060824ED

Page 5471

1 ruled about the exhibits submitted to the witness on the 17th of August.

2 In order to avoid any misunderstanding, the Trial Chamber would like to

3 specify the numbers of the exhibits it ruled upon on the 21st of August.

4 The Trial Chamber has decided to admit the following exhibits. I'm going

5 to give you the numbers of these exhibits because this was not done the

6 previous time. P 03249; P 08588; P 09413, page 4, 11 and 12; IC 00027; IC

7 00028; 2D 00083; 2D 00084; 5D 00515.

8 Let me remind you that the Chamber had decided not to admit

9 Exhibit 4D 00071, and that the Trial Chamber has decided that Exhibit P

10 08534 would be marked for identification whilst expecting a copy of a

11 better quality from the Prosecution.

12 After the break, we'll issue two further decisions orally. One

13 of these rulings has to do with the issue raised by Mr. Murphy about an

14 expert witness, and the second decision is related to the submissions made

15 yesterday by Mr. Karnavas and by Mr. Prlic with respect to the length of

16 cross-examination. We'll issue these two rulings later on. These

17 decisions have been taken, but we're currently working on the wording of

18 the decision.

19 We'll now proceed with the hearing, and we'll continue with the

20 testimony of the witness. There was also the issue about the exhibits

21 related to Witness Beese. I had asked the parties to let us know about

22 their requests in terms of exhibits to be tendered. I'm now turning to the

23 Prosecution.

24 Mr. Mundis, are you in a position to give us a list of the

25 relevant exhibits?

Page 5472

1 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. We have prepared a chart

2 and a cover motion that is being reviewed as I speak. We would hope to

3 file something either later today or tomorrow morning with respect to the

4 documents concerning the witness Beese.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, for the Defence, Ms.

6 Nozica.

7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I need to

8 make a correction in yesterday's transcript during my examination and

9 because I wish to tender the tables and photographs of the tables into

10 evidence. May I briefly explain for the record?

11 Yesterday, on page 4, that is the record of the 23rd of August,

12 on page 4 in lines 23, 24, and 25, or more precisely in line 24, I made a

13 mistake. It's not the court reporter. Instead of "attack on the army of

14 BH," it should say, "Attack on the HVO."

15 I wish to tender the following into evidence: 2D 00093; 2D

16 0090; 2D 0048; 2D 0095; 2D 0111, 111; and 2D 0112. Also, I wish number 2D

17 019, the licence plates, to be admitted into evidence, the HV Croatian

18 military number plate --

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, if I remember

20 properly, you had three plates yesterday. I remember that there was one

21 for civilian vehicles. There was the licence plates used for HV vehicles

22 and for HVO vehicles. My memory's standing, and I remember that you had

23 three plates and now we have only two plates left. But it's -- you're

24 perfectly entitled to offer only two of these plates in evidence, of

25 course.

Page 5473

1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I'm very

2 glad that your memory's so good. Yes, there were three and I will tender

3 three. I thought the civilian one was unnecessary, but I will tender all

4 three. I present these licence plates physically as evidence, but we will

5 also have a photograph of these licence plates that they can be entered

6 into e-court. Thank you.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

8 MR. KARNAVAS: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours. We

9 wish to tender the following documents, that would be: 1D 00814. That was

10 Lord Owen's speech. 1D 00815. That was Sir Martin Garrod's end of tour

11 report. 1D 00817. Those were the minutes of the meeting from the Citluk

12 that we confronted Mr. Beese with. 1D 00818. That's the HVO HDZ minute

13 meetings. 1D 00189. That's the Petkovic-Pasalic order. 1D 00820. That

14 was Boban's handwritten note to Mr. Prlic. And then 1D 00821, the HVO HZ

15 HB decision based on the note, on the previous exhibit. Thank you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

17 Karnavas for this additional information.

18 Mr. Kovacic.

19 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours, and good

20 day to you. The Defence of Mr. Slobodan Praljak wishes to tender the

21 following into evidence, these were used with Witness Christopher Beese, 3D

22 00332. This is the video concerning the Mujahedin. 3D 00322, where only

23 eight pages were used. They all bear the mark 3D 13- the first is 0164,

24 the next is 0180, the next one is 0181, the next one is 0182, the next one

25 0183, then 0184, 0242, and finally 0243. They all begin with 3D 13, and

Page 5474

1 they're all pages in document 3D 00322. And then again from book 3D 00321,

2 only the following three pages: 3D 13-0030. The next one is 3D 13-0031,

3 and the last one is 3D 13-0053. Then 3D 00333, 3D 0034, 3D 00335, and I

4 wish to mention that this is Prosecution document P 3827, but as we don't

5 know whether it will be tendered into evidence or not, I tender it under

6 the number I have. The next one is 3D 00336. That's P 2692, and again I

7 don't know whether it will be tendered or not. And finally the video from

8 Guca Gora in the form of a transcript and a DVD, number 3D 00337. But we

9 have yet to write out the transcript, so I'm just reserving the number for

10 it now. These are the exhibits we wish to tender into evidence.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Ms. Alaburic.

12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. The

13 documents which the Defence of General Petkovic showed to Witness Beese are

14 documents which the witness saw for the first time. Therefore, we feel

15 they do not meet the conditions set by Your Honours. For this reason, we

16 do not tender any of these documents at this stage of the proceedings.

17 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

18 The Defence of Mr. Valentin Coric wishes to tender the following documents

19 into evidence: 5D 00523, 5D 00534, 5D 00528, 5D 00529, 5D 00524, 5D 00525,

20 5D 00526, and finally 5D 00527. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Mr. Registrar has

22 just told me that there might be a mistake on page 7, line 6 about 3D

23 00034. It should be 3D 00334.

24 MR. KOVACIC: Sorry. [Interpretation] I have to check this.

25 Your Honour, if you'll give me two minutes to check, please.

Page 5480

1 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

2 Q. Madam, your father, you said that he had only one leg. Did he

3 have an artificial leg?

4 A. He did have an artificial leg and two crutches. He would put his

5 artificial leg on sometimes, but he couldn't wear it all the time because

6 he had some sores, so he would use his crutches to walk mostly.

7 Q. When you and your family arrived on Mount Tolovac, is it correct

8 that the Munikoza family were already there?

9 A. Yes, they were already there. That's where they were.

10 Q. Did any of the people with you on the mountain at that stage wear

11 uniforms, military uniforms?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Did any of you have any weapons, firearms?

14 A. No. We were bare-handed.

15 Q. Were there any military installations in that area?

16 A. No.

17 Q. Is it correct that you gave birth to your son in this cattle

18 stable on the 19th of June, 1993?

19 A. That is correct, yes.

20 Q. If we can move a month on from that moment, around about or on

21 the 18th of July, 1993. Tell us about who came or who arrived at the

22 cattle stable.

23 A. First of all, Mujo Selimovic came to see where we were and what

24 we were doing. He asked my father whether we were sleeping there. My

25 father said no, we weren't.

Page 5481

1 Q. If I could stop you there for a moment. Do you know why Mujo

2 Selimovic came to ask this?

3 A. I'm sure that the HVO army paid him and that they had prepared

4 it. I'm sure of that.

5 Q. And why are you sure of that? Tell us what happened after his

6 visit?

7 A. I heard from the people that he was paid that they paid him to go

8 and see where they were and what we were doing. I didn't see it myself but

9 I heard it from others.

10 Q. On the morning of 19 July, 1993, very early in the morning, tell

11 the Court what happened at this cattle stable.

12 A. We were sleeping, and the HVO soldiers arrived at the door. They

13 bashed down the door with their legs. They forced us outside and lined us

14 up and threatened us.

15 Q. At this stage, can you tell us about what time did this occur?

16 A. At about 2.30 until 4.00 thereabouts.

17 Q. And all the people that you had mentioned earlier as being in

18 your group, were all of them still in the cattle stable at that moment?

