1 Monday, 4 September 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

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

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the

7 case.

8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. President, case

9 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. Today is

11 Monday, the 4th of September, 2006. I'd like to say good afternoon to

12 everyone in the courtroom. Good afternoon to Mr. Scott, as representative

13 of the Prosecution. Good afternoon to the Defence counsel and to the

14 accused. We would like to greet our witness who has been brought in the

15 courtroom.

16 Before we start hearing the witness, I'm first going to give the

17 floor to Judge Trechsel, who will let you know about the Trial Chamber's

18 position regarding an issue that was raised last week.

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Previous translation continues] ... in the name

20 of the Chamber --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The Chamber found it necessary to make a comment

23 to part of the hearing on Wednesday afternoon. It was page 79, on that

24 day's transcript. I have not checked the present numbers, and it concerns

25 a rather violent outburst of Mr. Karnavas at the address of Mr. Scott,

1 where he used terms such as "sleazy" and, in particular, he said that the

2 method of cross-examination used served to sneak information to the jury.

3 Now, we're quite aware of such a possibility, that if the

4 accusation asking the accused so you were at the street corner and you

5 watched the accused coming in his red sports car around the corner at 4.45

6 in the afternoon, that is probably the type of thing Mr. Karnavas had in

7 mind and with regard to such incidents, of course, the criticism is

8 justified. However, I must stress I don't know for the how many'th time

9 that this is not a trial with a jury. The Judges are aware of most of

10 what is discussed here and that danger does not exist and there is no

11 reason to get upset about it. And if one has a criticism, then the

12 Chamber also believes that it should be uttered in appropriate terms, not

13 by insinuating improper motives to the other party. This of course

14 applies to both parties. I'm not saying that was the only incident so

15 far, but my colleague Mr. Prandler has already commented at other

16 opportunities on the style and atmosphere we like to maintain in this

17 courtroom. The Chamber would very much like to have an atmosphere of a

18 certain mutual respect even if one differs on the merits.

19 I have been asked to make at that comment, and I have now done so.

20 Thank you, Mr. President.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. This being said, I

22 would like to add -- with regard to another incident that took place last

23 week, I'd like to add the following: When Mr. Praljak spoke after the

24 testimony of a witness, at that moment the credibility of the witness was

25 questioned. The witness was even accused of having given a false

1 testimony.

2 On my personal behalf and on behalf of all the Judges, I'd like to

3 remind Mr. Praljak that when he takes the floor he should do it properly

4 and that in the future when Mr. Praljak wants to take the floor he will

5 tell us first what he wants to talk about, what is the subject of his

6 comments in order to avoid that type of situation.

7 With regard of this particular incident I've mentioned, I'd like

8 to remind Mr. Praljak and his counsel that it is always open to them to

9 challenge the credibility of the witness or to question his testimony.

10 You have two ways to go about it.

11 The first way is to cross-examine the witness, and the second

12 recourse you have is something that can happen later on when you bring

13 your own witnesses. You can, through these witnesses, show that the

14 Prosecution witness did not tell the truth, and you can prove that through

15 your own witnesses. So before drawing conclusions about a specific

16 witness, you need first to have produced further evidence.

17 Last week the cross-examination took place but without any

18 questions being asked about the truth of what the witness said. Later on

19 you will have the possibility of bringing other witnesses who can tell us

20 that on the specific day mentioned at paragraph 56 of the indictment,

21 there were no troops of the HVO on site, and that even if 20 deaths have

22 been recorded in the indictment, the facts did not happen as described in

23 the indictment. But you have to prove that through your own witnesses.

24 It's not enough to say that the witness lied.

25 I wanted to add this to what my colleague had said. All the

1 Judges have discussed the issue. So in the future, Mr. Praljak, you have

2 to tell us, "I want to deal with such-and-such issue," and then we'll

3 decide whether it's relevant or not.

4 We have taken up five minutes in order for things to be very clear

5 now. Today we are going to start hearing a new witness based on an expert

6 report that has not been tendered yet. The Prosecution that is provided

7 us with about -- with that pile of documents. That's about half a metre

8 high. We even have more documents at the side there of the room, and

9 we'll try to deal with this avalanche of documents.

10 We'll now move on to the solemn declaration.

11 WITNESS: WILLIAM TOMLJANOVICH

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, can you please rise.

13 Before reading the solemn declaration, please give me your last name,

14 first name, and date of birth.

15 THE WITNESS: Tomljanovich, William. 17th of May, 1966.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your occupation? What

17 are your current functions.

18 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ... officer in the

19 investigations section of the OTP.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, have you ever testified

21 as an expert before this Tribunal? If that's the case, in what case?

22 THE WITNESS: I have never before testified as an expert.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you testified in another

24 capacity, as a regular witness?

25 THE WITNESS: Yes. I testified as a regular witness in the

1 contempt proceedings against Markica Rebic in January, or was it February

2 of this year.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I'd like to ask you

4 to read the solemn declaration that the usher is handing to you.

5 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the

6 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may be seated.

8 Very well. Witness, let me give you some information before we

9 start your testimony. As you know, you're scheduled to testify for five

10 days, five days of hearing. The Prosecution will have two days to put

11 questions to you about a report -- about your report that has not been

12 tendered yet but that everyone has read.

13 Following the questions put to you during these two days by the

14 Prosecution, the Defence will have three days to ask you questions as part

15 of the cross-examination procedure. I do not yet know how they've

16 organised themselves in terms of time sharing. Last week I invited them

17 to think about it. If no agreement has been reached, the Chamber will

18 have to rule about the way the time will be allocated to the various

19 teams.

20 As you perfectly know, you've drawn up a written report, and a

21 number of exhibits will also be put to you during these two days. They

22 will probably be tendered by the Prosecutor, these exhibits. I'd like to

23 ask you to give very comprehensive and specific answers to the questions

24 put to you by the Prosecutor and by the Defence counsel when time comes

25 for the cross-examination, notwithstanding questions put by the Defence.

1 So in due course, the four Judges who are sitting before you today can at

2 any time intervene to answer questions to clarify some of your comments or

3 some of your answers. It's a practice we have in this Chamber to ask

4 questions because we want to be very clear, very specific about these

5 matters. It's our responsibility at the end of the trial to render a

6 judgement, and in the judgement we have to give our reasons. Therefore,

7 we have to give very specific references to the witness statements,

8 witness testimonies, and to all the exhibits produced during the testimony

9 of the witness or following the testimony of a witness according to a

10 procedure that we've put into place here. And since all of this might

11 appear in the written judgement, we have to be extremely clear, extremely

12 specific. So I would like to ask you to be very clear, very specific.

13 This is what I wanted to tell you before we start, and without

14 further ado I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Scott.

15 Mr. Scott, you will now proceed to the examination-in-chief. When

16 you produce a document, in order to gain time, tell us, "Okay. This is

17 document number 69, and I will later ask for this document to be

18 tendered." Thus at the end we won't have to go through the list of

19 exhibits everybody will be very clear about it right from the beginning.

20 Mr. Murphy, you're on you're on your feet although we haven't

21 started. I'm starting to worry myself.

22 MR. MURPHY: Good afternoon Mr. President; good afternoon

23 Your Honours. Now that the witness has been sworn in I want, if I may

24 formally for the record, to interpose two objections to his testimony, and

25 to make one oral application very briefly.

1 The objections, firstly, are that the witness is not qualified to

2 give expert testimony in the field of political science, which is

3 essentially what he's being asked to do.

4 And the second objection, Your Honours, one which Your Honours

5 have already heard and ruled on, but just for the record, is that the

6 witness being an employee of the Prosecutor and being closely involved

7 with the preparation of the case should not be heard to be an expert

8 witness even if he might testify on the facts.

9 The oral application that I have, Your Honour, is this: Now that

10 the Prosecution has committed Mr. Tomljanovich to testifying as an expert,

11 it's quite clear as a matter of, I think, any domestic law and should be

12 clear as a matter of the law of this Tribunal that any legal professional

13 privilege or work product privilege in documents that he has generated or

14 looked at in the course of preparing his opinion can no longer be

15 sustained. It's one thing while he's still in the privacy of the office

16 working as a member of the team, but once they commit him to testifying as

17 an expert, the Defence should be entitled to see everything that underlies

18 his opinion.

19 So, Your Honour, my oral application is that the Prosecution, by

20 tomorrow, disclose to the Defence all interoffice communications whether

21 in the form of memoranda, e-mails, or otherwise that relate to any work

22 that Mr. Tomljanovich has performed in connection either with his

23 testimony, the formation of his opinion or his report, or indeed his work

24 generally in preparing the case.

25 That's my application, Your Honour.

1 MR. KARNAVAS: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours. Last

2 week as you may recall I had made a suggestion or a request that at least

3 with the preliminary matters a deposition be granted which could have been

4 done on Friday, say, with the legal officer. That request was denied.

5 In light of the time limitations, I have prepared a list of

6 interrogatories which I wish to tender at this time. These are

7 preliminary questions. I have a copy for every member of the Chamber as a

8 well as for the registrar and the Prosecutor. I would like the gentleman

9 to fill these out as if they're filled out under oath without the

10 assistance of the Prosecution and to have them for us by -- by the time

11 he's ready to be cross-examined.

12 This would allow us, then, to have a more streamlined cross. I

13 must apologise for not having them stapled, although they're -- I had

14 to -- during the stapling process I made an error so I had to undo it, but

15 it's in the correct order.

16 And one other request. Following what Mr. Murphy had indicated,

17 now that the gentleman is here on the stand, I would like an order that he

18 is not to spend any time in his office or with the Prosecution while he's

19 testifying. He should be treated like any other witness. So he should be

20 forbidden to go into his office and have communications with his -- with

21 his colleagues during the time that he's testifying.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Regarding the interventions of

23 Mr. Murphy and Mr. Karnavas, let me say the following: First of all, the

24 Trial Chamber has decided that the witness would be heard as an expert

25 witness. There's no way we are going to reconsider that ruling made by

1 the Trial Chamber.

2 Secondly, with respect to the application made by Mr. Murphy about

3 the disclosure by the Prosecution of all interoffice memos, notes,

4 instructions between the superiors of the expert at the Office of the

5 Prosecutor and himself, we need to hear Mr. Scott about it. We need to

6 hear Mr. Scott's response or comments.

7 MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours. The

8 Prosecution opposes both applications. We believe that the Defence of

9 course has the right and opportunity to conduct extensive questioning on

10 cross-examination within the bounds of both legality and propriety. The

11 questions -- I haven't looked at Mr. Karnavas's interrogatories yet having

12 just received them. There is no reason why to believe those questions if

13 appropriate, if otherwise appropriate, cannot be put to the witness during

14 cross-examination. I don't think there's any basis -- I don't know of any

15 basis in the Rules to propound interrogatories to a witness in this

16 fashion. So we oppose both applications.

17 I think that counsel can make their own -- ask their own questions

18 as to Mr. Tomljanovich's work at the OTP and his relation with me or with

19 other members of the Prosecution team, but we very much oppose both

20 applications. I believe it's in Rule 70 that the various work product of

21 the OTP is not subject to disclosure. I think in this particular context

22 fact that Mr. Tomljanovich is going to give evidence does not change that,

23 and we again believe that all the matters that have been raised on

24 application this afternoon, which could, of course, have been raised prior

25 to today rather than at this late moment, should be denied and we should

1 go forward in the usual manner.

2 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, if I may respond briefly. Firstly we

3 could not have raised the privilege issue before because until

4 Mr. Tomljanovich was worn as a witness it didn't arise. Your Honour,

5 clearly once he becomes a witness, while there may have been work product

6 and legal privilege before that point, the Prosecution has waived it by

7 opening him up as they effectively concede by saying that we would be

8 entitled to cross-examine. If I can cross-examine about his conversations

9 with Mr. Scott, then clearly there is no privilege on that subject. And

10 it's our submission, Your Honour, that we in the interests of both

11 efficiency and legal entitlement we should be able to see any written work

12 product that he may have. Thank you.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. As you have seen,

15 we've very quickly reflected on this issue that we're very familiar with

16 because we've discussed it for quite some day with regard to disclosure

17 and the privilege issues. We believe after deliberation that there is no

18 reason for the Defence to be given the internal memos that might have been

19 exchanged between the members of the Office of the Prosecutor, since, and

20 I'd like to read Rule 70(A): "Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule 66

21 and 67 reports, memoranda or other internal documents prepared by a

22 party," in this case the Prosecutor, "it's assistance or representatives

23 in connection with the investigation or preparation of the case are not

24 subject to disclosure or notification under those Rules." That's the

25 first part of my answer.

1 The second part is something that the Judges have discussed as

2 well. It's been asked for the witness to answer a number of questions

3 that you've -- a list of which you've given us at the last minute. Let me

4 count them. There are in total 60 questions. We take note of the fact

5 that these questions deal with matters that can be raised during

6 cross-examination, education, training, experience, employment at the

7 Office of the Prosecutor, functions, works of the witness -- how the

8 witness worked in this case, his knowledge as an expert, and his own

9 assessment. These are all issues that the witness will be able to deal

10 with during the cross-examination.

11 However, and now I'm talking to the witness, I'd like to say the

12 following: You've taken the solemn declaration, so you are now the

13 witness of the Chamber. For the next five days you are no longer an

14 employee of the OTP. You are a witness, a witness for justice. So for

15 the next five days and even for more than five days because that will

16 cover this week and the beginning of next week, during all this time you

17 shall have no contact with Mr. Scott or Ms. Carla Del Ponte about this

18 specific case, this present case in order to avoid any interference, any

19 impressions. If we were to find out there had been contacts then it might

20 be a case for contempt of court with a possible sentence of up to seven

21 years.

