18 international community would be able to tell you when that was.

19 Q. Well, sir, you said just now -- you said sometime toward the end

20 of 1992 and beginning of 1993. Sir, we know that you weren't put on the

21 commission until May, 1993. So perhaps there is some confusion about

22 dates. If you could assist us.

23 A. No. I'm referring to the road that was constructed, just the

24 road, when the road was built. The road -- it's a byroad from Djubrani

25 and so on.

1 Q. I'm going to come back to my question, sir: Approximately how

2 long did you serve on the commission, then, if you can't remember the

3 exact date? What was the approximate time you served on the commission?

4 A. Well, I was there until I took up my new duties in the

5 Energopetrol company.

6 Q. And that was that, sir?

7 A. I think up until July, thereabouts. I have the exact date in my

8 documents, but that would be it.

9 Q. And can you tell the Judges, who took your position when you left?

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: July of what year, please, so that we have no --

11 MR. SCOTT: Yes, of course.

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] 1993.

13 MR. SCOTT:

14 Q. And who took your position or who was named in your place, sir, if

15 you remember?

16 A. I think it was Alica Alikadic Fakun [phoen], who is no longer in

17 our midst. He's not living any more, not alive any more.

18 Q. You continued to live in Mostar, did you, throughout the summer of

19 1993?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. Can you please tell the Judges what the conditions in Mostar were

22 at that time as you experienced them? We're now talking about the period

23 roughly May through September, 1993, if you can.

24 A. At that time, the town of Mostar didn't have a single roof left

25 standing. Then there was no water, no electricity, no humanitarian aid

1 coming in, no medicines. There was nothing that a normal livelihood would

2 require. We spent the whole time in caves. We drank water from the river

3 Neretva, which was pumped into a cistern. And from Hum and Planinica you

4 could see where the people were gathering so they could be targeted with

5 heavy artillery. It was -- the conditions were inhumane. Very difficult

6 living conditions, the kind of conditions that do not befit human dignity,

7 but people managed survive without food, without water, without

8 electricity. All they had was what they happened to have in their homes,

9 but otherwise life was very difficult. There was a great deal of illness.

10 Children were exposed to shelling. Old women were shot at by snipers.

11 Genocide was conducted along the demarcation lines. People would lose

12 their lives. They would make them cross over to our side and then shoot

13 them with snipers. It was a terrible time. The situation was very, very

14 difficult, particularly because the displaced persons and refugees were

15 forced to move into our -- in our direction, onto our side. But nobody

16 had any food to eat. The civilians didn't, the soldiers didn't, and when

17 the displaced persons and refugees arrived, the situation was aggravated.

18 Q. Sir, before we move further, a moment ago you said that water was

19 pumped into a cistern. Just so the record is clear, when you say

20 "cistern," what do you mean? Do you mean a reservoir in the ground, do

21 you mean a well, do you mean a tank? What are you talking about?

22 A. As far as I remember, it was a fire department's water truck which

23 was used to put out the fires, and the fire brigade was on the left bank.

24 So there was this one water truck that was used which was pumped by

25 generators out of the Neretva River and then supplied to the people. But

1 it's industrial water that you get from the river Neretva, not actually

2 drinking water.

3 Q. Can you tell the Judges, please, anything that you observed in

4 connection with the shelling of mosques or other Islamic cultural property

5 in East Mostar -- or East or West Mostar.

6 A. Well, I was witness to many shellings. I saw many of the

7 shellings. It was if they were playing a game to see who would hit a

8 religious -- Muslim site better. Next to my brother's office, for

9 example, at Cernica. All the mosques in the old town. And I also

10 witnessed Biscevic's house, which is a historical monument. So everything

11 that was Islamic was targeted and destroyed.

12 What the Serb and Montenegrin forces failed to do was accomplished

13 by the HVO forces.

14 Q. In connection with the -- you mentioned shelling during water --

15 when water was being collected by the people of East Mostar.