19 A. No. We'd just gone outside because there was nothing that we

20 could have waited for there.

21 Q. Was Saban Munikoza still at the stable?

22 A. No. Several minutes before that he said he had a strange feeling

23 that the HVO would catch him alive, so he left the house and went off

24 somewhere.

25 Q. The HVO soldiers who arrived there, how were they dressed? How

Page 5482

1 did they look?

2 A. They wore uniforms. On their left arms they had the HVO

3 insignia. They had black paint on their faces.

4 Q. Could you recognise or did you know which HVO soldiers these

5 were?

6 A. Well, I did know. Milicevic Ivcan and Papak Ivica.

7 Q. Could you perhaps repeat those names just for the record? I

8 didn't hear them clearly.

9 A. The first person's name was Milicevic, Ivcan Milicevic and Papak

10 Ivica.

11 Q. And these men, do you know where they came from?

12 A. Well, I don't know that exactly. All I know is that they were

13 from Pavci, the village of Pavci.

14 Q. Were these the same soldiers whom you had seen or who had

15 frightened you while you were staying in Gracanica?

16 A. That's right, they were the same ones.

17 Q. Could you see whether any of these soldiers was in command or

18 issuing orders to the others?

19 A. Ivica Papak. He led them. Now, who exactly was that person in

20 command I don't know, but I know that he commanded them.

21 Q. So the soldiers, they ordered you to go outside the barn, and

22 they lined you up or --

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. So what happened then once you were outside the barn?

25 A. They sent us off to another barn and said they would kill us down

Page 5483

1 there, set fire to us, things like that. They tried to make us afraid.

2 Q. If you say "they," are you still referring to the HVO soldiers?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. And were you afraid?

5 A. Yes, we were frightened. Of course we were frightened because

6 they were armed and we were civilians. We didn't have anything with us,

7 and that's how it was.

8 Q. You were ordered to walk to another barn. Did you walk to this,

9 you and the group, to the other barn?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. At that stage when you arrived at the other barn, was Bajro

12 Munikoza still with you or with the group?

13 A. No, he wasn't with us. He stayed up there somewhere on the path,

14 and then the HVO soldiers pushed them -- pushed him and hit him with their

15 rifle butts and everything else. I don't know what happened after that,

16 where they took him, but after a few moments we heard the sounds of

17 shooting, gunshots, and I know he never returned to us there on Tolovac

18 mountain.

19 Q. Did you see when the soldiers were beating him?

20 A. Yes, I did. I saw that myself when they pushed and shoved him

21 and hit him with their rifles in the back.

22 Q. At the second stable, tell us what happened to his wife, Saha

23 Munikoza.

24 A. Well, in that second stable I think she asked to go outside, to

25 be allowed to go outside, and they let her go out, and then they took her

Page 5484

1 off somewhere and she never returned.

2 Q. The people who took her from the stable, did -- was that an HVO

3 soldier or soldiers?

4 A. HVO soldiers, two soldiers.

5 Q. And those two soldiers, did they return after having taken Saha

6 away?

7 A. Yes, they did return. That's true, they did return. But she

8 wasn't there any more. And when we set off, we found her on -- lying down

9 on the path. I knew she was dead. I was frightened myself when I saw the

10 woman lying down. I'd never seen a dead body before. That was the first

11 time, and I was terrified.

12 Q. When -- when you saw her body, was this at a stage after the

13 soldiers had left?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. When you saw the body of Saha Munikoza, there what did you

16 recognise that as being Saha?

17 A. Well, I saw the blood on her back. I assume they shot a bullet

18 at her. I know for certain that it was her, nobody else.

19 Q. Now, if we can return to the events at the barn, can you tell us

20 what happened to your father?

21 A. May I just have a little rest, please?

22 I feel a little sick.

23 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Madam, if we -- if you

25 wish us to take a break, we can do that, or do you want us just to wait a

Page 5485

1 few minutes? How long would you like us to make a break for?

2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] About ten minutes, please, if

3 that's possible.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're going to

5 adjourn the hearing for 10 minutes, but we'll stay in the courtroom.

6 [The witness stands down]

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Kovacic, during this

8 interruption.

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, but

10 perhaps this would be a good time to address what you said and the

11 registrar just noted about the error on the transcript, page 7, line 6.

12 The number should read 3D 00334. I apologise for that, and thank you for

13 noticing.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Kovacic. I'd

15 just like to add that because of the emotional state of the witness, I'd

16 like to ask the Prosecution to ask only strictly necessary questions or,

17 rather, the Defence during the cross-examination as well so that we don't

18 upset the witness.

19 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, on behalf of my own

20 Defence certainly and I think I can speak on behalf of all Defence counsel

21 that nobody will be asking the witness any questions at all. But perhaps I

22 could just say a few words theoretically.

23 The only thing that I could ask was with respect to two

24 documents put forward, P 02294, and P 9401 presented through this witness.

25 I do believe that you've seen the documents, and it would be my proposal

Page 5488

1 due diligence and despite due diligence this information was unavailable to

2 them. And if it's terribly important, of course, do it through written, if

3 not at least an oral application. In other words, before attempting to

4 introduce this information, this new evidence into court, they should make

5 an application to the Court and make a showing as to why this new

6 information was not available to them in spite of their due diligence.

7 The rule is tangentially connected with Rule 115 when it comes

8 to appeals and I think it's a fair ruling. It's something that Your Honour

9 should keep in mind. I think it's something that you may wish to consider

10 and issue a similar decision. I -- the information is on page 2130,

11 transcript page 2130, starting on line 16, to 2133, transcript of 22nd

12 August, 2006. And I have a copy of it here if the Court wishes, but I'm

13 sure Mr. Registrar will be able to find it quite easily. Thank you.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.

15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with the

16 victims of this war when they -- their memories are brought back to what

17 happened to them during the war it's very difficult to examine witnesses

18 like this, but just for the record, I'd like to say that the word "Croatian

19 soldier" or "HVO soldier," keeps being used, that phrase. That implies

20 that he went there in an organised fashion, that he was on assignment

21 following orders. All we know is that we have heard two names and that

22 they were wearing uniforms. When we come to other witnesses, we're going

23 to be able to ask explicit questions to see what they mean when they say

24 the army other soldiers, especially soldiers that were not in barracks,

25 that did not -- that carried their weapons home when they weren't on the

Page 5489

1 battlefield. So they were, in fact, citizens with rifles that they very

2 often bought from their own money. These rifles were procured by

3 themselves.

4 Now, I'm not going to ask that of this witness, of course, but

5 in future.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That's an

7 important point. The Prosecution did not complete its examination-in-chief

8 to determine who those soldiers were, so let's not put the cart before the

9 horse. And I, too, will be asking questions along those lines of the

10 witness.

11 Now, with respect to what Mr. Karnavas just said, you, it

12 appears, have read our thoughts, because this morning we prepared a ruling

13 on precisely the point that you've just raised, and I'd like to assure you

14 that after the break we will be rendering that ruling. We did not know

15 about the Bomomy decision and ruling because each Trial Chamber works

16 completely independently, and we have enough to be getting on with with our

17 own case not to occupy ourselves with other people's cases, but we always

18 tend to keep abreast of what is interesting going on -- what interesting

19 things are going on elsewhere. But your preoccupations will receive a

20 solution from us. It is integrated within the decision or ruling that

21 we're going to give later on which have to do with new elements arising

22 from proofing sessions with the witnesses and how the Prosecution intends

23 to use it.