22 This being said, Mr. Scott, you have the floor.

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

24 Examination by Mr. Scott:

25 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, good afternoon.

1 A. Good afternoon, Mr. Scott.

2 Q. You've already told us that you were born on the 17th of May,

3 1966. Can you tell us where you were born, please?

4 A. I was born in St. Paul Minnesota in the United States.

5 Q. And can you tell us about your undergraduate and graduate

6 education.

7 A. As an undergraduate I attended Columbia University and obtained a

8 Bachelor of Arts degree in history and I obtained my Ph.D. then from

9 Yale University in 1998.

10 Q. In both under grad and in your graduate degree at Yale, did you

11 have any particular of specialty or emphasis?

12 A. Yes, both as an under graduate and as a graduate. As an under

13 graduate I worked with my advisor Dr. Istvam Deak and concentrated on East

14 Central European history in the modern period, which is also what my

15 speciality was in graduate school, the Austrian Empire and its successor

16 states.

17 Q. And when you proceeded on to Yale, did you do your -- a Ph.D. Or

18 do a thesis on any particular topic?

19 A. Yes, I did. My topic was Bishop Josip Strossmayer, who was the

20 bishop of Djakovo in Croatia from 1850 to 1905.

21 Q. Now, sir, we've already heard this afternoon, of course there's no

22 dispute, that you are employed by the Office of the Prosecutor here at the

23 ICTY. I will come back to that in a moment.

24 When did you graduate from Yale with your Ph.D.?

25 A. In 1998.

1 Q. And what did you do between receiving your degree -- let me put

2 this this way. Can you tell us a bit about your employment and

3 significant projects that you did before coming to the ICTY.

4 A. From 1989 into 1996, I was teaching in different capacities at

5 Yale University. As an assistant, teaching my own seminars, and also

6 teaching my own courses.

7 Q. On what topics or subjects?

8 A. A number of different topics in history. Within my own narrow

9 field of speciality I taught history of the Balkans in the modern period.

10 I taught a seminar on nationalism in the Austrian Empire in its last

11 century. I should also add that from 1998 to 1999, I also taught at

12 Dickenson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and both in Dickenson and at

13 Yale I taught survey courses on modern European history.

14 Q. In the course of your work or activities since studying at Yale,

15 working at Yale, you've told us, as a teacher or assistant, have you also

16 published a book?

17 A. Yes. My dissertation or at least the dissertation was the basis

18 for my book on Strossmayer, which was translated into Croatian and

19 published in Croatia. I'm not sure if it was 2001 or 2002 that it

20 actually came out, but somewhere around there that it was actually

21 released.

22 Q. And then you came to the ICTY at what time, sir?

23 A. My first day in the office here was the 2nd of March, 1999.

24 Q. Can you tell us very briefly the nature of the kind of work that

25 you do at the OTP, and how does it relate to your training, your education

1 and training?

2 A. I'm a member of an office in the office -- investigations section

3 called the Leadership Research Team. All members of the team have

4 advanced degrees in something having to do with the former Yugoslavia, and

5 all of us are capable of doing work in B/C/S as well. As a result, our

6 work is very heavily focused on documentary evidence.

7 Q. All right. Let me just mention a couple of things, sir. First of

8 all, I know you're trying to assist the interpreters with going quite

9 slow?

10 A. Yeah.

11 Q. You might be able to go a bit more quickly perhaps.

12 Secondly, you mentioned that you -- you and your colleagues are

13 capable of doing work in B/C/S. Can you just confirm to the Judges, do

14 you speak and write and read the -- what we call here at the Tribunal

15 B/C/S?

16 A. Yes, I do.

17 Q. And have you been able, in fact, in the context of doing your

18 work, a substantial amount of the documents that you've been able to

19 review you've been able to review and work with them in the original

20 language, that is B/C/S?

21 A. Yes. Generally speaking, we work with the original documents if

22 they are in B/C/S. In B/C/S, yes.

23 Q. You were in the courtroom a few minutes ago, sir, when it was

24 mentioned that perhaps a training or background in political science might

25 be more relevant to the work that you have done. Can you tell us how your

1 training and work as an historian relates to the work that you do at the

2 OTP and also the work that you've done before coming to the OTP, how that

3 relates or is similar or not to the work you do at the OTP?

4 A. It's extremely similar, because since the spring of 2000, I've

5 been largely engaged in finding, acquiring, analysing, and organising

6 archival materials, which is very similar to what I was doing as an

7 historian. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the evidence that's in my

8 report was found by myself and others in the same archive in which I was

9 working as a historian in 1992, 1993.

10 The process of selecting relevant documentation from a very large

11 collection of archival materials is extremely similar whether or not the

12 material is extremely recent or whether or not it's 150 years old.

13 Q. Can you tell the Judges, please, what are some of the problems or

14 challenges with working with such document collections, whether old or

15 more recent?

16 A. Well, at different stages there's different problems. The first

17 problem is knowing where to look in a large archival collection for the

18 relevant materials. Once you've found them, a problem is, generally

19 speaking and certainly with the collections we're going to talk about

20 here, the greatest problem we've had is the enormous volume of materials

21 we've had access to since the spring of 2000. Being able to find relevant

22 materials within such large collections is very difficult.

23 Once those materials are found, there's also a great deal of work

24 cataloguing and classifying the documents so that they will be available

25 to all persons who may need to make use of them.

1 Q. You've told us about -- sorry?

2 A. Just very quickly. Once we have all these documents in house, the

3 challenge is synthesising and analysing those documents which is

4 already -- which is still a large amount of documentation and trying to

5 present it in a coherent and concise fashion.

6 Q. Are there any additional considers [sic] or methodology that you

7 bring to your work as an historian in working with a document such as the

8 ones that you have used here?

9 A. Yes, as I've already mentioned, I've had experience working with

10 archives and archival materials, experience working with large amounts of

11 materials and synthesising them, and probably more important than anything

12 you learn in terms of methodology as a historian with this material, or in

13 any material you find, what's very important is knowing the background and

14 knowing the context of the documents you're looking at because the

15 historical documents, whether it's from the 1990s or the 1860s, these --

16 this material wasn't written for the purpose of telling you what it is you

17 want to find out, and that material has a great deal of assumed knowledge

18 between the persons communicating. So a very good knowledge of the

19 context in which these documents were put together and also a knowledge of

20 how to synthesise all of these documents and present them coherently is

21 something which once again it's very similar -- it's a very similar

22 process in writing a book and also in writing this expert report.

23 Q. Now, turning specifically to the nature of the report itself and

24 the preparation of it, let me ask you this, and again you're in a

25 courtroom this afternoon where certain questions have been raised, can you

1 tell the Judges, sir, is there anything about your approach or the

2 methodology or the work that you did in connection with your report or

3 about observations that you have made in your report that in your view

4 would be any different if you had performed this work while not employed

5 by the Office of the Prosecutor?

6 A. No, with one very clear exception. I can't imagine I'd be able to

7 look at as much of this material and have as much time to get to know this

8 much material this well if I hadn't been working here full time for seven

9 and a half years. But other than that, I didn't reach -- I don't think --

10 if I'd been, say, an academic expert looking at these things from the

11 outside, I can't imagine how it would have been any different or how my

12 conclusions would have been any different, insofar as there are

13 conclusions. I tried very hard not to put any of my own opinions into

14 this paper.

15 Q. Now, in that regard, then, again turning to your report, can you

16 tell the Judges essentially what the -- what commission you received, if

17 we can use that terminology, or what assignment were you given in terms of

18 what report to prepare; that is, what to address and include in your

19 report.

20 A. Yes. It was you yourself, Mr. Scott, who asked me, I think it was

21 in November of last year, to present a report to the Judges explaining the

22 political and governmental structures and processes of the HVO in its

23 various incarnations, the -- or of Herceg-Bosna and its various

24 incarnations, the HVO, the HZ HB, and the HR HB in the period from roughly

25 middle 1991 to early 1994.

1 Q. And can you tell us, please, briefly give us an overview of the

2 scheme and structure of your report.

3 A. Yes. The scheme and the structure is my own. What I decided to

4 do is to begin the report starting off with the basic legislation that

5 established governing organs and prescribed the function of governing

6 organs in Herceg-Bosna in 1991, 1992, and for that first section I rely

7 very heavily on documents from the Official Gazettes where this is laid

8 out.

9 In the next section, I look at how these organs actually

10 functioned in practice from about August of 1992 until the fall of 1993

11 and beyond, looking very closely at main -- the main collection of

12 documents that I'm looking at is not only the Official Gazettes again but

13 also minutes of the meetings of the HVO HZ HB.

14 Then in the third section, I go back to de jure mode and talk

15 about the new organs or the changes in the existing organs of government

16 as the HR HB was created in late 1993, early 1994.

17 Q. Now, you've mentioned the Official Gazette --

18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down. Thank you.

19 MR. SCOTT:

20 Q. And we've been told to do just the opposite of what I told you to

21 do, Mr. Tomljanovich. If you could slow down a bit.

22 A. Oh, sorry.

23 Q. You mentioned already the Official Gazette of the Croatian

24 Community or Republic of Herceg-Bosna. Is that something called the

25 Narodni List?

1 A. Yes. It was the Official Gazette -- Narodni List was the Official

2 Gazette for both the HZ HB and the HR HB.

3 Q. And can you tell the Judges and perhaps they know from some other

4 training or experiences they've had, but when you describe this as an

5 Official Gazette in this context, what is that or what does that mean?

6 A. It's the public organ in which government organs, in this case the

7 HVO HZ HB, the Presidency of the HZ HB, various departments make public

8 various decrees and pronouncements and decisions so that other organs of

9 government subordinate to them and so that other persons in the public are

10 aware of the legislation that's been passed.

11 Q. Can you explain the way that the Gazettes were used specifically

12 in your experience and based on your study in Herceg-Bosna and the HVO and

13 how they were organised and published?

14 A. Narodni List itself was a public company which was run by the HVO

15 HZ HB. Periodically they would issue issues of this -- of their Gazette,

16 numbered issues, periodically. There was no regular time frame in which

17 it had to be done in which all of the official pronouncements -- all the

18 official pronouncements designated for publication in the Narodni List

19 were made. These tend to be in terms of volume -- most of this comes from

20 the HVO HZ HB, although that is fair amount from the Presidency of the HZ

21 HB, and then during the HR HB there's more legislation coming from organs

22 outside of the cabinet.

23 Q. And was the -- is there a compilation of the Narodni List that is

24 put together and published, if you will, on an annual basis in the sense

25 of, can we go and say this is the Narodni List for 1992?

1 A. Yes. I have bound copies of the Gazettes in my bookshelf, and

2 when they're all put together, 1992 is about this thick. 1993 is a little

3 thicker, and 1994 is two fairly thick volumes. Those are publicly

4 available and were intended to be publicly available.

5 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I might just mention to Your Honours at

6 this time that what has been put together in one of the large bundles not

7 for each Judge because some of this was -- because again of the volume of

8 the material, but in the overall complete set of materials Exhibit P 00947

9 is the complete Narodni List for 1992, which I'll ask the witness to

10 confirm. Exhibit P 05166 is the complete Narodni List for 1993, and

11 Exhibits, two exhibits, P 07435 and P 07439, two volumes, comprise the

12 complete Narodni List for 1994.

13 Q. And, Mr. Tomljanovich, can you just confirm for purposes of the

14 record that that is the case?

15 A. Yes, that's the case.

16 Q. So in that respect, Your Honours, the Court has then for those

17 three years the entire publications of the Official Gazettes of the HVO or

18 the Community or Republic of Herceg-Bosna.

19 Now, if we might take one example, exhibit --

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could you -- following the president's

21 invitation, could you tell the Chamber you plan to put these into

22 evidence?

23 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. We intend to put all these every --

24 document I specifically raise in my examination we intend put into

25 evidence but yes, these particular documents we do so intend.

1 I might further explain to Your Honours that the way the material

2 has been organised is that, of the big bundles, the ones where there's

3 only one set for everyone because of the volume, the 1992 for instance

4 complete set is on top. In that -- then underneath that or in that

5 schedule are selected translated individual items that are most relevant

6 to the case. The Chamber hopefully will understand that there is a great

7 volume -- a great amount of material that is completely irrelevant to this

8 case, so this is -- what we consider the most relevant portions or

9 passages have been translated and then given individual exhibit numbers.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, in order to gain

11 time, when you're asking the witness a question on any particular

12 paragraph, you will give us the number of the paragraph and the number of

13 the page, please, because that will facilitate matters and it's that that

14 is going to be tendered and then admitted.

15 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. If we could just starred as one

16 example, if I could have displayed, please, Exhibit P 00305 in e-court. I

17 suggest to Your Honours that for purposes of this particular explanation

18 it might -- I thought it would be helpful to show one particular example

19 of what the material looks like and then I'll explain the organisation of

20 the remainder of the material as we turn to it.

21 Q. If you can see what is displayed there sir, Mr. Tomljanovich, as P

22 00305, do you recognise this as an item in the format and style that

23 you've seen published in the Narodni List that we've been talking about so

24 far this afternoon?

25 A. Yes.

1 Q. In fact can you tell the Judges what the particular topic or

2 subject of this particular entry or item is?

3 A. This is the decision establishing and founding the Official

4 Gazette, Narodni List, as reprinted in the Narodni List from -- I don't

5 see the -- I think it's July 3rd, although I'm not sure. I can't see the

6 date. If I could scroll down. Yes, it is. 3rd of July, 1992, signed by

7 Mate Boban who was then the president of the HZ HB and the HVO HZ HB.

8 Q. Now, with that -- that covers for a moment, if you will,

9 introduces the Narodni List material. Can I ask you then to describe,

10 please -- you mention another set of materials that you used concerning

11 the minutes or records of a particular body.