16 A. Well, it was like this: As water -- water was distributed once a

17 day, and since from Planinica or the northern hills above the town you

18 could see all the movement in town, you had to find a safe place, and we

19 changed locations where water would be given out. But whenever they saw

20 the water truck move, they started shelling, and this shelling took place

21 many times. My wife and children were faced with a situation like that,

22 just like all the other citizens of Mostar.

23 Q. Apart from shelling, if I can distinguish for a moment sniping,

24 can you tell the Judges a bit more about what you observed in connection

25 with sniping and any experiences that you had personally.

1 A. The sniper fire -- there was sniper fire throughout the war, from

2 Bakina Luka, which is the entrance into Mostar from the north side, to

3 separate the farming area from the town. Then the Buna farming area, to

4 set that apart from Rodoca, and then in the town itself there were large

5 and small calibre snipers from the Catholic church position, then the

6 gymnasium, the Aleksa Santic secondary school, and from the commercial

7 bank, the PBS Bank, or commercial bank building, from there. Then the old

8 people's home was used -- or, rather, opposite the old people's home.

9 There were these high-rise buildings in number 2 Centar where large

10 calibre snipers were used, and I can say that many well-known people died

11 from this sniper fire. During that period of time, for instance,

12 Dr. Pavlovic was killed, and a cousin of mine, Suad Puzic, was killed.

13 Many people lost their lives having been hit by a sniper. And all those

14 records are in the Ministry of the Interior. It was all recorded, and I

15 think that that is material that is accessible to people who want to have

16 exact facts and figures about all this.

17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry. What do you understand to be a large

18 calibre, and how do you know whether it was a large calibre?

19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, because they were PATs and

20 PAMs, the calibres; PATs and PAMs. They had optic sights, special optic

21 sights. Anti-aircraft machine-guns and cannons. And I was with Goran

22 Fink. His wife was about to give birth, and he said we should go and find

23 some milk. We went to the marketplace, and he was hit, most probably,

24 according to our information, from a position up on the high-rise

25 building, a long way away, by the Catholic church. A sniper hit him. And

1 it's a long distance. So that's why. As the crow flies, it's a very long

2 time, that is to say the distance between the sniper's nest and where the

3 person was hit, right behind the Catholic church, which means you have to

4 cross the Neretva River and then it's 3 or 400 metres at least away from

5 that. That's where that sniper position was.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. Thank you.

7 MR. SCOTT:

8 Q. Sir, with the usher's assistance I would like to show you in hard

9 copy, and it can be placed on the ELMO, a copy of P 09517.

10 Sir, in preparing to give your testimony today, were you shown a

11 map and asked to make certain -- to mark certain locations on the map?

12 And what's on the ELMO now, do you notice -- do you recognise that to be

13 the paper on which you made your markings?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Can I direct your attention first of all to the marking number 1,

16 that is the number 1. Can you tell us what is marked -- what you intended

17 to mark or signify by marking that location.

18 A. That is the position of the mosque at the beginning of Cernica.

19 Q. And what can you tell us about that mosque? What did you see or

20 know about the condition --

21 A. It is one of the oldest mosques in Mostar which was shelled by the

22 HVO, and it was destroyed. It was hit -- targeted, hit and destroyed.

23 After the war, it was reconstructed, as far as I know.

24 Q. And can you tell us --

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Does the witness have an idea as to when it was

1 shelled?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All the mosques -- well, all the

3 mosques were targeted from May and June throughout - I can't remember the

4 exact date - until they were ultimately destroyed, but my brother's

5 office, who is a lawyer, is nearby. It's near that mosque, so I had

6 occasion to see that happening because I was looking for documents

7 relating to some property that I had, a house I had, and so on. So I

8 spent a lot of time there, searching for those documents, and I could see

9 that happening, and I was in that area, Cernica, fairly frequently during

10 the war.

11 MR. SCOTT:

12 Q. So that the record is clear, sir, when you say May and June, what

13 year are you talking about?

14 A. 1993.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, quickly, Mr. Kovacic. It's

16 already five to 7.00.