24 Since we have a few more minutes left before the witness enters,

25 and I have a few more minutes, and I think my colleagues would have said

Page 5490

1 the same thing, do not forget that witness statements are compiled

2 sometimes many years before the witness comes, and as you know, those

3 statements are compiled by the Prosecutor's office, OTP, and so they are --

4 information is collected in that way. Then several years later when the

5 witness comes into court there's a discussion between the Prosecutor and

6 the witness, and in certain cases the witness can spontaneously recall

7 events that he happens to remember that he forgot to or didn't see the need

8 to tell the investigator about, and then the Prosecutor can -- can question

9 the witness in the interests of justice on that matter.

10 So that is the kind of situation that can arise. And we have

11 taken note of the possibility of such situations arising, and that is why

12 we're going to render a ruling which I hope the Defence will find

13 satisfactory. So you must wait patiently for the ruling to be rendered.

14 Mr. Mundis.

15 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours. Just

16 one point on the last issue that the Presiding Judge just -- just discussed

17 with respect to the process of proofing and statement-taking. Let me

18 again, for the benefit of everyone so that there's full understanding of

19 some of the -- some of the difficulties inherent in this process, let me

20 also remind Your Honours and my learned colleagues that our statements --

21 the Office of the Prosecutor takes statements in either English or French,

22 and the witnesses sign those statements based on an oral read-back that

23 they receive at the time those statements are prepared and taken, which as

24 Your Honour rightly points out in some instances is many years ago.

25 Those statements then for purposes of disclosure and other

Page 5491

1 purposes are translated back into B/C/S for the benefit of the Defence and

2 the accused. It is quite often, although not always, but quite often the

3 case that the first time the witness actually sees the statement in their

4 own language is the day before they testify when they are brought here for

5 proofing, and it is quite often at that stage, also many years after the

6 statement was given, that the witness reads the statement in their own

7 language, not only maybe as Your Honour rightly points out, remembers

8 additional items but also has an opportunity to say, "That sentence or at

9 that statement or that paragraph is not quite correct. It needs to be

10 changed." And at that point in time, the investigator or lawyer who are

11 proofing the witness make a note of that and disclose it to the Defence.

12 That disclosure often occurs either the evening before or in some

13 instances, if the proofing went on until late in the evening, the very

14 morning the witness comes into court and testifies.

15 And again, I just wanted to put that out so that everybody

16 understands some of the problems that are inherent in this process where

17 we're dealing in name of different languages and number of years have

18 elapsed in some instances between the time the statement is originally

19 given and the time the witness comes into court to testify. Thank you.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. -- Mr. President --

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

22 MR. KARNAVAS: -- I fully appreciate the process. I'm well

23 aware of it, and we face the same challenges. But this is sort of my first

24 step to the next issue, which is: I don't want them bringing in now new

25 witnesses and adding new witnesses to their case if they see their case

Page 5492

1 perhaps weak here or there, all of sudden they're going out there trying to

2 interview witnesses to bolster their case, because if those witnesses were

3 out there and known to them and they didn't exercise due diligence, don't

4 come crying in and saying, "We need to bring in more witnesses to elongate,

5 to enlarge our case." That's the real purpose behind my -- of this -- of

6 this request. I was just taking -- putting my toe into the water. But the

7 real reason is I want to make sure the Trial Chamber issues a decision that

8 whatever their case is is what's already on their 65 ter list.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. Karnavas. We take

10 good note of what you've said, but experience has taught me here in this

11 case and in other cases that sometimes when a witness answers a question

12 put to him or her by the Prosecution or the Defence, the witness says

13 spontaneously something that is completely new and that is new to everyone

14 in the courtroom. That happens quite often. And sometimes I look at you

15 on both sides and I can see that you are surprised, nobody was expecting

16 such a response from the witness. And then quite logically, for the

17 Prosecution or the Defence, this new piece of information, this new piece

18 of evidence will require additional questioning, additional investigation

19 maybe. And that might explain what you regret, is that sometimes new

20 witnesses are requested or put on the list. But that's the way the

21 judicial process goes. But even in civil law countries it happens that you

22 have witnesses who come to testify it and who reveal new developments, new

23 information at the last minute, and then you have to call additional

24 witnesses, whereas the trial has already started. These things happen.

25 Very well. We've just been told that the witness is now in a

Page 5494

1 told me I could go. I set out with him. In the meantime, my father wanted

2 to take some bread for my child from one of the stables and asked for

3 permission to do that.

4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. If I may -- if may intervene. I'm

5 a bit confused, because I thought that on that day you were giving birth to

6 your first child. Maybe there was a misunderstanding.

7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was a month afterwards when my

8 father was killed. My son was born on the 19th of June, and my father was

9 killed on the 19th of July, precisely a month later.

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Hvala.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, sorry for interrupting.

12 You've just stated that you were allowed to give bread to your -- to your

13 child, but when a child is one month old, he doesn't eat bread.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I was referring to my sister-

15 in-law's son. She stayed behind in the stable. It was my sister-in-law's

16 son.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Very well. Thank

18 you for this explanation.

19 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.

20 Q. Witness, the -- when you and your father -- when you went with

21 your father when he released the cattle, was this going back to the very

22 first stable where the events had started that morning?

23 A. Yes. That's where we went back, right there.

24 Q. And the other people in your group, did they remain at the second

25 stable where you had been?

Page 5495

1 A. Yes, they did. They remained at the second stable.

2 Q. So in this first stable, your father, he then wanted to find some

3 bread. Tell us what happened then.

4 A. Well, what happened was a soldier said to him, "There's no

5 salvation for you any more." I was pushed out by two HVO soldiers. They

6 killed him. They fired a whole round into him. In the meantime, they

7 poured some liquid over him and set him on fire. When the two men left, I

8 saw the fire spreading to the whole stable. There was nothing I could do.

9 I was weeping.

10 Q. The soldiers, they left you at the stable?

11 A. They left me there. They went off, and I stayed there. I left

12 all the things I had taken. I didn't have the strength to pick them up and

13 carry them away. I had no change of clothing for my child. My child was

14 always wet and hungry.

15 Q. The -- do you know which soldier shot your father?

16 A. Well, I do. The two of them were Ivica Papak and Ivcan

17 Milicevic.

18 Q. Thank you, madam. After this happened and when the soldiers had

19 left, is it correct that your family was also left and they fled into the

20 forest, or they hid in the forest?

21 A. Yes, they did hide in the forest. I found my sister crying on

22 the road. I asked her what was going on. She was frightened. I have no

23 words to describe it. I know how we felt and what had happened to us up

24 there.

25 Q. And you and your family, is it correct that you then went to the

Page 5496

1 hamlet of Paros, which is a little distance away?

2 A. Yes, we did. We went there. We found refuge with an elderly

3 woman. We stayed there for two or three days. After that, two HVO

4 soldiers arrived and asked us to surrender. I decided there was nothing I

5 could do but surrender. My child was always hungry. So were all us, but I

6 cared most about my son. I had nothing to feed him with. I convinced my

7 mother and my sisters that we should all go, that we should all surrender.

8 I was the first to surrender, and then they all followed me, and that's how

9 we came to Crni Most, the black bridge. A bus came along and picked us up.

10 We arrived in Prozor, in Podgradze, a small village mostly inhabited by

11 Muslims.

12 Q. The menfolk in your group, well,your husband, I think, did he

13 accompany you or did he go elsewhere?

14 A. No, they went to the forest. They were hiding in the woods.

15 Think didn't want to surrender.

16 Q. And if you say surrender, what do you mean by surrender? To

17 whom?

18 A. We surrender to the HVO. We had to give ourselves up. We had no

19 choice but to do so.

20 Q. Was it possible for you to instead go to territory under the

21 control of the ABiH?

22 A. No, it wasn't possible. It was all cut off. It was all held by

23 the HVO.

24 Q. In Podgradze when you and your family arrived there, what did you

25 find there?