12 A. Uh-huh.

13 Q. Which body is that and which records are you referring to?

14 A. These are the minutes of the meetings of the HVO HZ HB and the

15 cabinet of the HR HB, as well as the invitations to the meetings which

16 contain the agendas to the meetings.

17 Q. On some of this material, sir, it's a bit like the chicken and an

18 egg. It's where you start. You've several times used the abbreviations

19 for example, the HVO HZ HB so far in your testimony. We're going to come

20 to that in a few minutes in a rather substantial way but can you tell the

21 Judges when you use that terminology the, HVO HZ HB, what are you

22 referring to?

23 A. Well, the HVO HZ HB was also colloquially known even during that

24 period as the cabinet of the HVO HZ HB. It's the body of the president

25 with his six department heads responsible for various fields of activity

1 like defence and internal affairs and this is the body that then becomes

2 the cabinet of the HR HB in late 1993.

3 Q. What kind of documents or records did this particular body then

4 generate that you have described as using for purposes of your report?

5 A. As I've already mentioned, they generated minutes of their

6 meetings. They generated agendas. They generated various decisions and

7 decrees which are sometimes reprinted in the Official Gazettes but not

8 always. In some instances we have them in original copies, not reprinted

9 in the Gazettes.

10 Q. All right. Now, then there is a third bundle or stock of

11 exhibits or material that has been provided to the Judges and then under

12 a separate schedule, and is it correct, sir, that this -- these are all

13 the documents referenced in your report other than Narodni List material

14 or material related to the HVO cabinet?

15 A. Yes. And I believe there was also a shorter list of those

16 documents, simply the ones that had been highlighted that was put

17 forward, which I received a copy of just a day or two ago.

18 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, at this point just so the Court is clear,

19 for further reference what we will now be using for the remainder of

20 Mr. Tomljanovich's examination-in-chief, and I suppose it's possible

21 exception that something may have been left out and we will have to go to

22 the very large collection, but will be the selected exhibits of that been

23 put together in a separate set of materials for each of the Judges, each

24 of the four Judges, and it is the set of materials starting -- the first

25 exhibit is P 0069. And there is a schedule or should be of those

1 documents, and the last document in that bundle or related that should be

2 Exhibit P 09551.

3 Q. Sir, turning then to your report, can you tell us, please, at the

4 time that the Bosnian Croat regional communities and Herceg-Bosna were

5 being established, were there similar developments involving some of the

6 other national or ethnic groups?

7 A. Yes, there were. At the same time in late 1991, under the

8 auspices of the Serbian nationalist political party SDA [sic], various

9 municipalities formed what was known as Serbian autonomous regions using

10 as their pretext for doing so the 1974 constitution of Bosnia and

11 Herzegovina which allowed for communities of municipalities.

12 Q. Sir, let me correct you for a moment. I believe a moment ago in

13 the transcript, or it came across as "SDA"?

14 A. I'm sorry.

15 Q. SDS?

16 A. SDS.

17 Q. Would carry on and tell us about these municipalities of

18 communities.

19 A. This was being done in response to the prospect of Bosnia and

20 Herzegovina leaving Yugoslavia. These communities reorganised themselves

21 and eventually joined together into one political unit over the course of

22 1991 and 1992 with the intent of giving the SDS control of those

23 municipalities.

24 Q. And along this -- around this time, were some entities

25 established, something that had been called the Serb autonomous areas?

1 A. Yes. Those were the groupings of municipalities which I described

2 earlier.

3 Q. And approximately when, sir, were these bodies coming into

4 existence?

5 A. Without looking at my report, off the top of my head I'm just sure

6 that this was done over the course of 1991, and in later 1991, these

7 groups of municipalities were consolidating into a smaller number of

8 larger groups.

9 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, if I could at this time provide in fact

10 Mr. Tomljanovich with a copy of his report for his -- so that when we talk

11 about the report he will have it to make reference to. With the usher's

12 assistance.

13 THE WITNESS: Thank you.

14 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, while that is being done, he's being

15 given his report, may I invite Mr. Scott to have the witness clarify one

16 thing. The witness has already earlier stated that he's tried his best to

17 keep his personal opinions out of his report, but he testified that the

18 Serbian autonomous areas were created with a certain intent and I wonder

19 if the witness could clarify what the basis of that opinion is about the

20 intent of those who would create those organisations.

21 MR. SCOTT:

22 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, you've heard the question of counsel?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. If you'd like to make any further comment on that, please do so.

25 A. Well, in discussing the Serb autonomous regions which was only

1 intended to be background information to put the other material in

2 context, I looked at a number of documents which are cited here in my

3 report. The footnotes 3 to 14. And what -- all of what I relied on is

4 there, although I should add that as far as the background material is

5 concerned, I was trying to speed up the background, and I'm not focusing

6 as narrowly on each document with the background as I do with the body of

7 the paper once we get to the HZ HB and the HVO.

8 Q. And, sir, can you tell us approximately when the entity that's

9 known as the Republika Srpska, when that entity was formed?

10 A. Well, that's a good question. You see, I have it in my report,

11 although off the top of my head I do not remember.

12 Well, the Bosnian Serb Assembly was formed on 24th of October,

13 1991. The plebiscite of Serb municipalities on remaining in Yugoslavia

14 then followed from the 9th and 10th of November, 1991, and Republika

15 Srpska, I don't believe -- I don't think that's in my paper, the

16 declaration of Republika Srpska, although I could be wrong. I believe

17 that was not until 1992, but I'm not sure off the top of my head.

18 Q. Sir, we're not going to talk about the next set of exhibits in any

19 great detail because I think the Chamber may have -- they've been covered

20 with other witnesses the Chamber has already heard. Could I ask you to

21 look at Exhibit P 00069.

22 And for reference -- for the courtroom's reference and your -- if

23 you will assist you, Mr. Tomljanovich, I think some of this material is

24 covered at pages 10 to 13 of your report.

25 Can you just tell us briefly what this document is, sir, and

1 whether you considered it in fact as included in the body of your report?

2 A. Yes. I cited this document in my report. This is a meeting of

3 the 12th of November, 1991, held in Grude with the members of the Crisis

4 Staffs of two different regional communities, of the HDZ BiH, one from

5 Travnik, which represented Central Bosnia, and the Crisis Staff from

6 Herzegovina. The two meet on this day. The Presiding Officers were their

7 respective presidents, Mr. Mate Boban and Mr. Dario Kordic, and at this

8 meeting they voiced their intention to form a union of the two regional

9 communities into one regional community, and they describe some of their

10 reasons for doing so.

11 Q. Can we next show the witness, please, Exhibit P 00079. MR. SCOTT:

12 And I will confirm, Mr. President, which of these documents were

13 already admitted. If they have not -- if any of them -- the ones of --

14 that have not been admitted, they will be tendered at the conclusion of

15 Mr. Tomljanovich's evidence.

16 And can you -- if you have that -- it's not up yet. Can you

17 please tell us briefly what that document is.

18 A. This is one of the many copies we have of the decision

19 establishing the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna or HZ HB which was

20 done on 18th of November, 1991.

21 If we scroll down to Article 2, it sets the territory of

22 Herceg-Bosna as including those municipalities. If we can scroll down to

23 Article 5. Yes. The HZ HB recognises the democratic -- will recognise

24 that they respect the democratically elected government of

25 Bosnia-Herzegovina as long as it is independent to any future or former

1 Yugoslavia.

2 In Article 7, finally, it states that the leadership of the

3 community will be the Presidency which will consist of representatives of

4 the Croatian people in the municipal government and the senior members or

5 presidents of the municipal boards of the HDZ or Croatian Democratic Union

6 and that that body will have itself a president, vice-president, and a

7 secretary.

8 Q. All right. Now, with reference -- as referenced on page 14 of

9 your report, can I ask you -- ask that you please be shown Exhibit P

10 00152.

11 And can you tell the Judges, please, what was the effect or --

12 what was the effect of this document and when was this? Maybe with the

13 assistance of the usher we can scroll down further and indicate the date

14 of this particular decision?

15 A. Well, the date of this decision is the 8th of April, 1992. It's

16 signed by Mate Boban on behalf of the Presidency of the HZ HB, which

17 enacted this, it says in the preamble, enacted this decision at an

18 emergency session on 8th of April, 1992. And this decision creates the

19 HVO HZ HB as the supreme defence body of the Croatian people in the

20 HZ HB.

21 One other thing I should probably add, under Article 2 it lists

22 that its objectives shall be to take care of the sovereign space of the

23 Croatian community of Herceg-Bosna and to protect the Croatian people as

24 well as other peoples in the community attacked by an aggressor.

25 Q. And what happened as a result based on your study and the

1 documents you've looked at, what entity or what operation was put into

2 existence as a result of this particular decision?

3 A. The HVO HZ HB, as well as the affiliate organs were put into

4 existence on the basis of this document but not immediately, and

5 specific -- the specific parameters of what was going to be established

6 were set in later decisions which followed upon this decision.

7 Q. All right. As covered on pages 14 to 16 of your report, could I

8 also ask you please be shown Exhibit P 09526?

9 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if may interject here while this is

10 happening. I'm unable to follow exactly what is the purpose of this kind

11 of direct examination. You have a report that was generated by the

12 gentleman. The report is footnoted citing the authorities that he's

13 relying on. We're not getting a narration from the gentleman.

14 Now, I assume Mr. Scott is going to be tendering the entire

15 report. So perhaps we could get a narration from the gentleman and then

16 he could maybe then look at particular documents for context, but he

17 indicated that when he drafted the report that he took into consideration

18 background and context. I neither hear background nor do I see anything

19 that he's saying being put into context. By that what I mean is, the

20 background of the events, the context in which these documents were --

21 were drafted at the time what was happening in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

22 Now, perhaps Mr. Scott will be getting to that, but I would think

23 that it might be very helpful to the Trial Chamber in understanding what

24 exactly this testimony is all about.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

1 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, first of all, I have to disagree with

2 Mr. Karnavas. A few minutes ago, for example, the witness explained the

3 context in which the founding documents of the Croatian Community of

4 Herceg-Bosna came about, that at the same time as that was happening

5 various Serb autonomous areas and units and government entities were being

6 put into place. That was putting this material in context. He also added

7 just a moment ago information to the Chamber that although the exhibit P

8 00152 was adopted on the 8th of April, 1992, it was not in fact put into

9 effect some time later.

10 So I do not intend to cover the entire report which everyone has

11 nor every document in the report, but we are trying to take the Chamber

12 through significant parts of the report and Mr. Tomljanovich can add

13 additional details and information as we go.

14 The Chamber has indicated previously that in order for the

15 exhibits to be admitted, the witness will have to address those exhibits.

16 I would be happy to admit -- to tender all exhibits referenced in his

17 report in their totality. But if that is not the Court's procedure then

18 the way I propose to do and the way that I have prepared the examination

19 based on the Court's prior rulings in this case is that I would take him

20 through the most -- what I would consider the most important documents.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So if I understand

22 correctly, you are submitting a number of documents quickly to the

23 witness, and later on you'll move on to the substance of the report, to

24 the context and to the pivotal issues in this case.

25 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour.

1 Q. Now, sir, if you have now Exhibit P 09526 in front of you, can you

2 tell us what that is? And again, I'm asking you to do in each instance,

3 Mr. Tomljanovich, is then, when the document is shown, connect it to your

4 report and explain to the Judges the value or the role, if you will that

5 that particular document played in the analysis that you've given to the

6 Judges by way of your report.

7 A. Yes. This document here, in the original it's handwritten notes

8 from a meeting of the Presidency of the HVO HZ HB from the 15th of May,

9 1992. This is also the meeting at which they passed the first version of

10 the statutory decision on executive government, and this document is

11 minutes of that meeting which reveals their thinking behind doing that and

12 their political motivations for creating an executive organ, which is what

13 they're doing, creating an executive organ to govern the territory of the

14 HZ HB.

15 Q. Was there any sort of founding documentation, if you will, besides

16 these -- besides the one document we looked at, the decision, and these

17 notes as to the structure and authorities of this body that became known

18 as the HVO HZ HB?

19 A. Well, yes. The first document, which is a sort of

20 constitutional -- or sort of constitutional document, is the statutory

21 decision which is passed at this meeting on the 15th of May, 1992, which

22 is significantly revised on the 3rd of July, 1992, at the next meeting of

23 the Presidency of the HVO HZ HB. In the intervening period there was also

24 a law governing the function of municipal governments within the HZ HB.

25 MR. SCOTT: All right. Could I ask that the witness be shown,

1 please, Exhibit P 00303.

2 Q. Sir, can you tell the Judges, is this a copy of the document that

3 you referred to a moment ago when you said in your testimony -- you said

4 the statutory decision on executive authority?

5 A. Yes, this is. This is the revised version of the 3rd of July,

6 1992, as it appears in Narodni List.

7 Q. The earlier document that we looked at from April, on the 8th of

8 April, 1992, described the HVO as the supreme defence body. How does this

9 statutory decision describe the HVO?

10 A. Well, in Article 1 here it describes the HVO as the supreme

11 executive and administrative body in the HZ HB.

12 If you look down further, it's described as a temporary body. Its

13 members are made accountable to the Presidency much in a fashion that any

14 ordinary cabinet would be in other systems would be accountable to the

15 parliament. It -- under -- let me see here. Sorry.