17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I hate to interrupt,

18 but according to the way in which we produce evidence, I think following

19 your guidelines, you -- we used to ask that the witness makes his markings

20 in the courtroom. It seems that he marked this before, made the markings

21 before and just confirmed them here.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Scott. I understood

23 the witness to have marked these things previously.

24 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour, that's correct. Just as we've done

25 with other witnesses who have done the same thing, with no objection from

1 the Court, ahead of time. It simply saves time in the courtroom, Your

2 Honour. The witness can make the markings. He's subject to full

3 cross-examination on the map. It takes a lot less time to do it outside

4 the courtroom than inside the courtroom.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll go on to

6 number 2 and 3.

7 MR. SCOTT:

8 Q. Can you tell us, sir, what's at location number 2?

9 A. The mosque is at the bottom and it's still in Cernica. It's the

10 local commune of Cernica.

11 Q. What happened to the mosque at that location?

12 A. It was shelled continuously, and my friend Mirza Hadziomerovic was

13 nearby there, he lived nearby, and we would watch the shelling of the

14 mosque and then take shelter. They destroyed it in stages, but mostly all

15 the mosques were half destroyed, 50 per cent destroyed, and some of them

16 were razed to the ground as well. I didn't carry out an exact appraisal.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you say "he," who was he?

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The HVO.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] "They." When you say "they,"

20 who do you mean?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I mean the HVO.

22 MR. SCOTT: Sir -- Your Honour, I think we'll need a few minutes

23 in the morning, not very long, but if I could just finish with number 3.

24 Q. Can you tell us, sir, when you made the marking at number 3,

25 what's at that location -- or was at that location?

1 A. That's also a mosque, one of the most famous mosques, Karadzoz-bey

2 mosque in Fejica Street. It's the oldest mosque and a symbol of Mostar.

3 Q. What happened to that mosque, please?

4 A. It was also destroyed, although it was -- and all these mosques

5 were under the protection of the Cultural Institute of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

6 So that one was destroyed too. It was targeted by the HVO units.

7 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I think I'll need about 15 minutes

8 tomorrow to finish. We're almost at the end, but I'll need a few minutes

9 in the morning.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps we could ask him what A,

11 B, C, D denotes.

12 MR. SCOTT: I was going to do that in the morning, but if Your

13 Honour wants to continue, I'm happy to continue now.

14 Q. Sir, if you still have that available to you, then, can you tell

15 us what is indicated by the location marked as A?

16 A. A is the secondary school, the Aleksa Santic secondary school.

17 But these were the fascist names of streets, because it did not exist

18 before the war, that was still present in Mostar. Those are the streets

19 and this is a new map, which is inappropriate to a civilised Europe.

20 A is the gymnasium or the secondary school; B is the glass

21 building; C is the Bristol Hotel; D is the old people's home, retirement

22 home. So A, B -- D. Yes, those were snipers' nests that covered all the

23 bridges over the Neretva River, so it was impossible to cross from one

24 bank to the other. That would be it, roughly.

25 Q. I'm just looking at my notes and you did at that rather quick.

1 Let me -- okay. I think we're up to A, B, C and D. Can you tell us what

2 is indicated by location E?

3 A. The letter E denotes the Catholic church and the position of the

4 high-rise building. I think there were two tall blocks there.

5 Q. And did you mark this -- have you marked that again as a -- what

6 you identified as a sniping position, sniper position?

7 A. Yes, they were sniper positions. On the left bank -- let's see

8 how far that is, what the distance is. Goran Fink was hit across the

9 Neretva.

10 Q. Let me just ask you: What is indicated at location G?

11 A. [No interpretation].

12 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't get the translation. The witness said

13 something just now.

14 A. G is Bakina Luka, a residential building, which is where there was

15 a sniper's nest which covered the entrance to Mostar in order to separate

16 the town of Mostar from the farming or -- farming zone. That is to say,

17 to separate supplies from coming in. It's the M17 motorway, or road,

18 which was the entrance into Mostar from the Bijelo Polje direction.

19 The H is the sniper nest. It's a hill, Stotina. There are a few

20 houses there which covered -- and from there they covered Hasan Brkic

21 bridge.