Page 5497

1 A. We found an abandoned house where we moved in. We asked the

2 woman to give us the house keys. The man who owned the house and his wife

3 were somewhere in Germany. This woman gave us the key. There were about

4 90 of us there. I stayed there with my son. There was nowhere to put him

5 down. I had no change of clothes for him, no food. I had nothing.

6 Q. Just to place this in time, was this during the last week of

7 July, 1993, that you moved into this house in Podgradze?

8 A. Yes.

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 5502

1 time for the break.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I think it's better to have

3 the break now in order to allow the witness to have a rest. It's a quarter

4 to 4.00. We'll resume at five past 4.00.

5 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.

6 --- On resuming at 4.16 p.m.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're in open session, and

8 we'll stay in open session until we resume the testimony of the witness,

9 because as I have announced it earlier on, the Trial Chamber is going to

10 issue two rulings. The first one rendered orally has to do with Witness

11 Tomljanovich from the Prosecution.

12 The Chamber has received an oral motion from the accused Cosic

13 dated 23rd of August, 2006. The accused Cosic through his lawyer Mr.

14 Murphy, would request -- requests the Trial Chamber to reconsider its oral

15 decision rendered on the 26th of June, 2006, that grants expert status to

16 Witness Tomljanovich. His motion is found on an order or a decision

17 rendered in the Milutinovic case on the 13th of July about the expert

18 status of a staff member of the Office of the Prosecutor.

19 The Trial Chamber would like to recall that it has already ruled

20 on the expert status of Witness Tomljanovich based on the inspection of his

21 expert report, his CV, and that the Chamber has also taken into account the

22 fact that the witness is a staff member of the Office of the Prosecutor.

23 As a result, the Trial Chamber has no reason and sees no reason

24 to reconsider its previous decision. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber would

25 like to recall that the Defence, during the cross-examination of the

Page 5503

1 witness, will be in a position to challenge the credibility of the witness

2 as well as the expert report submitted by the witness.

3 Second oral ruling. This is only the fourth decision rendered

4 orally today. This is a ruling modifying the decision of the 3rd of July,

5 2006.

6 During the hearing of the 23rd of August, 2006, the Accused

7 Prlic stated that during the examination of the witnesses the Prosecution

8 covers issues that have not been the summaries prepared in accordance with

9 Rule 65 ter. The Chamber would like to refer the parties to its oral

10 decision of the 3rd of July, 2006, pages 42 to 48 and 48 to 49.

11 In its decision, the Trial Chamber decided as follows, and I

12 quote: "The Prosecutor, as far as possible, shall limit the examination of

13 witness to the issues mentioned in the summaries prepared in accordance

14 with Rule 65 ter."

15 The Chamber had admitted that, and I quote again: "The

16 Prosecutor might expand the examination to issues not mentioned in the

17 summaries, but issues that would have been raised during the proofing

18 session of the witnesses, but this provided for that the Defence be

19 notified as quickly as possible through any technical means available in

20 order to allow the Defence to prepare itself properly for the cross-

21 examination of the witness."

22 Let me now tell you what's new in this decision with respect to

23 the previous decision.

24 Considering that the Chamber has to make sure that the rights of

25 the accused are complied with, that the accused are in a position to

Page 5504

1 prepare their cross-examinations properly, the Trial Chamber hereby decides

2 today, and I would like to ask the Prosecution to listen very carefully,

3 the Prosecution has to disclose to the legal officers of the Chamber any

4 new information based or due to the proofing of a witness and this at the

5 same time, at the same time, as this same information is being disclosed to

6 the Defence. This will allow the Chamber to rule knowingly about any

7 possible objections raised by the Defence with regard to these new matters.

8 So to sum up, if, during the proofing session, the Prosecution

9 finds out that there are new items arising, new evidence that is going to

10 be raised during the examination of the witness, then the Prosecution has

11 to inform the Defence - that's always been the case - but the Prosecution

12 also has the obligation to notify the legal officer of the Trial Chamber,

13 and thus the legal officer will be informed, let's say, at 3.00 a.m. by e-

14 mail that such-and-such item will be raised and it's new, and thereafter

15 the Judges will be informed of the same and we will then be in a position

16 to consider the matter and rule on any objections.

17 So if we compare this to the decision of the 3rd July, 2006,

18 we've streamlined this previous decision, including this scheme, this

19 mechanism that should be satisfactory to everyone. And this is once again

20 in the interest of justice here.

21 I have spent a few minutes on these decisions, but now I'm going

22 to give the floor to Mr. Mundis.

23 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Perhaps just one issue

24 for purposes of clarification would be very helpful to the Prosecution in

25 order to comply with this order. Perhaps we could be informed in advance

Page 5505

1 of which legal officer is responsible for which witness or to whom we are

2 to provide this information as there are a number of legal officers

3 assigned to this case, so as to avoid confusion or perhaps us informing a

4 legal officer who happens to be on leave on that day. If there is duty

5 roster or if you want to sent to the same legal officer or all of them or

6 which ones, that would be very helpful.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Very well. So

8 theoretically speaking or practically speaking, the legal officer are P4

9 staff member, P3 staff member plus their assistants but you know all of

10 them, of course. The main actor here is Tatjana Maikowski, the Trial

11 Chamber's legal officer who is available 24/7. She is your privilege

12 "intelliputer," and if she's not available, and that can happen, of course

13 then you can get in touch with the other assistants that will replace her.

14 So in other words, there is always someone available. So for any reason

15 she's not available, then she has to make sure that the lines of

16 communication remain open with someone else.

17 So don't about worry. The Judges shall be informed without any

18 problem. I hope I have put your mind at rest, Mr. Mundis. Up until now,

19 things have worked fine. So far the communication has been fine.

20 Sometimes there are hiccups in communication but until now things have been

21 going smoothly. And you have to think that I'm very often here at the

22 Tribunal as early as 6.00 a.m., so if need be you can always try to get in

23 touch with me. And my assistants have mobile phones that are always

24 accessible, so you can always get in touch with them. Don't forget the

25 computer systems here at the Tribunal, the e-mail system whereby you can

Page 5513

1 wants to ask a question first, and I will be asking some questions to

2 complete his afterwards.

3 Questioned by the Court:

4 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Madam Witness, I would like some

5 clarification on who the assassins of your father were, who perpetrated the

6 act. You said that on the 19th of July, two soldiers of the HVO, and you

7 gave us their names, you said that. Now, my first question: You said that

8 you knew those soldiers, that you went to the same school together; is that

9 right?

10 A. Yes, that's right. Precisely.

11 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] So probably those soldiers were

12 from your village or the neighbouring village.

13 A. Yes, near my village. About half an hour away. Their village

14 was half an hour away from mine.

15 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you. Now, you said that

16 they belonged to the HVO. How could you know that those soldiers were HVO

17 soldiers? Can you tell us what you base that on?

18 A. Well, they -- on their left arm they had the HVO patches, and

19 camouflage uniforms.

20 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] After the war, did those soldiers

21 stay in the area or did they go elsewhere?

22 A. Well, I can't really say. I don't know, because I went to

23 Dreznica. So I can't say whether they stayed there or not.

24 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] And one more question, madam. Do

25 you know if there were any court proceedings against those soldiers with

Page 5514

1 respect to those criminal acts that they perpetrated or with respect to

2 other criminal acts that they might have perpetrated? Were these two

3 soldiers prosecuted?

4 A. I don't know that. I can't say. I don't really know, because as

5 I said, I went to Dreznica. I left, so I don't know anything more about

6 that.

7 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Madam, I also have

9 a series of questions to ask you about those HVO soldiers, and we've come

10 to the heart of the matter now, because the Judges have to make decisions.

11 Now, you told us that there were 15, approximately 15 of them, I

12 suppose, and that according to you, they seemed to be under the command of

13 the person you went to school with, and his first name was Ivica. Now, the

14 15 soldiers, 15 HVO soldiers, were they all wearing -- dressed in the same

15 way, wearing the same clothes?