16 Under Article 7, it lists the members of the HVO.

17 Moving further down to the next page, article 9 defines the powers

18 of the president of the HVO, stating that he shall be in charge of the

19 work of the HVO and held accountable for it and ensuring the unity of the

20 mythical administrative of the HVO and coordinating with other bodies and

21 organisations of the HVO HZ HB, and also stating that he'll sign the

22 documents.

23 Q. All right. Sir, can you confirm to the Judges during the time of

24 its creation, from the time of this statute and its creation are put into

25 place until August of 1993 when at least formally the Croatian Community

1 of Herceg-Bosna was changed to the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna, who

2 was the president of the HVO?

3 A. From its beginning until August of 1992, that was Mate Boban, who

4 was simultaneously the president of the HZ HB and the president of the

5 Presidency. From August of 1992 onwards, that was Jadranko Prlic.

6 Q. Now, if I could direct your attention for a moment back to Article

7 6. It says "the HVO shall regulate the activities, structure, operational

8 framework and powers of its departments in accordance with the regulations

9 passed by the Presidency."

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. What are the departments being discussed there?

12 A. The HVO in legislation which followed right after this had six

13 departments. Department of Defence, Department of Internal Affairs,

14 Department of Social Welfare and the Family, Department of Justice and

15 General Administration, Department of Finance, and the Department of

16 Economics.

17 Q. In Article 3, which I believe you mentioned a moment ago, you

18 said "The HVO" -- it says, excuse me, "The HVO and the HZ HB and every HVO

19 member are accountable to the Presidency of the HZ HB."

20 Now, I'm going to ask you to assist the Judges now, sir, because

21 the term "Presidency" will appear in different usages and contexts, and

22 can you tell the Judges now, describe for them the different way in which

23 the term "Presidency" is used and which bodies it refers to.

24 A. Yes. It's only -- seems confusing because it is. The Presidency

25 of the HZ HB is this legislative body which is set up in November of 1991

1 containing representatives of all of the different municipalities, and

2 that's more or less an Assembly and functions as a parliament until its

3 last meeting in October of 1992. There's the president of the Presidency.

4 It has a presiding officer. So there's the president of the Presidency,

5 then there's also the president of the HZ HB, which is Mate Boban. At the

6 same time, the HVO HZ HB also has its own president whose office is

7 sometimes referred to in translations as the Presidency.

8 Q. All right. The statutory decision refers to this body as of 1992

9 as being in Article 2 a temporary body. Can you tell the Judges, please,

10 on the basis of your work whether this was a temporary body and in fact

11 how long Herceg-Bosna and the HVO continued to exist, as far as you know?

12 A. The HZ HB ceases to exist in August of 1993 when it's supplanted

13 by the HR HB although there is continuity between the HZ HB and the HR HB,

14 a great deal of continuity, and the HVO HZ HB becomes the cabinet of the

15 HR HB. In one form or another, these organisations exist well past the

16 Dayton agreement.

17 As far as the question of temporary is concerned, it's temporary

18 until August of 1993 -- or, actually, 20th November, 1993, when HVO

19 offices are done away with in favour of the succession -- and are

20 succeeded by HR HB offices.

21 Q. And that does not actually happen, if I heard you correctly, until

22 November of 1993.

23 A. Yes. As I mentioned in my report. There is a transitional period

24 from the declaration of the HR HB in late August, 1993, to 20th of

25 November, 1993, when all of the old offices and job descriptions are done

1 away with.

2 Q. Can I ask you next to look at Exhibit P 00440, with the usher's

3 assistance on e-court.

4 Mr. Tomljanovich, could you give the Judges an overview of this

5 document, please, and point out the particular aspects of it that most

6 directly relate to your report.

7 A. This is the decree on the organisation and responsibilities of the

8 departments and commissions of the HVO of the HZ HB. I'm not sure of the

9 exact date since I can't see the bottom of this.

10 Q. It's a multi-page document.

11 A. Although I think I remember the date.

12 Q. Well, I hope it wouldn't be in dispute that on the last page of

13 the document it says the 14th of August --

14 A. 14th of August. Yes it was passed on the 14th of August, 1992,

15 and signed by Mate Boban as the president of the HVO and HZ HB. And what

16 this does is it gives the description of the duties and spheres of spot

17 for the six departments we just mentioned, with different departments in

18 many instances subdepartments under them are created, and the

19 responsibilities and duties of those subdepartments are also listed here.

20 There's three commissions of the HVO HZ HB which are also created

21 in this document, commission on regulations, the commission on

22 transformation of property, and also for rebuilding and reconstruction.

23 It also defines the duties of each of the department heads.

24 Q. All right. If we can just go a bit more specifically to, for

25 example, Article 8 on the second page. You, a moment ago, listed the

1 departments as they existed at that time. Is this an accurate list, then,

2 of the departments of the HVO as of August of 1992?

3 A. Yes, it is. There's different ways that the names can be

4 translated into English, but these are the six departments.

5 Q. And for example, if the Judges care to, if they look at Article 9,

6 that will set out essentially the mandate or functions of the Department

7 of Defence; is that correct?

8 A. Yes. And each of the other departments follows in succession in

9 the next few articles.

10 Q. Can I ask you to be shown Article 31. And for -- it has the ERN

11 page. If it assists for e-court being 00840728. Yes, there is it is.

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And can you tell the Judges how does this particular Article 31

14 enter into your report, and how did you find this to be carried out

15 according to the documentary accounts, the documentary history of these

16 organisations?

17 A. This --

18 Q. Was this structure, in fact, followed?

19 A. Yes, it was, in fact. What they're talking about here is that the

20 department heads will have deputies and that they'll be appointed by the

21 Presidency of the HZ HB at the proposal of the HVO HZ HB. Now, this

22 follows a general principle you see here in Herceg-Bosna that appointments

23 were made by the second-instance supervisor at the recommendation of the

24 first-instance supervisor. So for example an assistant minister of

25 defence would be appointed by the HVO HZ HB at the recommendation of the

1 head of the Department of Defence.

2 Q. Now, in addition to -- because we will see was we continue into

3 your report and your testimony, in addition to departments were there

4 other administrative bodies or organisations that were used by the HVO or

5 the Herceg-Bosna structures to carry out various parts of its work --

6 their work?

7 A. Yes, quite a few. And the founding legislation allows the HVO HZ

8 HB to create extra commissions and other extra bodies to deal with things

9 they need done as they see fit, and certainly this was done over the

10 course of the HVO HZ HB. A number of other bodies were created in order

11 to serve specific functions.

12 Q. If we could quickly go on to the next document, then, Exhibit

13 684 -- or P 00684.

14 Can you tell us about this -- first of all, tell us what it is and

15 then tell us how this affected the -- the way that the HVO did business

16 during this time.

17 A. Yes. This is an extremely important piece of legislation. It's

18 the amendment, and if I could just scroll down to get the exact wording.

19 This is the decision amending the statutory decision on the provisional

20 organisation of executive power, which, as I mentioned, established the

21 rules for the operation of the HVO HZ HB and its duties and sphere of

22 activity. Now, what this decision does, and it's signed by Mate Boban

23 after the last meeting of the Presidency of the HZ HB, and this allows, if

24 we could scroll down a little bit further into Article 1, this changes

25 Article 18 of the statutory decision and it allows the HVO HZ HB to pass

1 legislation in the sphere of responsibility of the Presidency of the HZ

2 HB. And what this essentially does it takes over the powers of

3 legislature and provisionally gives them to the HVO HZ HB and allows them

4 to enact legislation in that field of responsibility. And this is invoked

5 fairly frequently thereafter.

6 Q. I'm not going to ask you to read or take anyone's time to read

7 each one but in the second clause or paragraph, if you will, Article 1 it

8 says "In the exercise of its powers the HVO shall adopt decrees,

9 decisions, dispositions and conclusions." And my question, sir, is that,

10 are each of those then further defined in the remaining part of the

11 decision?

12 A. Yes, they are.

13 Q. And just by way of a quick overview, is essentially -- a decree is

14 something that has a general application, something that we might

15 generally call -- some of us might call a statute or a law?

16 A. It was binding, yes. The distinctions between those four sorts of

17 enactments not being a lawyer I'm not completely clear what the

18 distinctions are. It's stated there for anyone to read, though, exactly

19 what the distinctions are, but all of those are binding, and they have the

20 power to enforce all of these.

21 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I see the time. If the Court would

22 like to take a break at this moment.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We'll have a break, 20-minute

24 break. We'll resume at five past 4.00.

25 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.

1 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

3 MR. SCOTT:

4 Q. Sir, can you tell the Judges based on your work and then we'll

5 look at some -- continuing with particular documents, did you find that

6 the authorities and functions -- that the authorities and functions that

7 were carried out by the HVO HZ HB increased and centralised more and more

8 HVO authority in that body over time?

9 A. Yes, absolutely. In their own semi-annual report the HVO HZ HB

10 makes reference to the fact that their sphere of authority in late 1992

11 was constantly expanding. And there is a number of references in the

12 minutes of the meetings of the HVO HZ HB where individual members complain

13 that the Presidency of the HZ HB isn't taking -- filling its functions as

14 a policy-making body.

15 Q. In that regard can I ask you to look at -- or to be shown Exhibit

16 P 00128. And if I can -- if we can scroll down the page, please. If we

17 can go back to the English version, please, and scroll down.

18 Mr. Tomljanovich, can you please indicate to the Judges language

19 that you see in this document you may need to refer to, continue on to

20 other pages, that is consistent with or supports what you stated just a

21 moment ago?

22 A. Yes, but scroll down a little bit so I can see all of the last

23 paragraph in English. This is what I was talking an about earlier, it

24 says that, "The HVO HZ HB was founded in May 1992 as the highest body of

25 executive authority and administration ..." And then as it goes further

1 yes, at the bottom it begins, "However, in time, the obligations were

2 expanded --"

3 Q. Hold on one moment, please.

4 A. Yes. I should explain first of all, too, before we get into that,

5 this is a semi-annual report of the HVO HZ HB. It's a compilation the

6 cover was done by the HVO HZ HB itself and it's compilation of the various

7 reports of the various departments of the HVO HZ HB.

8 Q. Let me stop you there and you're absolutely right to point that

9 out. Did the HVO establish a practice or adopt a practice of issuing a

10 report summarising its activities in six-month increments?

11 A. Yes, absolutely and we've entered -- I've used in my report the

12 semi-annual report for 1992 and the two semi-annual reports for 1993.

13 Q. So the report that we're looking at now, which is Exhibit P 00128,

14 this is the report that covers the period from the foundation of the HVO

15 HZ HB up until the end of calendar year 1992, that is the 31st of

16 December, 1992?

17 A. Yes, roughly speaking, individual departments and offices may for

18 whatever internal reasons they have periodise things a little bit

19 differently but it's supposed to be for the second half of 1992.

20 Q. Now, with that additional background in mind could you please go

21 to the bottom of page 1 where you began to read a moment ago, starting

22 with the word "however," and continue on, please.

23 A. "However, in time the above rights and obligations were expanded

24 to a full legislative function, because by a change of the statutory

25 decision the earlier right to pass regulations within its own sphere

1 was --"

2 Q. Slow down a bit.

3 A. I'm sorry. " ... was expanded to include the passing of

4 regulations within the mandate of the Presidency of the HZ HB. Since for

5 the passing of regulations it is necessary to define one's own political

6 orientation and views, responsibility for determining policies in all

7 spheres was, in effect, transferred to a certain extent to the HVO HZ

8 HB."

9 Q. Now, turning for a moment to some of the early appointments in

10 this -- the structures that we've been looking at so far this afternoon --

11 and I've been reminded to offer these exhibits, tender these exhibits as

12 we go, so I'll try to begin doing that. We tender Exhibit P 00128.

13 And if I could next ask the witness to be shown Exhibit P 00208.

14 Can you tell us what that document is, sir, and what it does?

15 A. This is a translation of a decision which was printed and

16 reprinted in Narodni List appointing Jadranko Prlic head of the finance

17 department of the HVO HZ HB on the 15th of May, 1992, and signed by Mate

18 Boban.

19 Q. And could we go then next to Exhibit P 00308. And can you tell us

20 what this is, please?

21 A. This is the 3rd July, 1992, appointment of Bruno Stojic as the

22 head of the defence department. I believe this is also signed by Mate

23 Boban.

24 Q. And based on your report and research, sir, is it correct that

25 Mr. Stojic remained in this position as the chief of the defence

1 department, albeit at some point the terminology changed to the Ministry

2 of Defence, until approximately November, 1993?

3 A. It's my understanding that he stayed at this position until the

4 position itself ceased to exist on the 20th of November, 1993.

5 Q. We tender, Your Honours, Exhibit P 00208 and P 00308.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, if I may just have a point of

7 clarification here. I assume, maybe I'm assuming incorrectly, but I

8 assume that the gentleman's report will be introduced in total, because

9 he's an expert. And it would seem to me, I don't know how my colleagues

10 feel, but at least my experience is, because everything in the report is

11 referenced and is cited to some sort of documents, normally all of the

12 documents would necessarily come in with the report. I'm just stating

13 that as -- that has been the practice, as I understand it, you know, as

14 opposed to going, you know -- as the Prosecutor is doing right now. And

15 if indeed the report is accepted for -- such as it is, at least from my

16 point of view I would not be objecting to anything that's cited to also

17 come in as part of the report, because I don't think that you can just

18 look at the report and then some of the documents, all of the citations,

19 would necessarily be part of the report. That lays a foundation.