22 And G is the position of the residential buildings. It's an

23 agrarian area, a farming area, once again to cut off the supply route.

24 Q. G or J?

25 A. That's the G, yes, Rodoc.

1 Q. What looks to me on the map -- are you talking about the marking

2 that's immediately above the word "Rodoc"?

3 A. Rodoc, yes, that's right.

4 Q. Do you consider that, sir, just so the record is clear, do you

5 consider that to be a G or a J? Maybe it's a translation --

6 A. J, yes, J.

7 Q. Thank you. I think the only one we may have missed, sir, is F. I

8 didn't -- I'm not sure I heard you say -- if you can find location F on

9 the map, please.

10 A. Yes. That's the centre, the central or local commune, with a

11 number of high-rise buildings from which they were able to cover the area

12 towards Carina, the entrance into Mostar town. There's Severni,

13 North Camp, and Gavro's house next to the Carina bridge. And further on

14 towards Zalik, a residential district called Zalik. And the 100 -- or,

15 rather, Stotina was a sniper nest, and they had tanks there too, as far as

16 I know.

17 Q. All right. I'm --

18 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'm going to conclude, but before we do,

19 just let me clarify the record.

20 Q. Sir, again, just so the record is clear because sometimes the

21 markings, at least on the ELMO, may not look entirely clear, when you

22 referred to -- let's see, F, were you referring to what's -- the marking

23 that's under a location marked Centar II?

24 A. Yes, that's right.

25 MR. SCOTT: All right. Your Honour -- Your Honour, I appreciate

1 the Court's patience, but I still think there will be a few wrap-up

2 questions and I'll need just a few minutes in the morning, please.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just before we close, a moment

4 ago, when you referred to A, you said the secondary school, or gymnasium,

5 which was destroyed by the fascists, and I saw Mr. Praljak jumping up.

6 What allows you to say that they were fascists? What makes you say that?

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, as far as I'm concerned,

8 everything that is inhumane and contrary to civilised behaviour -

9 persecution, ethnic cleansing, the killing of small children, parents,

10 elderly persons - every -- all that, because people have different ideas.

11 So everything that builds up civilisation. And it was the stifling of

12 civilisation in the Mostar region. That I refer to as fascism. And that

13 is why these streets were named taking the names of the soldiers of the

14 NDH, the Independent State of Croatia, who were on the side of the fascist

15 movement. So that the cultural centre, for example, changed its name. It

16 was built by Mostar citizens. It was called the Kosaca centre, for

17 example. Then the Velez football stadium was called the Zrinski. So

18 that's still happening today. All the street names are being changed to

19 take the names of people who had been condemned as fascists after World

20 War II.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Quickly, Mr. Praljak.

22 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm not used

23 to being insulted. I've been brought here, or I came here voluntarily, to

24 determine what I'm guilty of. Witnesses appear here to say when, what,

25 where, how. If witnesses are allowed to call entire people fascists, to

1 talk about the Kings of Kosaca from the 14th or 15th century in such a

2 way, to call them such names, then this becomes a political pamphlet,

3 political pamphleteering, hurling insults, and this is not the appropriate

4 place to act in such a manner. I would be grateful if we could adhere to

5 the Rules and if witnesses could act correctly.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's why I wanted to ask

7 whether this was a personal opinion of yours.

8 Yes.

9 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I think it

10 would be helpful if we read out the names of the streets under A and B.

11 It's not very clear here. The streets are called Kolodvorska, Aleksa

12 Santica Street, and then there is a street called something like Zelena

13 Ulice [phoen]. These names have absolutely nothing to do with the names

14 of soldiers, least of all the names of soldiers from the NDH who died in

15 the case -- in the cause of the Second World War.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll deal with this

17 perhaps tomorrow, but the issue of names has already been dealt with.

18 This was done when you weren't present and when we had another witness

19 testifying here.

20 It's now ten past 7.00. I apologise to the interpreters, and we

21 will meet again tomorrow at 9.00.

22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.10 p.m.,

23 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 11th day

24 of July, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

25