16 A. Well, yes. They were all wearing HVO uniforms, of course.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, since you were an

18 eyewitness, you were there yourself, in your recollections this group, did

19 you feel that they were an organised group? Did they give the impression

20 of being an organised group commanded by your ex-fellow classmate, or do

21 you remember them as being a disparate group?

22 A. Well, that's what it was like. They stormed the house quickly.

23 I didn't know what was going on. That's what it was like.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said on their left arm

25 they had the HVO insignia. In your recollection were there other signs,

Page 5515

1 other insignias they were wearing or was this the only insignia you could

2 see on them?

3 A. That was the only insignia.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please describe us

5 how -- what they were wearing? They had trousers, a jacket, a hat. You

6 gave a very specific piece of information. You said they had markings on

7 their faces, their faces painted. But apart from this, if you think back

8 of that time, can you -- what can you tell us about their clothes?

9 A. I only remember they had jackets, trousers, shirts. That's all I

10 remember. I can't remember anything else. They had boots on their feet.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as their weapons are

12 concerned, you're probably not a specialist in the matter, but as far as

13 you can recollect, did -- was each one of them carrying a weapon? What can

14 you tell us about that?

15 A. Well, yes, of course. They all had rifles. I don't know what

16 the names of the rifles are. I'd seen them for the first time. All I know

17 is that they all carried rifles.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please allow me the following

19 question, because this is very important for us Judges. Please allow me to

20 go back to this very painful moment you had to go through.

21 According to what you've told us, it seems that one of the

22 soldiers spoke to your father before shooting him. What about the other

23 soldiers? Were they around them, or were there only one or two soldiers

24 there, one or two soldiers who shot on your father, who opened fire on your

25 father, or were all the soldiers present when that happened?

Page 5516

1 A. There were only two soldiers there. The others were standing

2 around the stable as if they were standing guard. I don't know.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Later on throughout these

4 years, did you ever wonder why your father was killed by these two

5 soldiers? Why not you? Why did they choose to kill your father? Did you

6 manage to find an explanation or an answer to that question?

7 A. Well, there's nothing I can say. Quite simply, I don't know why

8 he was killed. He didn't hurt anyone. He was an invalid. He couldn't go

9 anywhere. He couldn't walk properly.

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 5517

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 A. Yes.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the following years,

9 putting aside the interviews you had with the Office of the Prosecutor, you

10 did not report this crime to the judicial authorities in your region, did

11 you? I'm talking about you personally or any other member of your family.

12 Did anyone in your family circle go to the police to report what had

13 happened?

14 A. I didn't myself, but my mother did. She wanted his body to be

15 found and buried properly, but nothing has been found yet.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You are saying

17 that your mother tried to do something about it, but unfortunately that --

18 this was to no avail because the body of your father was never recovered.

19 A. That's correct, yes.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In the village where you

21 lived, you told us that in that village the majority of the population was

22 Muslim. Throughout that period, throughout the period before the 19th of

23 July, during the month of May and during the month of June, the HVO, as you

24 see it, was this HVO -- was the HVO army present in the area? Did you know

25 whether the HVO was around there or the ABiH? In other words, did you know

Page 5518

1 if -- there were military personnel or soldiers in that area?

2 A. There were soldiers there, but I don't know what soldiers.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you were aware that there

4 were soldiers in the area, and you're telling us that on the 19th of July,

5 you could tell they were from the HVO because you had a look at their

6 patches.

7 A. Yes.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'm now going to

9 give the floor to the Defence for the cross-examination of the witness, but

10 my fellow Judges might have additional questions to put to the witness.

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 A. There was more than one vehicle. There was soldiers from Jajce

17 who did nothing to us, didn't mistreat anyone. I know that well.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Do you know how many vehicles?

19 A. I don't know. I couldn't tell you precisely how many.

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And can you describe any of the vehicles?

21 A. Well, I can't accept that I know they had camouflage colours on

22 them, like leaves. They were mostly trucks.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

24 A. You're welcome.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I suppose you did not pay any attention to the

Page 5519

1 licence plates, or did you per chance?

2 A. No. No, I didn't.

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I can understand that. It was dark anyway, at

4 least when they arrived, wasn't it?

5 A. Yes, it was.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Did they in some way illuminate the scene, for

7 instance, by the headlights of the cars?

8 A. No, they didn't. I don't know. I don't know that they did, no.

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Now, we have two more incidents at least where

10 you mentioned soldiers. One is when you were picked up. I think it was in

11 Crni Most. Those soldiers, I think -- you said that they were from HVO; is

12 that correct?

13 A. Yes, that's correct.

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And you also recognised them by the insignia on

15 the arm?

16 A. That's correct, yes.

17 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Can you say whether these were soldiers that

18 had also been involved on the 19th of July, or were they knew to you?

19 A. I can't remember all the details any more. I don't know any

20 more. But I know there was Ivica from Rumboci. I don't know his last

21 name. He had a red Golf, I know that. But I don't know his last name now.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Can you tell the Chamber how many soldiers had

23 turned up on that day?

24 A. I can't tell you that. It's not all in my head any more.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes. I fully understand this. Was it two or

Page 5520

1 was it a bigger group? Can you say that much?

2 A. There -- it was a bigger group, but I can't tell you exactly how

3 many there were, no.

4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: That's already a good answer. Thank you. You

5 were then taken away in a vehicle from Crni Most?

6 A. In a bus. There was a bus.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Bus. Did you by any chance --

8 have you any memory of the licence plates

9 of that bus?

10 A. No, I don't remember.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay. I would then like to go one step on to

12 the time when you were held in Podgradze, I think it was. There you

13 described to us that HVO soldiers picked up girls and young women and took

14 them away, and they were then sexually abused. Who were those soldiers?

15 What did they look like? Were there any that you knew?

16 A. I didn't know any of them, but I do know they were HVO soldiers

17 and that they took away girls and young women. I know that. As soon as

18 night fell, they would burst into the house and take away whoever they

19 could catch.

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You had witnessed other engagements of these --

21 of HVO soldiers. You have told us that on the 19th of July they seemed to

22 be organised. Did you have the impression that when they stormed the

23 houses, as you just said, they were also in some way organised?

24 A. Yes. They said all kinds of things.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Were they by any chance drunk, mostly, or

Page 5521

1 sometimes, or never?

2 A. Mostly. Mostly they were drunk, yes.

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And did they mostly come during the day or did

4 they come at a time when you had the impression it was their time off?

5 A. They didn't come by day. Mostly when night fell. That's when

6 they would come and burst in.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much. That will be all from me.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. An additional

9 question following to an answer you've given to my fellow Judge.

10 These young ladies who were taken away by these drunken soldiers

11 and then abused sexually, later on, did you talk to some of them? Did you

12 ever talk to a young lady who was taken away by the soldiers who then told

13 you about what happened to her, or did you -- or do you know about this

14 because you were told about it by others?

15 A. I heard that. I didn't see it.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You heard it. But who told

17 you about it, the victims themselves or other people?

18 A. I heard it from the women who were abused and raped.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Therefore, what you are

20 stating now, is that these women who were raped told you about it later on,

21 told you about it yourself.

22 A. They would talk in the room while we all slept, so I heard them

23 talking about it. They told all of us what had happened. They didn't say

24 that just to me but to all of us.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you heard it yourself.

Page 5540

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're back in open session, Mr.

5 President.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

7 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

8 Q. Madam, you know the area, Gracanica, Dreznica and all the places

9 you described to us. Their Honours and some of us weren't there so they

10 don't know the places. For us to gain a better understanding of the

11 situation could you tell us please how far is Gracanica far from Rama and

12 its position, generally speaking?