20 I don't know if I'm complicating matters, but just that I thought

21 I would mention that. That has been the practice in other -- in other

22 cases. I don't know how my colleagues feel. I assume Mr. Scott will

23 tell us whether he intends to introduce the report. If so, I personally

24 have no objections on everything that's cited as a basis for an opinion

25 to also being introduced, you know. Keeping in mind that we can also

1 always challenge the authenticity or the reliability of the document later

2 on.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We take note of what you've

4 said, and it's along the lines of what we were saying. It will enable us

5 to save time. But the procedure that Mr. Scott is applying emanates from

6 our decision of the 28th of April, 2006, where we said in paragraph (k)

7 that if an expert witness produces a report it can be tendered with

8 respect to pertinence and probative value. The Chamber will only admit

9 the reports and exhibits when the witness is present and testifies.

10 So, for example, if the report is not tendered and you challenge

11 it, then this entails the other documents as well. If the document is

12 not admitted into evidence, then some of the documents will be. So if

13 you're not challenging the report, then everything is fine. We can save

14 time in that way and proceed in that way, because there are quite a lot

15 of documents that you're not going to challenge at all. Isn't that

16 right?

17 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues] ... clear. First

18 of all, we're challenging the gentleman as being capable of actually

19 generating a report that would be considered as an expert report. We feel

20 that he's not an expert. He's testified previously as an analyst. He can

21 testify as an analyst and as a fact witness. So we don't see that, his

22 report, as having any value. Keeping -- that being said, we understand

23 also that -- that the Court has already deemed him to be an expert and

24 will give whatever weight it deems necessary to his testimony subsequent

25 to hearing the evidence, you know, of this entire case.

1 That being said, I certainly am not -- I certainly object to the

2 report coming in, and I object to the gentleman testifying in this

3 capacity, but it seems that the Court has already made a decision, that he

4 is an expert, and I assume his report is coming in. The manner in which

5 the direct examination is being done now, I see very little value of how

6 the Trial Chamber can understand the gentleman's testimony without

7 referencing or at least reading the report. I just -- I don't see the

8 purpose of it.

9 So I don't think -- and I don't want to be flip about this, but

10 there's no sense in doing this kabuki dance that is being done. The

11 Prosecutor can --

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Rest assured, Mr. Karnavas,

13 we've already read the report and in fact we've read it several times. So

14 we know the report. You don't need to worry about that.

15 Mr. Scott, please proceed.

16 [Trial Chamber confers]

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, continue, but always

18 quote the exhibit that you're asking your questions on so we can take note

19 of that. There are exhibits that are not subject to any discussion, such

20 as the appointment of Mr. Stojic, unless that is wrong, and I'd be

21 surprised, but if that is challenged, then it's up to the

22 cross-examination. So that's why we need you to tell us the exhibits with

23 the numbers and then the cross-examination can -- during the

24 cross-examination the Defence can say they don't agree and then we'll be

25 able -- they'll be able to ask their own questions. But at this stage we

1 can't make any ruling or decision about anything.

2 Mr. Murphy.

3 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, yes. I think Your Honour has just

4 cleared it up. I may have misunderstand Mr. Karnavas's point, but I do

5 want to make it clear that as far as the Stojic Defence is concerned, at

6 least, we don't accept that a document is necessarily authenticated and

7 becomes admissible simply because it's mentioned in the expert report, and

8 we would submit that the proper practice still remains that which has been

9 laid down in the evidence decision rendered by the Chamber.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Quite. Yes, you're

11 quite right to raise that point.

12 Mr. Scott, please proceed.

13 MR. SCOTT:

14 Q. Moving forward, sir, you told us some minutes ago that although

15 the decision adopting or creating the HVO HZ HB was adopted in, I think it

16 was initially April of 1992, there -- did not begin fully operating until

17 sometime later. Can you tell us when and under what circumstances

18 according to your research this body began to operate?

19 A. Well, again, this is something referred to in that same

20 semi-annual report, but until Mr. Prlic was appointed as the president of

21 the HVO HZ HB, the HVO HZ HB did not begin having regular meetings and

22 regular numbered meetings. And this is also borne out by the meetings and

23 their numbering, that the regular meetings of the HVO HZ HB and its

24 function really began in August of 1992.

25 Q. And could I ask that the witness be shown Exhibit P 00429. I must

1 tell the Judges for whatever reason this one was not included in the

2 smaller bundle, but it's a very short document and you'll see it

3 momentarily, Exhibit P 00429.

4 And if we could scroll down just a bit, please.

5 Sir, according to your research, as published in the Narodni List

6 is this a copy or the record of decision appointing Mr. Prlic as president

7 of the HVO HZ HB?

8 A. Yes, it is.

9 Q. On the 14th of August, 1992.

10 A. Yes, and signed by Mate Boban.

11 Q. Is it your testimony, sir, that it was around this time when this

12 body began functioning on a regular basis?

13 A. Yes. The first numbered meeting of the HVO HZ HB takes place

14 within days of this. I forget the exact date, but it's only days later.

15 Q. And can you give the Judges some idea of how things changed in the

16 way that this body actually operated on the appointment of Mr. Prlic?

17 A. From that day forward, from middle of August onwards, the HVO HZ

18 HB met on at least a weekly basis. They had numbered meetings about once

19 a week at which they dealt with proposed legislation and proposals to

20 discuss matters from the different members of the HVO HZ HB. Mr. Prlic as

21 president would create the agenda and invite the members of

22 the HVO HZ HB to the meetings, and at those meetings they would pass this

23 various enactments, appointments and other legislation. As well, it's

24 also from this time onwards that the legislation which was passed at

25 these meetings appears in the Narodni List.

1 One other thing, an addition to the numbered meetings the HVO HZ

2 HB also held what they called either "extraordinary" or "working

3 meetings," which were called to deal with pressing business, and they had

4 quite a number of those as well.

5 Q. All right. Before we come to some of the records of these

6 meetings that you've just described, can I next ask you to be shown

7 Exhibits -- well, first of all P 00390. And while the registry is doing

8 that, we will indeed tender P 00429, the appointment of Mr. Prlic.

9 Sir, if you have that document in front of you now, can you tell

10 us what that is and how that relates to or informs -- can you inform the

11 Judges as to what was happening at this particular point, the same day, in

12 fact, that Mr. Prlic was appointed president?

13 A. Yes. This document, and I apologise for any problems with the

14 translations or the physical layout of the numbering of these. This is

15 the beginning of a report on the meeting of the Presidency of the HZ HB on

16 the 14th of August, 1992. I think it's split up into two exhibits, but it

17 begins with a report on the political situation in the HZ HB given by

18 Mr. Bozo Rajic, and then it moves into minutes of the meeting of the

19 Presidency of the HZ HB. And this is the meeting indeed where a number of

20 new laws were passed or new legislation was passed and in which Mr. Prlic

21 was appointed as president of the HVO HZ HB.

22 Q. Keeping that document in mind, in fact, if we can go on to P

23 00391. I believe the reasons will be clear in a moment.

24 Can you tell us, sir, what is Exhibit P 00391?

25 A. I believe this is -- well, this is the second half of that same

1 basic document that I was discussing earlier. These are actually the

2 minutes of the meeting. The first half of this document is the

3 declaration or the comments on the political situation made by Mr. Rajic,

4 and this is the actual -- I think this is the minutes of the meeting

5 itself.

6 Q. If you look, please -- if I can ask that you be shown page 3 of

7 the document. Can you see that in fact the document, the report that we

8 were looking at a moment ago has essentially been incorporated in the

9 minutes of the meeting?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. All right. So we could perhaps work with 391 as the more complete

12 document.

13 Can you tell us, sir -- if I can ask you to be shown, for

14 instance, page 7 of the document.

15 Are these minutes in the sense that also that various statements

16 or comments are attributed to various participants at the meeting?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. And in fact, on -- under item number 2, there's a reference to

19 certain comments or information given by, according to this document, by

20 Mr. Stojic; is that correct?

21 A. Yes, correct.

22 Q. And could I direct your attention to page 11. Under XV,

23 dismissals and appointments do you see that on the same day that Mr. Boban

24 signed his decision on the 14th of August, 1992, does this document indeed

25 reflect the proposal that Mr. Prlic be appointed president of the HVO?

1 A. Yes, absolutely, and he's nominated by Mr. Jozo Maric.

2 Q. Moving forward, sir -- well, we would tender Exhibits P 00390 and

3 P 00391.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one question so that I can

5 understand this.

6 You said, sir, that when a decree was taken, they would discuss it

7 first during their meetings, and I can see that on page 10, for example,

8 for the establishment of the central bank there was a report made by Mr.

9 Prlic, tabled by Mr. Prlic, and then the decree was passed. Does that

10 mean that all the acts, administrative acts, laws, decrees taken during

11 that period were automatically submitted to this type of meeting? That is

12 to say that this type of meeting was held first before they were adopted

13 and passed. Is that how things worked?

14 THE WITNESS: No. And I should make it clear exactly which sorts

15 of meetings we're talking about.

16 The meeting here of the 14th of August is a meeting of the

17 Presidency of the HZ HB. What I was discussing earlier were meetings of

18 the Presidency of the HVO HZ HB with the -- in both situations, as far as

19 available evidence shows us, acts were proposed to the general body and

20 discussed or at least formally presented before they were passed. Now,

21 with the HVO HZ HB, any member could propose a draft of legislation to be

22 adopted. It would then be looked at as a matter of course by the

23 commission for regulations, which would look into the legal drafting and

24 to make sure that the law was drafted properly and matched and fit in with

25 the rest of their body of legislation. It would also be looked at by the

1 head of the department of finance for review, and they would be submitted

2 to the meeting as outlined in the decree on executive authority which we

3 just discussed a minute ago. These would then be put on the agenda by the

4 president of the HVO HZ HB, these matters - that was Mr. Prlic - and then

5 at the meeting they would be discussed and voted on. If they had passed,

6 they would then be signed by Mr. Prlic, and they would either be printed

7 in the Narodni List or not depending on what decision they made. And I

8 believe this -- now, with Article 18, which we discussed earlier, the

9 assumption was that items which were outside of the usual purview of the

10 HVO HZ HB would later be submitted to a meeting of the Presidency of the

11 HZ HB, although in practice that wasn't really an issue because from

12 October 17th, 1992, until the end of the HVO HZ HB the Presidency of the

13 HVO HZ HB did not meet.

14 Q. Just to clarify and perhaps I should have done it at the outset of

15 this particular set of questions, the meeting notes that we've been

16 looking at for the last few minutes, P 00391, these are minutes of a

17 meeting of what you've just described as the Presidency and not of the --

18 what we've also called this afternoon the cabinet; is that correct?

19 A. That's correct.

20 Q. All right. And the Presidency that we're talking about -- that is

21 conducting its business -- excuse me, in P 00391 is essentially what was

22 the legislative branch of the Herceg-Bosna government at that time; is

23 that correct?

24 A. Yes. This was the Assembly with a representative from each

25 municipality as opposed to the HVO HZ HB, which was the president and

1 vice-presidents and six department heads.

2 Q. The executive branch.

3 A. Yes. Colloquially frequently called the cabinet.

4 Q. Now, moving forward, in your report and in your inquiries did you

5 find any particular symbols were adopted on behalf of the Croatian

6 Community of Herceg-Bosna or HVO, which is discussed at pages 73 and 75 of

7 your report?

8 A. Well, yes. The HVO [sic] HZ HB had its own coats of arms and its

9 own flag.

10 Q. And were those adopted by decree or statute, or how were those

11 symbols in fact adopted?

12 A. Those two items, the flag and the coat of arms, were adopted by

13 the decree on the flag of the coat of arms of the HZ HB, which was signed

14 by Jadranko Prlic on the 18th of November, 1992.

15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. As this is all admittedly a bit

16 confusing, on page 51, page -- line 4, I read "The HVO HZ HB had its own

17 coat of arms." And if we go further down on line 9, we have a decree on

18 the flag of the coat of arms of the HZ HB.

19 Now, is it a coat of arms of HVO HZ HB or of HZ HB, which seems to

20 me more probable. So line 4 falls to be corrected; is that correct? The

21 "HVO" must be struck out?

22 THE WITNESS: Yes.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: In line 4.

24 THE WITNESS: No, you're absolutely right. I misspoke.

25 MR. SCOTT: Could I ask that the witness be shown on this point

1 Exhibit P 00772.

2 Q. And can you point out, sir, if you can on that page this part of

3 the Narodni List if we have the decrees where the flag and coat of arms

4 were, in fact, adopted?

5 A. Well, this entire decree is a decree on the coat of arms and flag

6 of the Croatian community, and a lot of it is just instruction on how to

7 display the flag, but the flag itself -- let's see here. It's very

8 difficult for me -- here we go. Article 10. The flag of the HZ HB, it

9 says it's described here as the red, white, and blue flag, and the coat of

10 arms is the red and white chequerboard, both of which the coat of arms has

11 been used as the symbol of the Kingdom of Croatia for centuries, and the

12 red, white, and blue flag, with or without the coat of arms, has been used

13 for the kingdom and then later incarnations of Croatia since 1848.

14 Q. Keeping this document available to us, can you tell us, did the

15 structures of the HVO or Herceg-Bosna adopt a form of currency?

16 A. Yes, they did. They adopted the Croatian dinar of the Republic of

17 Croatia. All fines were to be paid and all fees were to be paid in

18 Croatian dinars.

19 Q. And in fact if we look at Article 15 of this same decree, on the

20 next page, can you tell the Judges in terms of the penalties provided by

21 this decree or statute, the penalties or fines would be paid in what

22 currency?