13 A. About seven or eight kilometres.

14 Q. Is it on a hill, in a valley?

15 A. It's in a valley.

16 Q. And it's on the main road, is it not, between Rama and Bugojno;

17 is that right?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Thank you. I beg your pardon. I made the mistake. Rama and

20 Jablanica. It's halfway between Rama and Jablanica; is that right?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. When you were fleeing to the mountains, at that time there was

23 heavy fighting going on between the HV army [as interpreted] at Bakov.

24 That was a generally known fact. Did you know about it?

25 A. No, I didn't know about it.

Page 5541

1 Q. Did -- now, in July and in June in the places where you were, did

2 refugees come in from other areas?

3 A. No.

4 Q. And there was no -- no meaning of fighting around Vakuf?

5 A. No, I don't know about that.

6 Q. Tell us, please, if you look towards Jablanica from Rama,

7 Topolovac the place you mentioned --

8 A. It's Tolovac.

9 Q. Yes, Tolovac, the place you mentioned. If we're looking towards

10 Jablanica from Rama, the is it on the right-hand side of the main road?

11 Would that be correct?

12 A. Well, I can't say really whether it's on the left or the right.

13 Q. Try to put yourself in the situation. Looking towards Jablanica

14 from Rama. You're in Rama and you want to go to Topolovac [sic], where

15 would you go?

16 A. I would go in the direction of Jablanica.

17 Q. So would it be -- would Topolovac -- Tolovac be on the right-hand

18 side? I keep getting this name mixed up. I mean Tolovac. Is it on the

19 right-hand side of the road? And the other place mentioned, Skrobucani, it

20 was in the register of deaths, that's in the same direction, is it, on that

21 same road from Rama going towards Jablanica, and it's on the left-hand

22 side?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Can you say how far walking, how far?

25 A. Well, it's half an hour to an hour.

Page 5542

1 Q. So between Skrobucani and Tolovac, that would be how much? What

2 distance?

3 A. I don't know.

4 Q. It would take you about 20 minutes, wouldn't it?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. So they're not right next to each other, those two places?

7 A. Well, no, they're not.

8 Q. Thank you. Now, did you hear about refugees or perhaps see them

9 who came from Kostajnica at that time?

10 A. No.

11 Q. No? You also mentioned your departure to Buturovic Polje. You

12 spoke about that, when you went to Buturovic Polje.

13 A. Yes.

14 Q. Tell us, please, was there anyone who was killed there by the

15 HVO?

16 A. Well, yes, at Kucani there was a house from Ovsunj when we were

17 on our bay to Buturovic Polje.

18 Q. You mean before you left your place?

19 A. Yes, she was killed in the stream.

20 Q. Do you know the name of that woman?

21 A. No, I don't.

22 Q. Did you know her?

23 A. No, I didn't. I just heard the women say that she was from

24 Lapsunj, this woman who was killed was from Lapsunj.

25 Q. Did you see when she was killed?

Page 5543

1 A. I didn't have time to look. I was so frightened of everything.

2 I was just bent on crossing over and resting.

3 Q. There was a large group. You mentioned 6.000.

4 A. Yes, there was large group, and it was difficult for us to move

5 in such large numbers.

6 Q. The killing that you said took place, did it here -- did it take

7 police in front of you, behind you? Did you hear the shots, or did you

8 just hear the story told afterwards?

9 A. The shot came in front of us.

10 Q. But you didn't see who was shooting at whom?

11 A. No, I didn't see who did the shooting.

12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I have no further

13 questions, Your Honour. Oh, yes. I apologise. Just one moment, please.

14 My colleague has pointed out something on page 74, line 21, something was

15 wrong in the transcript. It should have been HVO and BH army, HVO and BH

16 army, not HV as it says. Line 74 -- or, rather, page 74, line 21.

17 Thank you, that completes my cross-examination.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, Your Honours, we have no

19 questions.

20 We'd like to thank you for coming and giving your evidence.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Anybody else? The

22 other Defence counsel? No questions?

23 Additional questions from the Prosecution now that you have the

24 opportunity?

25 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. I would like to just

Page 5545

1 say open session is to raise the blinds.

2 In open session. Mr. Praljak is on his feet and wants to say

3 something.

4 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is

5 without question that in Bosnia-Herzegovina, even by people wearing HVO

6 uniforms, that crimes were committed. Crimes happened. That is quite

7 certain. But it is also quite certain and indisputable that the vast

8 majority of those crimes -- that HVO services existed, the SIS principally,

9 to deal with those cases and they did so very precisely and diligently.

10 They did their best to investigate crimes of that kind under the

11 circumstances, and those documents are -- furnish the basis of what the

12 Prosecution has at its disposal and on the basis of which they were able to

13 raise an indictment of this kind.

14 It is true that it is difficult for victims to have to think

15 back to those times. It is very painful for them and terrible for them to

16 go through it all again, but it is also true that the links are established

17 between an unfortunate sorry destiny and event of this kind that links

18 between -- vague links have been established, and it's impossible to do so,

19 I think. And it's not a good idea. I don't think they have the right,

20 regardless of the pain that the witness goes through, just to allow

21 everything to pass without allowing questions to be asked.

22 Unfortunately, nobody can ask questions as well as we can do so,

23 because there were great distances, the shapes of hills, the type of

24 dwellings, the stables, the house, what it all looked like. It's

25 impossible for anyone else to know about this and explain to the Defence

Page 5546

1 counsel. Where Tolovac lies, what the distance is between different place,

2 the hills and how many villages there are around Rama, for example. So I

3 need, for example, information which tells me whether there are 50 villages

4 around Rama or perhaps a hundred villages and how those villages -- how the

5 population is mixed, Muslims and Croats, so that we can arrive at the

6 question of how it was possible to control the territory, the area,

7 especially at night, how you can control something that is called the army.

8 And then this term "army," is used in different ways. You

9 have the American army, the British army. They're all different. Those

10 people there, of course, had their own weapons. They stayed and slept in

11 their own houses. So to control 50 villages, to supervise 50 villages in

12 Prozor, at night, for example, would -- is quite unimaginable. It's

13 impossible to do that. So necessarily one could have to investigate

14 matters and examine matters in the way we know best how to do, not to upset

15 a witness in any way.

16 So it was through the best intentions that I wanted to confront

17 the victim, because on the evening of the 25th, I was up there, Your

18 Honours. I was the main commander, the commander-in-chief of that army.

19 And so the question of whether I knew and how I reacted when this expulsion

20 took place, where the blame lies, what the different strengths and powers

21 were, we have to reconstruct all this both on a global scale and in every

22 detail.

23 Now, if we are prevented in doing so, then with all due respect

24 to the witness, my rights have been infringed upon, and possibly if

25 something is not properly examined and investigated it will mean 20 years

Page 5547

1 in prison for me for just one of those events. So I have to ask these

2 questions and why people weren't prosecuted, if we know their names. Why

3 the people whose names we know were not prosecuted. So we don't prosecute

4 the perpetrators of the crimes. Crimes did happen. We go to the top, to

5 the head.

6 Now, if the Prosecutor fails to show us where the link is

7 between that crime and Slobodan Praljak and why this particular witness

8 came here at all to testify in the trial against me or my trial when the

9 witness should have been engaged in the proceedings against the people whom

10 she says committed the crime. And if it turns out that they received any

11 written or oral order, then you should rightly prosecute us.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Coric.

13 Before I give you the floor, I want to respond to what Mr. Praljak has just

14 said and then I'll give the floor to you afterwards.

15 Mr. Praljak, you took note of the fact that the Judges allowed

16 you to speak, so we didn't stop you from saying what you felt you needed to

17 say, and you raised a series of problems in doing so. You have told us

18 that as the man in charge of the HVO in the area, it -- you found it useful

19 to ask the witness questions, especially as there might have been some

20 technical problems such as knowing the distances between villages and hills

21 and mountains and so on, and that you are best placed to intervene on

22 matters of that kind in this courtroom, because as you said, you were there

23 on the spot. So -- and you went to school there.