23 A. They'd be paid in Croatian dinars. One thing to remember with

24 this as well is that in 1992, 1993, there was extremely serious inflation

25 with the Croatian dinars. So you see over and over in Narodni List

1 they're changing the amount of the various fines and dinar amounts of fees

2 and fines and so on to try and keep pace with the inflation of the

3 Croatian dinars.

4 Q. So just for the matter of the record, when in the Narodni List or

5 other documents we see reference in all caps to "HRD," that is the

6 Croatian dinar?

7 A. Yes, it is, and that's the currency of the Republic of Croatia.

8 During this period.

9 Q. Now, as part of your research, sir, continuing on this topic in

10 general, did you find that the laws and Statutes of Herceg-Bosna, the HVO,

11 provided for what curriculum and what textbooks would be used in the

12 schools of so-called Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?

13 A. Yes. And speaking very broadly, the textbooks and curriculum in

14 use in all of the schools as well as the university in Mostar were those

15 taken from the Republic of Croatia.

16 Q. And if I could ask that the witness -- we go back to an exhibit

17 that we've looked at already, to the first semi-annual report which is P

18 00128. And directing your attention -- or please if I could have the

19 usher's assistance to be to page 35 of that document which if I can read

20 it should be ERN 00618512.

21 Sir, could you just assist the Judges by pointing out various

22 references on that page? This is from, again, the semi-annual report for

23 the last six months -- or from the foundation to the end of 1992 of the

24 HVO HZ HB referring to textbooks and curriculum of the Republic of

25 Croatia.

1 A. Yes. I believe this is from the section from the subdepartment on

2 education and culture. They note that the primary schools at the

3 beginning of the first paragraph there are taught according to the

4 curricula of the community which are the curricula of the Republic of

5 Croatia adjusted to their needs. And then in the next paragraph they say

6 that all of the textbooks which they're using come from the Republic of

7 Croatia.

8 Q. Very well. And turning to another topic, did you have opportunity

9 to look in your work at the terminology used in connection with military

10 ranks used in the Herceg-Bosna armed forces?

11 A. Yes, and they did change. They did -- there was legislation

12 regarding the names for various ranks very early on.

13 Q. And can you tell us what terminology was used by the HVO for the

14 ranks of its armed forces? Where did this terminology come from?

15 A. They used the worth that were in use by the Croatian army of the

16 republic of Croatia and were thought to be more Croatian than the other

17 terms. For example, a captain is a "satinik" and not a "kapetan," and a

18 major is not a major, he's a "bojnik," and so on.

19 Q. In latter terms you've been using being the Croat terms?

20 A. Yes, yes. The ones that were in use by the HVO were the Croat

21 terms, the ones which were thought of as being more Croat than the

22 standard terms that had been used in the Yugoslav People's Army which were

23 thought of as being Serbian.

24 Q. Can you tell the Judges during this time, then, by the second half

25 of 1992, what features or indicia of statehood did you see in connection

1 with the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna?

2 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I object to that question. That's a

3 matter which could only be answered by an expert in the field of

4 international law. This witness has no qualifications to respond to what

5 the indicia of statehood may be. Yes, it's also leading.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What is your question, because

7 you were interrupted.

8 MR. SCOTT: Well, for example, Mr. President, I can ask a series

9 of questions.

10 Q. Can you tell the Judges, for example, was the Croatian Community

11 of Herceg-Bosna -- did it enact laws?

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can answer that question.

13 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes. It enacted legislation. It wasn't called

14 laws using the Croatian term "zakon," but they enacted binding decrees and

15 decisions.

16 MR. SCOTT:

17 Q. Do you know whether a tax system was put in place?

18 A. Yes, it was. There were a number of taxes which were levied,

19 including the war tax, which I cite in the report.

20 Q. Was there a customs administration on the borders?

21 A. Yes, there was. And the customs were -- the level of -- or the

22 rate at which customs were charged and waivers from customs duties were

23 set by the HVO HZ HB.

24 Q. Did it have a police force?

25 A. Yes, it did.

1 Q. Did it have an armed force -- the armed forces?

2 A. Yes, it did.

3 Q. In reference to the laws or legislation as you mentioned a moment

4 ago --

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I add a question or two?

6 MR. SCOTT: Yes, of course.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Did they issue passports or other documents to

8 identify individuals?

9 THE WITNESS: No, they didn't, but this is interesting. They did

10 not issue their own passports. They issued identification cards. And

11 they also, through their own Ministry of the Interior, encouraged people

12 to apply for citizenship papers and passports of the Republic of Croatia.

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. What about borders? Was the

14 territory defined? Did they claim specific defined territory?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes, absolutely. In the decision on the founding

16 from what date is it exactly, the 16th of November, 1991 -- sorry, 18th of

17 November, thank you, they list the municipalities, 28 municipalities, I

18 think it is, which are supposed to be part of HZ HB, with the addition of

19 small parts of two other municipalities. So 28 full municipalities and

20 two sections of other municipalities. And it's very clearly defined.

21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One matter, sir, that was

23 mentioned earlier on, a question that Mr. Scott could put to you, but I'll

24 put it to you myself. Was there a currency?

25 THE WITNESS: No, there wasn't a Herceg-Bosna currency as such.

1 They used the currency of the Republic of Croatia as their currency, and

2 it was officially declared to be the currency in use.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I saw that there was a decree

4 that established a central bank. So there were no banknotes with the

5 symbol of Herceg-Bosna on them?

6 THE WITNESS: No. They used banknotes with the symbols of the

7 Republic of Croatia, which were similar but not identical to the symbols

8 of Herceg-Bosna.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Where did these banknotes come

10 from?

11 THE WITNESS: Presumably from -- well, definitely from the

12 Republic of Croatia. Presumably from the central bank of the Republic of

13 Croatia in Zagreb.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Earlier on you talked about

15 inflation. These were dinars coming from Zagreb. If there was very high

16 inflation in Herceg-Bosna, I don't know if you can answer my question, but

17 did this have an impact in Croatia?

18 THE WITNESS: Well, just to make this clear, it's the Croatian

19 currency that has the problems with inflation up until about September of

20 1993, when it stabilised, and that has effects for Herceg-Bosna which is

21 using the same currency, but it also had effects within the Republic of

22 Croatia, because the Croatian dinar's their currency as well.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: An additional question regarding currency. That

24 the period where in the former Yugoslavia the Deutschmark was used, and

25 where was that?

1 THE WITNESS: Well, I remember this very well because I was in the

2 former Yugoslavia a lot of that period. Even before the dissolution of

3 the former Yugoslavia beginning from, oh, at least the mid 1980s, there

4 was very, very serious inflation within Yugoslavia, which only got worse

5 as time went on, and for more and more things people were demanding hard

6 currency, in particular Deutschmarks although other hard currencies were

7 in use for a number of other things as well.

8 With the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia the new Yugoslavia

9 continued with its -- thank you. What was left of Yugoslavia still used

10 the dinar. Republic of Slovenia introduced its own currency, the tolar,

11 and the Republic of Croatia introduced us own dinars which then in 1994

12 were replaced by the kuna which still exists today. But for de facto

13 purposes, it would have been very hard for any major purchase in Croatia,

14 and I would suspect in Herceg-Bosna as well, to use Croatian dinars for

15 any major purpose, because everyone knew at least from the middle of 1992

16 onwards the value was unstable, and so people would have preferred to use

17 Deutschmarks and any other hard currency, although this was nothing which

18 was done, as far as I know, officially any place.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In your recollection, what was

20 the annual inflation rate? Monthly rate.

21 THE WITNESS: Well, as a matter of fact, it kept increasing. It

22 wasn't so bad in 1992, but it increased greatly in late 1993. I remember

23 when we discussed -- or when this issue was discussed in another trial I

24 put together just a sheet of the Deutschmark to dinar exchange rates in

25 different months, and I don't remember the actual rate of inflation, but

1 especially by the summer of 1993 it was -- it was quite severe. Probably

2 not as bad as it was in what was left of Yugoslavia, in Serbia. That was

3 even worse in this period. But if -- if it would be of assistance to you,

4 I could bring that in during our next session. I think that particular

5 document was entered as evidence in the Tuta-Stela case.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That won't be necessary. I just

7 wanted to have an idea of the situation.

8 Mr. Scott.

9 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I could --

10 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, since we're talking about background

11 and context, and this is an important issue, perhaps the gentleman could

12 tell us what currency was used in Bosnia-Herzegovina. How well was their

13 central bank functioning? You know, what kind of currency was there, the

14 inflation rate, and all the other things, since he wants -- tell us about

15 the context in which this currency was being used along with the

16 Deutschmark and everything else. That would be relevant, I think.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Some additional information,

18 Mr. Karnavas wants to have a comparison with Bosnia and Herzegovina. So

19 as far as you can remember, what was the currency used in Sarajevo at the

20 time?

21 THE WITNESS: Well, whatever currency was available, and currency

22 wasn't very available in Sarajevo at that period. There was, and I didn't

23 realise this until recently, there was such a thing as a Bosnia

24 Herzegovinian wartime dinar but it wasn't used extensively at all.

25 Generally speaking, foreign hard currencies were used. The Croatian dinar

1 was used in the areas controlled by Herceg-Bosna, and the Yugoslav dinar

2 was used to some degree in the Republika Srpska as well. Actually to

3 large degree, although I mention the inflation problems there were even

4 worse.

5 MR. KARNAVAS: And what of the central bank, Your Honour? Was the

6 central bank of Bosnia-Herzegovina functioning? And I would also -- since

7 he mentioned it, until recently. How recently? The gentleman has been on

8 the job for seven and a half years, fully, being paid, how recently was

9 this revelation.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was the central bank in

11 Bosnia-Herzegovina functioning, and at what time, if you know?

12 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, unfortunately I can't tell you anything

13 about the central bank of Bosnia based on documentation. All I can say

14 based on what I did research for, for this paper is that I came across

15 references to Bosnia and Herzegovina dinars being sent to local HVO

16 governments in Central Bosnia. But as far as what the -- I didn't prepare

17 to discuss the situation in Sarajevo, so I can't answer those questions.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One last question, a question

19 already put to you by Mr. Karnavas. I'll ask it again because I find it

20 interesting.

21 In the area held by Herceg-Bosna and in the area held by the

22 Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, were inflation rates the same in these

23 two areas as compared to the Deutschmark? Was there an inflation rate

24 that was higher in one area than the other? Do you have any idea about

25 this?

1 THE WITNESS: Well, it's not so much a question of the areas as it

2 is of the particular currencies. The Deutschmark remained fairly stable

3 during this period. The Croatian dinar underwent a period of

4 hyperinflation, and from what little I know about it, anecdotally I know

5 there was very, very serious hyperinflation in what was left of the former

6 Yugoslavia and Montenegro and Serbia.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. You're not an expert

8 in the field of the international monetary fund, so we'll not continue

9 asking you these types of questions, but we might have the opportunity to

10 come back to this during cross-examination.

11 Mr. Scott, you can proceed.

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

13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

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

15 Q. Before we began talking about all those matters, sir, I just put a

16 question to you, some pages ago now, that you made reference to the

17 adoption of legislation.

18 And before moving on to another topic, can I ask that the witness

19 be shown Exhibit P 00449. And while we're looking for that. Again I've

20 been reminded to tender P 00772, which was the decree on the coat of arms

21 and flag.

22 Sir, I see -- you should have before you on the screen what has

23 been marked as Exhibit 00449. Can you tell us what that is and again how

24 that relates to your report?

25 A. This is the decree on the application of the Criminal Code of

1 Bosnia and Herzegovina and of the former Socialist Federative Republic of

2 Yugoslavia during state of war, imminent threat of war in Herceg-Bosna,

3 and the law is adopted for use in Herceg-Bosna as long as it's not in

4 contravention of any Herceg-Bosna legislation.

5 I believe -- if I could scroll down a little bit farther. It

6 doesn't say -- well, yeah. It also says in Article 2 that the dinar

7 values in the old Bosnia and Herzegovina are already existing in Bosnia

8 and Herzegovina Criminal Code will be converted into Croatian dinars and

9 at this time it was still done at the same nominal value.

10 I should correct myself, too. If we could scroll up a little bit

11 farther. Yeah.

12 I was confused as to the adoption of various Bosnian laws. In

13 this particular instance, they don't mention that it's in effect -- they

14 don't mention Herceg-Bosna law and its being possibly in contravention of

15 the existing law and Herceg-Bosna taking precedence in this particular

16 decree. That's another degree.

17 MR. SCOTT: We will tender, Your Honour, Exhibit P 00449.

18 Q. I think later today -- changing topics a bit, later today we'll

19 get to some charts, Mr. Tomljanovich, but I'm trying to be responsive to

20 Judge Trechsel's comments and questions. I agree this can be sometimes

21 confusing.

22 Given the terminology you've used this afternoon, can you

23 describe, summarise for us now what was the legislative -- what some would

24 call the parliamentary or legislative body of Herceg-Bosna called during

25 this time up to mid-1992, the second half of 1992?

1 A. The parliamentary or legislative function at that point was filled

2 by the Presidency of the HZ HB.

3 Q. And I think you touched on this already, but would you just

4 briefly describe how that body was comprised? Who made the up the members

5 of the Presidency and the terms in the sense of the legislative or

6 Assembly?

7 A. That is mentioned in the founding declaration and it's either the

8 highest Croat official of that municipality that's being represented or

9 the highest representative -- or other highest representative of Croats,

10 either the municipal leader or the highest Croat in the municipality.

11 Q. When you say "highest Croat," what does that mean?

12 A. Well, generally speaking, I think the way it worked, although I'd

13 have to look at the wording again to be absolutely sure --

14 Q. That's fine. Let's see if we can find it, then, please, so we

15 don't guess.

16 A. And if I could make one request just to speed things up a bit?

17 Q. Yes, please.

18 A. If I could have hard-copy copies of these things. I had a binder

19 available. It's much easier than having to look at --

20 MR. KARNAVAS: No objections, Your Honour. At least from this

21 Defence, no objections.

22 MR. SCOTT: If it's agreeable to all the Defence, Your Honour.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, to -- we can provide him

24 with the folder to help him remember.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues] ... who it's

1 composed of, the presidency, he needs to look at a document. I mean,

2 that's something that needs to be taken into consideration when viewing

3 this person as an expert in this area.

4 MR. SCOTT: With the usher's assistance, please.

5 THE WITNESS: Thank you very much. And if I could, I think -- I

6 also have for my own purposes I created a binder of the original B/C/S

7 documents.

8 Now, the reason I wanted to refer to the precise wording in

9 Exhibit 81, is because Article 7, which states who the Presidency should

10 be composed of --

11 MR. SCOTT:

12 Q. Excuse me. Could we also have displayed please, Exhibit P 00081.

13 A. The wording -- the -- the wording in Article 7 here is actually

14 rather confusing. I think both in the B/C/S and in the English. I'll

15 read the English translation. And that says that: "The leadership of the

16 community shall be the Presidency, which shall consist of representatives

17 of the Croatian people in the municipal government and the senior members

18 or presidents of municipal boards of the Croatian Democratic Union or

19 HDZ," which is -- that's a political party. Article 7, Exhibit 81.

20 Now, I take that to mean, and as I said, the wording is a bit

21 confusing in both the Croatian and in the English, that there is one --

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you lead the text in

23 B/C/S, Article 7, so that the interpreters can interpret and we can

24 compare it. So read it in the B/C/S and the English interpreters will

25 give us the interpretation of it.

1 THE WITNESS: Very well. [Interpretation] "Article 7. The

2 supreme authority of the community shall be the Presidency comprising the

3 representatives of the Croatian people in the municipal authority and

4 those in the top-most functions, the most senior representatives, or the

5 presidents of the municipal boards of the Croatian Democratic Union."

6 [In English] It continues on, but that's not relevant to the

7 question.

8 MR. SCOTT:

9 Q. Sir, when it makes reference of the -- to the municipal authority,

10 what municipal authorities existed as of August 19 -- or excuse me, my

11 apology, as of November 1991 when this decision was adopted? It makes

12 reference to it the highest, the most senior representative -- I'm

13 referring now to the English translation, the most senior representative

14 of the Croatian people in the municipal authority. What municipal

15 authorities is being referenced here?

16 A. Every municipality in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the 28 plus 2 that we're

17 you can talking about in Herzegovina included all had their own municipal

18 assemblies and their own municipal presidents. It's my understanding from

19 reading this particular article that the representative should be and also

20 from comparing this with the attendance lists at the meetings, that the

21 representative to the Presidency should either be the president of the

22 municipality or in the absence of the president of the municipality of

23 being available the president of the municipal -- Municipal Board of the

24 political party, the HDZ.

25 MR. SCOTT: Yes.

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It seems to me I have read in the report

2 somewhere that one member of this Assembly, if I may call it like this,

3 was a Muslim; is that correct? I was amazed when I saw it and I didn't

4 understand. Maybe it's an error of mine.

5 THE WITNESS: I don't remember the Presidency of the HZ HB having

6 a Muslim in it. I do recall that the cabinet of the HR HB had a Muslim in

7 it and that there were Muslims present at the meeting of the HDZ in late

8 1992. It's possible that there was one, but I don't believe there was.

9 At least not at the founding meeting.

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I was only asking. I'm not going to argue.

11 THE WITNESS: Yeah.

12 MR. SCOTT:

13 Q. Now, I started this series of questions off by asking you to

14 describe the -- what was the then legislative -- what some of us would

15 call the legislative or parliamentary body. At this time what was the

16 body which some might use the terminology to call the executive branch or

17 the executive government. What was that body called?

18 A. That was officially known as the HVO HZ HB which was the cabinet

19 of -- colloquially called the cabinet which had its own president, which

20 was Mr. Prlic for most of this period, three vice-presidents, and six

21 department heads.

22 Q. Now, going back to that further explanation which I hope is

23 helpful, can you tell the Judges then this body called the Presidency,

24 which I -- for me I will say the legislature, from when did that body

25 continue to meet? Can you tell the Judges what the situation was

1 concerning the meeting or activity of that body between October of 1992

2 and August of 1993?

3 A. From October 17th, 1992, to August of 1993, the Presidency of the

4 HZ HB, or legislative authority as you called it, did not meet, at

5 least -- at least I can find no evidence of that in any available

6 documentation.

7 Q. Leaving the legislative power vested where?

8 A. We saw with the HVO HZ HB to act in its stead from October 17th,

9 1992, onwards, and we saw the decree on amending the -- decree on

10 executive authority which allowed them to do that in situations where it

11 was important to so.

12 Q. Before moving on this point can we then look back to Exhibit P

13 00128. Once again, it's the first of the semi-annual reports.

14 MR. MURPHY: While that's coming up, Your Honours, can I, if it

15 would be helpful, in answer to Judge Trechsel's question on page 75 of the

16 report there is some information on the question that Your Honour raised

17 about the presence of Muslims within the HVO.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

19 MR. SCOTT:

20 Q. Sir, if you have that. I just -- we've looked at this one before,

21 but if we can go down again to the bottom of that page, the language we

22 looked at before and continuing on over to the second page. "However, in

23 time the above rights and obligation were is expanded to a full

24 legislative function." Is that report and document in fact consistent

25 with your research and inquiries as you indicated just a moment ago, that

1 in fact during this time the Presidency was not even meeting?

2 A. Yes, it's absolutely consistent. And no, as far as I can tell the

3 Presidency was not meeting.

4 Q. Taking us back to the last phrase of that same paragraph that we

5 looked at, meaning responsibility for determining policies for all spheres

6 was in effect transferred to a certain extent to the HVO HZ HB. And is

7 that what you found?

8 A. Yes, that was in fact the case.

9 Q. Now in looking at the composition of the Presidency that came

10 back, whose reference in that decree that we were looking at a moment ago

11 to the political party, the Croatian party the Croatian Democratic

12 Union --

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. We

14 understand that from October, 1992, to August, 1993, the Presidency did

15 not meet and the legislation was in the hands of the HVO, the cabinet, in

16 other words. Now, what is the reason -- you're the expert here, so why

17 didn't the Presidency meet? Is there an explanation for that? Was it

18 because of the state of war or was it because for some other reason? What

19 would your explanation be as an expert of the fact that the Presidency

20 from October -- after October didn't meet any more?

21 THE WITNESS: I can only speculate based on the evidence that I've

22 seen and that's in this report. My assumption, and this is just an

23 inference I'm drawing from what I've seen in the other documentation, was

24 that it would have been very difficult for the Presidency to all come

25 together since its representatives from a number of different

1 municipalities, it would not have been as quick as transferring these

2 duties to the HVO HZ HB, which was meeting on and at least weekly basis

3 during the entire period, but there's nothing in any of the documents I've

4 seen that explicitly says why it's being done. Although in the decree

5 amending the decision on executive authority they do mention that.

6 They're doing this in cases not suffering delay. So I think it's in

7 order to streamline wartime government and make decisions more quickly.

8 Another problem as well is the president of the Presidency

9 Mr. Boban - sorry; thank you - himself was frequently not in

10 Bosnia-Herzegovina during this period but at negotiations outside the

11 country. Different municipal chiefs would have been scattered all over

12 Herceg-Bosna as well, so I can imagine and once again this is just

13 speculation on my part that it would have been difficult to convene the

14 Presidency frequently.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So am I to understand that there

16 can be various hypotheses but there is no certainty in the matter. You

17 can't know for sure why the Presidency didn't meet. These are your

18 assumptions, right? The first being that Mr. Boban with respect to his

19 diplomatic agenda was otherwise engaged, and on the other hand, the

20 representatives of the different municipalities might have had difficulty

21 in meeting. So those are your would assumptions but you can't tell us any

22 more than that?

23 THE WITNESS: Well, you're precisely correct and those are

24 inferences I've made based on what I know from other documentation.

25 There's no one document that says this is why this decision was made

1 specifically. The only other thing I could add to that is that in

2 meetings of the HVO HZ HB, I think on at least two occasions, members

3 complain about the fact that they had -- that the Presidency of the HVO HZ

4 HB has not met recently and that they're not pleased with the fact that

5 the HVO HZ HB has become both an executive organ and a policy-making body.

6 And that's mentioned once or twice in the minutes of the HVO HZ HB in

7 their own meetings -- or of their own meetings. But, no, I can't -- I've

8 never seen anything which specifically addresses why that decision was

9 made on October 17, 1992.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Now, on a constitutional level,

11 the structure that you described to us, the Presidency seems to be the

12 body that is above the HVO, and if this supreme body does not meet, this

13 could perhaps explain the fact that certain members were surprised. Is

14 that how you view the problem?

15 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure if there's a problem with the

16 translation. Now, the Presidency of the HVO is responsible to the

17 Presidency of the HZ HB in the sense -- pardon?

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I was saying is that the

19 Presidency was made up of the representatives of municipalities or the

20 most important Croats. So in fact it was a body, it was the principal

21 body, the main body, and if that principal body did not meet for a number

22 of months, for instance, it would be substituted, or it seems to have been

23 substituted by the HVO.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes, and I can be more specific about that. The

25 Presidency was intended to be -- the Presidency of the HZ HB was intended

1 to be the legislative Assembly. It's -- the duties and the sorts of

2 legislation it was supposed to be tending to in this period from October

3 17th, 1992, onwards was dealt with by the HVO HZ HB, and it was the

4 Presidency itself which passed this legislation allowing the HVO HZ HB to

5 do exactly that.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

7 MR. SCOTT:

8 Q. On this point of the Presidency and that we were looking at the

9 decree earlier, the decision earlier on the make-up of the Presidency, and

10 it mentioned the Croatian Democratic Union or political party, can you

11 please assist the Judges with was the -- did the party operate during this

12 time period, that is, from mid-1992, approximately, to whenever you might

13 be able to tell us in 19 -- at any point in 1993 where the party was

14 exercising any substantial power over what was happening in Herceg-Bosna?

15 A. I should be a little more specific in my answer than the question

16 is. We're talking about the HDZ BiH, which is the Bosnian branch of the

17 HDZ, which is also the ruling political party in the Republic of Croatia

18 at the time.

19 During the period we're talking -- you're talking about in your

20 question, from mid-1992 onwards, the party HDZ BiH does not seem to have

21 exercised an awful lot of influence, at least certainly not based on the

22 documentation which we have available. You had the -- you see from some

23 of the exhibits that are mentioned in the report that the president of the

24 party had misgivings about the HVO and the establishment of executive

25 authority in the HVO. The upshot of all of that was Mr. Brkic was removed

1 as president of the HDZ BiH and replaced by Mate Boban.

2 The party -- there was a party meeting --

3 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, just a moment, because again some of this

4 terminology, president this, Presidency that. When you said just now a

5 moment ago Mr. Brkic --

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. -- this was the party president that followed Mr. Kljuic; is that

8 correct?

9 A. Yes, absolutely. He was in office from the winter to the fall of

10 1992 as leader of the HDZ BiH.

11 Q. And were you indicating a moment ago, looking at the transcript,

12 that Mr. Brkic had raised issues about the operations of the HVO HZ HB?

13 A. Yes, he had. And if you look at the exhibit which I included,

14 which was minutes much a meeting or report on a meeting -- amongst other

15 things report on a meeting in President Tudjman's office on I believe 5th

16 of July, 1992, Mr. Brkic said that it wasn't clear what the HVO was

17 supposed to be doing and made it fairly clear that none of this was being

18 done in consultation with him.

19 Q. And what happened to Mr. Brkic -- president Brkic after that,

20 party president Brkic, excuse me.

21 A. I believe it was in October 1992, that he was removed as the HDZ

22 BiH president as replaced by Mate Boban as HDZ BiH president. So when we

23 look at the party meeting later that autumn in 1992, it's Boban who is

24 presiding, not Brkic.

25 Q. Well, in that regard, then, if we could go to Exhibit P 00743.

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I in between ask, removed by whom?

2 THE WITNESS: Well, I have to make a distinction here between who

3 he was removed by de jure and who he was removed by de facto. De jure I'm

4 not entirely sure because we don't have an awful lot of party

5 documentation from that period, and I haven't seen any official

6 documentation from the HDZ BiH shedding like on that.

7 However, de facto, if you look at the meetings of the 5th of July,

8 1992, and the 17th of September, 1992, at which Mr. Brkic was present with

9 Mr. -- with President Tudjman, and if you keep in mind what happened to

10 Mr. Kljuic, I think it's very clear that the ultimate decision on who

11 would be the president of the HDZ BiH ultimately rested with the president

12 of the HDZ of the Republic of Croatia and the global HDZ, and that was

13 with Franjo Tudjman.

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: Perhaps, Judge Trechsel, he could clarify this

16 party meeting later that autumn. Was it some kind of a meeting behind

17 closed doors or was it a party congress?

18 MR. SCOTT: If I can address that, it was in fact my next question

19 in the document that we were just going to P 00743.

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Mr. Scott.

21 MR. SCOTT: Sorry.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me.

23 MR. SCOTT: In response to the question raised by the -- the issue

24 raised by Mr. Karnavas just now, I think we will see that this is a record

25 of a meeting -- I'll ask the witness.