24 So we listened to you, and I don't want you to think for one

25 second that we're not listening to you and that we're not allowing you to

Page 5548

1 defend yourself. You have explained that in wanting to ask your questions

2 -- or, rather, you wanted to pose questions in order to establish the link

3 that the Prosecutor wants to make between the victims and you, and of

4 course your Defence counsel is there to do that for you as well. You will

5 have the opportunity, when the time comes, to bring in your own witnesses,

6 and then they will be able to explain what happened in the area. If you

7 were the commander, there was a whole chain of command, paramilitaries,

8 people out of your control. You can show all that during the Defence case,

9 but you can't demonstrate it here through a person like the lady who was

10 here, as she said, was witness to a murder committed by individuals, that

11 is to say, the murder of her father.

12 So in these proceedings, and this is not something that the

13 system that I have devised, it is the Anglo Saxon system where the

14 Prosecution is free to examine and the Defence cross-examines, and we as

15 the Judges do our best to clarify certain points through the witness

16 because it is up to us to determine those links as you yourself said, the

17 links between yourself and what happened in theatre, and that is why we ask

18 our own questions.

19 I would suggest that you meet with your counsel, that you

20 discuss all these problems, and that you ensure that the witnesses you

21 bring in will be within your defence case. And as I have said to the other

22 accused, as far as possible we're here to listen to you and -- it's just

23 that we have time constraints and other constraints, but we said that you

24 could ask questions if they are of a technical nature.

25 A moment ago, the technical questions that you wanted to ask

Page 5549

1 with respect to those two localities, we saw one of them mentioned in the

2 register of deaths, and through your questions you wanted to establish that

3 those two places weren't as close as they appeared at first glance. But as

4 I say, your counsel could raise that problem and sort that out.

5 So that's what I wanted to tell you. I don't know if my

6 colleagues would like to intervene and say something.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Just add a word to disclose our state of mind.

8 Mr. Praljak, and also the other accused, we are very well aware of the

9 difference between the level of the accused, which is a very high level,

10 and the level of these events before us. It is not for you and it is not

11 for us to establish a link. It is for the Prosecution. And we are

12 observing how they try, and in the end, having heard your view fully, we

13 will come to a conclusion either they have or they have not. But be aware

14 of the fact that the Bench is looking at this from some distance, and we

15 are between -- we are not only seated between you and them, but our state

16 of mind is between you and them, and we're constantly trying to find out.

17 We also have a duty towards victims, and it turned out that this

18 woman is vulnerable. She had to have a break in between, and we had the

19 feeling that she was not up to be technically questioned. And that's why

20 we said Mr. Kovacic, who perhaps has more experience in cross-examination

21 and bit more distance, is better placed to put the questions. But this is

22 in no way anything which betrays a negative it state of behind of the

23 Chamber. I can assure you of that.

24 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

25 I am a well-disciplined person, but thank you for your explanations, but

Page 5550

1 please understand how we feel as well.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Coric.

3 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. If

4 I was sitting next to my Defence team, I wouldn't take the floor now, but

5 unfortunately this is the only way that I can react.

6 Mr. Praljak said something, and I'd like to ask him something

7 now, whether I understood him correctly and whether that was recorded that

8 way.

9 Mr. Praljak said that the SIS very pedantically recorded all the

10 crimes that took place, and that on the basis of that, this indictment was

11 raised. I think we should check that out, or here on the spot. I would

12 like to ask Mr. Praljak whether he actually said that and whether that was

13 what he meant and that was recorded, and I think I'm right, it was. I

14 would like to hear his comments.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may intervene at this point,

16 and I understood Mr. Praljak perhaps better than Mr. Coric understood. I

17 believe what Mr. Praljak said that investigations were conducted. The

18 Prosecution has obtained evidence, based on some of the investigations that

19 were done, in order to figure out who committed certain crimes in the

20 field, and based on those, indictments were drafted. And I think we should

21 leave the matter left where it is. I think that's what Mr. Praljak meant.

22 And while I'm on my feet, I just want to raise one other point.

23 I think the -- this sort of crime base witness demonstrates the

24 difficulties the Defence has sometimes in seeing whether they should just

25 concede and allow crime base evidence to just simply come in or whether to

Page 5551

1 challenge, particularly when a witness over and over again says, "HVO

2 soldier." It conjures up that this individual who is wearing a uniform,

3 with perhaps an identifiable emblem, is in fact a soldier at that time,

4 recognising that in many of these areas because of the Territorial Defence

5 there were citizen soldiers, two weeks on, two weeks off, sometimes wearing

6 their uniform, carrying their weapon because it was their personal weapon,

7 but not necessarily on duty.

8 So I think for the Defence it poses a problem. To what extent

9 should we concede and allow their statements to come in or to challenge?

10 Obviously it's for the Prosecution to demonstrate that these soldiers were

11 in fact soldiering at the time, who the commanders were, and so on and so

12 forth. I believe that up to the Prosecution to decide how and when and, if

13 so, they will be able to do so.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you. Before

15 I give the floor to Mr. Mundis, I'd just like to respond to Mr. Coric,

16 because Mr. Coric got to his feet to respond to what Mr. Praljak said about

17 the SIS investigations. So, Mr. Coric and Mr. Praljak will have an

18 opportunity of discussing this amongst themselves. The Chamber can't do

19 anything there. It's a problem you must sort out yourselves, between

20 yourselves and then perhaps in due course come back to it.

21 But now with respect to what Counsel Karnavas has just said. As

22 far as I'm concerned -- I don't want to speak for my colleagues, but as far

23 as I'm concerned, as a man of the law, any jurist knows that if one accuses

24 somebody of committing something in a military sense, and this is to be

25 shown by the Prosecution or refuted by the Defence, one must know who the

Page 5552

1 people were, what the locality was, who the commanders were and everything

2 like that. That's how cases before this Tribunal are dealt with.

3 So having said that, I don't want to belabour the point. Those

4 are basics. But, Mr. Mundis, you wanted to say something.

5 MR. MUNDIS: Again very briefly, Mr. President. I am cognisant

6 of the time. The Prosecution, of course, appreciates the numerous bits of

7 advice that we've received here in terms of what we need to do in order to

8 prove our case.

9 Part of the problem that -- that we're faced with in this

10 situation, with all due respect to everyone concerned, is that the system

11 that we have in place at this Tribunal is not one that envisions

12 questioning or commentary by the accused on an ongoing basis. On a number

13 of prior occasions when the issue of accused cross-examining or questioning

14 witnesses arose, the Prosecution submitted that some of these problems were

15 likely to occur. We very well may be at a point where some of these issues

16 are coming to a head and might need to be looked at once again.

17 Clearly the accused have a right to remain silent and have their

18 case put on by their counsel. Conversely, once an accused stands up and

19 begins questioning witnesses or making commentary or making what might be

20 construed to be admissions, one might get to a situation where that right

21 to remain silent has been waived. I'm not saying that we're at that point

22 necessarily, but, for example, just as an example, Mr. Praljak said crimes

23 were committed by the HVO. And if I'm not mistaken, there was another

24 point previously in these proceedings where Mr. Praljak said more or less

25 the same thing.

Page 5553

1 Now, that begs the questions, of course, which crimes? The

2 crimes in our indictment? Other crimes? What precise crimes is Mr.

3 Praljak talking about? Because if, in fact, we have admission that the

4 crimes alleged in our indictment have, in fact, occurred, then that also

5 begs the question as to the necessity of bringing in here before Your

6 Honours dozens and dozens and dozens of victims and witnesses to crimes

7 when, in fact, those crimes might not be at issue.

8 Our concern is not so much necessarily the questioning, it's the

9 comments and the admissions and the speeches and the assertions that come

10 along with that questioning. Is it evidence? Is it evidence before Your

11 Honours that you can rely upon? If so, we are entitled, in our submission,

12 to cross-examine on that, and our view would be at some point, the

13 cumulative nature of everything that Mr. Praljak has said must constitute

14 evidence which we are entitled to cross-examine on. And again, Your

15 Honours, we're probably not -- or maybe not at that point yet, I leave it

16 up to Your Honours, but at some point fairness says we can't allow Mr.

17 Praljak to make statements and speeches and comments about his presence at

18 locations or what he may have seen or heard without that information being

19 challenged. And so that's part of our objection to this type of procedure,

20 which again is not one, in our respectful submission, that is envisioned

21 under the system we have in place here, particularly where the accused have

22 counsel and where the accused can instruct their counsel on what lines of

23 cross-examination might be warranted.

24 Thank you.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may be briefly heard on this.

Page 5554

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a moment, please. I will

2 give the floor to Defence counsel.

3 We've heard you, Mr. Mundis. We can either agree or disagree

4 with you.

5 The Defence wants to respond. I'll give the floor to counsel.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: Very briefly, Your Honour. And as you may

7 recall, I filed a motion more or less in order to allow the -- the accused,

8 any one of them, to ask questions in addition to those posed by their own.

9 I believe when Mr. Praljak has indicated that crimes were

10 committed, it's the same as me admitting that the United States military in

11 Iraq commits crimes, it commits crimes every day, I think we see that on

12 television. As in any war, crimes are committed. It's a global statement,

13 and I can understand Mr. Mundis's concerns. And let me just say one thing.

14 I take to heart what he says. They are observations not to be taken

15 lightly. They're very serious ones.

16 I -- in this particular instance, Mr. Praljak, in my

17 understanding, was merely responding to perhaps an objection or what he

18 perceived to be an issue of relevancy as to why he was going into this area

19 so he was responding as any lawyer would respond to an objection to why it

20 is relevant in doing so.

21 Having said that, I do think that Mr. Mundis does raise a

22 legitimate -- a legitimate issue, and of course, as we all know, the Trial

23 Chamber, under the rules, controls the setting, and I'll leave at it that.

24 And I think the decision to my motion was that the Trial Chamber would

25 exercise tight control in determining when and how all counsel, including

Page 5555

1 the accused, you know, would -- would ask questions in these proceedings.

2 So I don't think we need to be alarmed, and I don't think that

3 anybody has waived any rights, because I think when an individual is

4 representing himself or even assisting in his own defence and is asking a

5 question, the question in and of itself, even if it may appear to have

6 information containing what might appear as an admission, it is merely a

7 question, because under the rules of evidence, questions are not evidence.

8 What a lawyer asks a witness is not evidence. It's what the witness

9 responds, which is why you might see me, on occasion, insisting on an

10 answer from the witness, making a very long statement as sometimes some of

11 us do make, but not getting necessarily an answer is nothing. It's just

12 empty words on a piece of paper. Without that answer, the answer is the

13 evidence, not the question. So therefore, even in an accused, when

14 representing himself or assisting in representing himself, when asking the

15 question the question itself cannot be viewed as a waiver of any particular

16 right, including the right against self-incrimination. Thank you.

17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if I may. My

18 esteemed colleague Mr. Karnavas has said much of what I wanted to say, but

19 perhaps I could add a fact in view of the standpoint of my learned friend.

20 The statements that the accused make in the courtroom, and especially those

21 they make when commenting on events such as the comment made by my client

22 today, as well as whatever he says while putting questions to witnesses

23 seen from a procedural point of view cannot be treated as statements by the

24 accused which can be considered as evidence.

25 According to the Rules of Procedure of this Tribunal, there is a

Page 5556

1 difference between a statement made by an accused under oath when he

2 appears in fact as a witness, and therefore, the comments made by accused

3 in a courtroom can only be interpreted as what they really are in view of

4 their intention.

5 The intention of my client on this occasion, and evidently on

6 previous occasions, has always been, as I think was clear to everyone, and

7 I think these comments have been useful, to contribute to an understanding

8 or a faster understanding of the very far-reaching and extensive events and

9 mass of facts we have to deal with in these proceedings.

10 Of course, the Chamber is in charge of proceedings. My client

11 has shown himself to be very disciplined in this respect and is always

12 ready to sit down whenever Your Honours tell him to, but his intention is

13 to contribute to the search for the truth. Perhaps not always strictly

14 within the limits of the procedure that my colleague Mr. Mundis and myself

15 are used to, but these are not always carved in stone, and it is up to Your

16 Honours to decide what to allow and what not to allow.

17 I only wish to assure Your Honours that my client has a deep

18 respect for this Tribunal and that he will never contravene an order issued

19 by Your Honours, but I feel he has never abused either the time he has been

20 allotted or the responsibility he has taken on. Thank you, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very

22 much to all those who have spoken on that matter, and I would like to tell

23 Mr. Kovacic that, yes, indeed, I find his client perfectly disciplined. He

24 has always respected all the instructions given to him by the Bench or by

25 yourself. So there's no problem in that respect. But as far as I'm

Page 5557

1 concerned personally, I'm not talking on behalf of the whole Chamber I'm

2 talking on my own behalf, Mr. Mundis raised an issue I deem important

3 however I do not share his point of view at all. According to me, Article

4 21(E) of the Statute, and I'd like Mr. Mundis to read it again, this states

5 that the accused is entitled to question or to have witnesses questioned.

6 This right is enscribed -- enshrined in the Statute of the Tribunal. It is

7 also stated in the Article that the accused can be assisted by counsel, not

8 represented, but assisted by counsel.

9 So for me, personally speaking, it has always led me to the

10 conclusion that the accused is entitled to intervene, to put questions

11 whilst, at the same time, being assisted by counsel who will also ask

12 questions. That's why we've issued a decision whereby we've accused --

13 we've allowed accused to ask questions on technical matters. But this

14 doesn't mean, as Mr. Mundis seems to believe, that these statements or

15 these questions imply that such-and-such crime has been admitted by the

16 accused.

17 Obviously these are issues we discuss on a regular basis, my

18 colleagues and myself, and this issue is at the top of our priorities. But

19 as I've stated, as for myself, but this is a shared -- a view shared by the

20 Judges, we want to have proceedings where everyone has been able to put his

21 or her case where the accused also have been able to contribute to their --

22 to their level with the control of their counsel, of course. Everybody

23 agrees on that.

24 We had some time left. We used it up. Now I have to move on to

25 the issue of the schedule for next week.

Page 5558

1 Mr. Mundis, next week I suppose everything has been prepared?

2 We have to finish very quickly. Mr. Praljak I can give you the floor if

3 it's very brief.

4 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] My colleague, Mr. Coric,

5 said he said what he said because of the record. So I have to say it too.

6 He has completed misunderstood me. I just wanted to say that the

7 Prosecution has a lot of documents stemming from the SIS investigations,

8 not that they were the basis of the indictment. Thank you.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Okay. As far as

10 next week is concerned, Mr. Mundis.

11 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President. Everything is ready to

12 go for next week and we should be fine with respect to the schedule as it

13 was previously filed. I do note my colleague, Mr. Kruger, had some

14 documents that he wished to tender into evidence. We can do that now or we

15 can do that on Monday. We're in your hands as always, Mr. President.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, we have to resolve the

17 issue of documents, documents produced through this witness. What exhibits

18 would you like to tender into evidence?

19 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. It is only the two

20 documents that were shown to the witness, the first one being P 8436, and

21 which the Prosecution requests be placed under seal. And the second one is

22 document P 8608. Thank you, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. The Chamber has ruled,

24 and these documents are admitted into evidence.

25 Mr. Registrar --