1 Q. As soon as you have it, Mr. Tomljanovich, can you tell us what

2 this is?

3 A. Here we are. These are excerpts from the minutes of the HDZ BiH

4 second general convention which, if not a completely public meeting, was

5 certainly a broad meeting with a large number of people attending. It's a

6 party congress, not a small meeting of the party central committee.

7 Q. And can you take us to any particular language in this document,

8 you made reference to it just a few minutes ago in your testimony, in

9 reference to the activities or influence of the party in terms of

10 Herceg-Bosna and the HVO during this time period?

11 A. In general, the declarations found in this document are supportive

12 of the HVO HZ HB but don't go into any great detail on its functioning,

13 nor is there really any debate on the HVO HZ HB.

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I just ask for a clarification with regard to

15 dates. I had noted that Mr. Tomljanovich had spoken about meetings on the

16 24th of July and 17th of September. This document relates to a meeting of

17 14 December. Could you perhaps clarify or is the date at the end of it

18 only the date of when the record was written?

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I can clarify that. There's three different

20 meetings I was talking about. The first meeting chronologically is I

21 believe the 5th of July, which is the meeting between HDZ BiH leaders as

22 well as President Tudjman and some of his own domestic advisors in

23 President Tudjman's office, and that meeting Brkic and the others

24 discuss -- and Mate Boban is there as well. They discuss the question of

25 Herceg-Bosna and what does this all mean in terms of the relationship

1 between this new executive organ and the party.

2 There's another meeting which is the presidential transcript of

3 17th of September, 1992, and that's many of the same individuals. That's

4 Mr. Brkic, Mr. Prlic, and a number of other Croat leaders from Bosnia and

5 Herzegovina with President Tudjman and a number other -- number of other

6 persons from the Republic of Croatia present in the office.

7 Now, this meeting here, Exhibit 00743, is the second general

8 convention of the HDZ, and the date on that is the 14th of December,

9 1992.

10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: With due respect, that is the date we have on the

11 first page. On the last page we have a date of 14 November, 1992.

12 THE WITNESS: Just -- you're absolutely right. I had thought it

13 was November, myself. Let me check the original here, 743. If I can look

14 at the B/C/S version of this. Can I? Here we are. Yes, uh-huh.

15 I'm looking now at the B/C/S version.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It's the same.

17 THE WITNESS: No. No, it didn't.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Dates are the same.

19 THE WITNESS: Oh, yes, but it's not the same date as in the

20 translation. Yes. At the beginning of the document it says 14th of

21 November, 1992, in the original. This would appear to be a problem in the

22 translation.

23 MR. SCOTT:

24 Q. If I might just follow-up what the president did earlier. Could

25 you just read the Croatian-language original on that particular portion

1 and then we'll have the translators give us the -- interpreters give us

2 the translation of that.

3 A. Yes, you mean at the top, the date.

4 Q. Yes.

5 A. [Interpretation] "Mostar, the 14th of November, 1992."

6 Q. And that same mistake seems to have been made in reference then to

7 item under "time and place where convention was held." If you can see

8 that.

9 A. Yes. Just a second again. I've lost my place.

10 But -- yes. I think it's also wrong in the translation there. Just a

11 second. I've lost my place. Here we are, yes. Yes, it's also Studeni.

12 It's also November.

13 Q. So the English translation stand corrected, Your Honour?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. And it should be November, 1992. Before we leave this document,

16 then, can you look at the -- toward the end of this document and tell us

17 whether in fact it was at this meeting where you said a few moments ago

18 that after Mr. Brkic, Mate Boban was appointed or elected president of the

19 party HDZ BiH. Can you just point out to the Chamber where that is?

20 A. Yes. That's at Article 22. There's the election -- actually,

21 this does tell you the de jure, the de jure basis for the election of

22 Boban, although not the removal of Brkic. But it's under number 22.

23 There's the election of Mate Boban as the president of the party.

24 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Mr. President, I'm just going through my

25 outline because some of these documents we've covered, and I won't cover

1 them again if we don't have to.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: And for the point -- for clarification purposes, I

3 would object to this being considered a meeting. It's a party convention.

4 There's a big difference between a regular meeting and a party convention

5 where you can see we have all these delegates who are deciding who is to

6 be elected. I think Tony Blair is facing similar pressures. So this is

7 something that really needs to be distinguished.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. It's -- looks more like a

9 convention or a Congress than a meeting. Therefore, the term "convention"

10 gives us a better idea. It reflects better what sort of meeting it was

11 about, a meeting between a number of people.

12 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, we certainly accept the language of the

13 document itself which appears in the English translation, at least to

14 use "convention." In my notes, in fact, it was referred to as the party

15 general assembly. I think everyone was using "meeting" in a broad sense

16 of a gathering of people. I'm happy to use the word "convention."

17 Mr. President, I think we may be approaching the second break, if

18 this is an appropriate time.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. It's time for the break.

20 We'll resume at five to 6.00.

21 --- Recess taken at 5.36 p.m.

22 --- On resuming at 5.56 p.m.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, you have the floor.

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

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

1 MR. SCOTT: My apology. I'm trying to comply with the Court's

2 direction today. Maybe it's better if we catch up today because if we go

3 to 7.00 I know everyone will be anxious to leave the courtroom.

4 So far we have specifically addressed and we would tender -- the

5 Prosecution would tender the following documents: P 00947, which is the

6 complete Narodni List for 1992. P 05166, which is the Narodni List for

7 1993. P 07435 and P 07439 which together comprise the full Narodni List

8 for 1994. Then in addition, Exhibits P 00305, P 00069, which I think was

9 previously admitted but checking -- no, I'm told it's not. P 00069. P

10 00079, P 09526. I understand that P 007 -- excuse me, 152 was previously

11 admitted. If it hasn't been previously admitted, we would tender it now.

12 P 00303, P 00440, P 00684. And the last document that we used before the

13 break was P 00743.

14 Q. Now, if we can move forward, then, Mr. Tomljanovich. In the

15 course of conducting your research and preparing your report, can you tell

16 the Judges whether you found indications that the establishment of

17 Herceg-Bosna and the institutions as you've described them this afternoon,

18 whether that was accepted under the law of the -- of Bosnia-Herzegovina

19 and by the Muslim side? If you -- or party.

20 A. Yes. The establishment of the HVO HZ HB and indeed the very

21 establishment of the HZ HB was declared unconstitutional by the

22 Constitutional Court of BiH, aside from all of the other misgivings which

23 I mentioned in the report.

24 Q. And for the record, and I believe it's been previously admitted,

25 if the registry can confirm this, P 00476, is a copy of the Constitutional

1 Court decision from 14 September, 1992.

2 MR. SCOTT: Has that been admitted previously? No. I thought it

3 had. My apology.

4 If the witness can then be shown, please, P 00476.

5 Q. I believe -- I had thought the Judges had seen this document

6 before, but can you briefly tell us, Mr. Tomljanovich, what this document

7 is and how it enters into your analysis?

8 A. Yes. This is the decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia

9 and Herzegovina from 14th of September, 1992, signed by the president of

10 the court, and their decision is to annul most of the founding legislation

11 of the HZ HB and the HVO HZ HB, and it includes things like the --

12 Q. Excuse me. If you could scroll down, please. Thank you.

13 A. Yeah. It's -- all nine decisions which are nullified here are

14 listed one by one beginning with the decision of the establishment the HZ

15 HB and then going on to the amendments to it. And a good deal although

16 not all of the legislation which was passed on the 3rd of July, 1992. But

17 certainly the most basic ones such as the statutory decision on the

18 temporary establishment of the executive authority. Nullifying these

19 founding documents would have the net effect of nullifying the whole body

20 of the HZ HB and of the HVO HZ HB as unconstitutional.

21 Just very briefly, the argument here is that the Herceg-Bosna is

22 not an association of municipalities as would have been allowed by the

23 constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that it went beyond the sorts of

24 things which should be allowed or are allowed in the constitution.

25 Q. All right. In terms of the structures and processes of the HVO

1 and Herceg-Bosna that you've researched, do the records of those

2 structures and processes indicate any awareness by the leadership of the

3 Herceg-Bosna entity or the HVO that the creation of these bodies, the

4 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna and the HVO HZ HB had been rejected

5 under the law of Bosnia-Herzegovina and by the Muslim party?

6 A. I cite in the report the correspondence between the Constitutional

7 Court and the Croat authorities regarding this matter prior to the

8 decision. Certainly the problems in getting the Muslim side to accept the

9 HVO is mentioned many times after that. I didn't cite -- I've only seen

10 one instance of a document from someone in the HDZ BiH directly answering

11 this, and I didn't include that in this report because he's not one of the

12 persons either accused or -- in this trial. So that I did not put in,

13 although I had seen that.

14 Q. Can you tell -- excuse me. Can you please be shown Exhibit P

15 00543.

16 Can you tell us what this is, sir? And it may be -- I'm not sure

17 again, but it may be the first of the actual minutes of the HVO HZ HB,

18 which had been much discussed this afternoon but the first actual minutes

19 that we've seen. Can you describe those to us generally, and if that's

20 consistent with the kind of record you've seen being minutes of this body?

21 A. First of all, I believe there was a meeting that -- prior to this

22 for which we have minutes, but this -- this set of minutes here follows

23 the format. All of them do. The session is numbered, and this is the

24 fifth session of the HVO HZ HB. It always states the date and time at

25 which it was held and where exactly it was held, which isn't always the

1 same over the course of the existence of the HVO HZ HB. They always begin

2 mentioning that Mr. Prlic is the president and chairing the meeting, and

3 then they list all attendees. And then they mention that -- they always

4 then move on to the agenda of the meeting, which was proposed by the

5 president. And then the minutes of the meeting following -- generally

6 speaking follow the agenda in the meeting itself. Usually the last item

7 on the agenda is something like, yes, either current issues or

8 miscellaneous business. But in its format and length, this is a very

9 typical meeting. They always follow the same format and form.

10 Q. Could I direct your attention to item number 8 on page 5. Do the

11 minutes indicate that Mr. President, well, here Mr. President of the HVO

12 HZ HB, gave a report?

13 A. Yes, that's true. And in this particular instance the only

14 president they would be referring to would be the president of the HVO HZ

15 HB, which is Mr. Prlic.

16 Q. And if we continue over to page 6. Now, I don't want to read the

17 entire page. Report about dealings and communications between the

18 Croatian and Muslim people, it says, in the second line.

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And can I direct your attention to the last sentence on that page,

21 and can you read that, please?

22 A. Beginning with "The key political question."

23 Q. No, the last sentence beginning on page 6 itself?

24 A. "However, the Muslim side ..."?

25 Q. Yes, please?

1 A. Reads "However, the Muslim side does not recognise the existence

2 of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna considering it to be a break-up

3 of Bosnia-Herzegovina."

4 Q. Does the document go on then to indicate apparently a report by

5 Mr. Stojic at this same meeting, on page 7?

6 A. Yes, it does, concerning military reorganisation. He reports on

7 the situation of the HVO commanders. And he also, in the very last item,

8 recommends -- recommends setting up military courts and military

9 prosecutors' offices saying that's necessary for efficiency and the

10 strengthening of military discipline.

11 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, we tender Exhibit P 00543.

12 Your Honours, I would like now to turn to what's now been marked

13 as P 09689, which is the booklet of organisational charts that has been

14 provided to counsel and the Court last week. The booklet, if you want to

15 call it that, the compilation as a whole has been given the Exhibit number

16 P 09689. The people in the courtroom may have their hard copies or I'm

17 told it's also available in e-court.

18 Q. Referring to page 1 of that exhibit, sir, I don't know if you

19 prefer to use it -- look at it on the screen or if you prefer to have a

20 hard copy in front of you.

21 A. I would prefer to have a hard copy if I could. Thank you.

22 Q. Now, Mr. Tomljanovich, if I can direct your attention primarily

23 being to what might be called the upper half of the page. The title of

24 this document or chart is "Political and military --" excuse me.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Ibrisimovic has the

1 floor.

2 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. The

3 document wasn't on the 65 ter list that we received, and on the basis of

4 your guidelines and your ruling, the Prosecutor did not tell -- did not

5 ask for the document to be listed.

6 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, Mr. Ibrisimovic may be right on that

7 respect. These were charts that were distributed before Christmas last

8 year to all counsel and to the Court. In fact, prepared at the Court's

9 request. And if they were not on that list, that's certainly an

10 oversight, but counsel's been aware of these charts for at least 9 or 10

11 months.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Ibrisimovic.

13 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. These

14 charts were sent with the material on the 23rd of December, but they were

15 not on the 65 ter list.

16 MR. SCOTT: I agree, Your Honour. They were not on the list.

17 They were disclosed in December. I apologise for the oversight, but

18 again, counsel's had them for approximately 10 months now.

19 May I continue, Your Honour?

20 Q. If you look at the top right corner of the document, it is

21 labelled "Political and military organisational structure of the HZ HB

22 (until 20 November 1993)."

23 Now, Mr. Tomljanovich, can you tell me -- first of all, can you

24 tell the Judges did you play a role in the preparation of this chart, or

25 at least parts of this chart?

1 A. Yes, I did. I didn't actually physically put the chart together,

2 but I was consulted for factual accuracy of what's basically the top and

3 the left-hand of the chart.

4 Q. Now, in terms of what we've discussed so far this afternoon,

5 looking -- we see Boban, we see Prlic, the HVO HZ HB, we see the HZ HB

6 Presidency out to the upper left part of the chart. Can you tell the

7 Judges whether you find these portions of the chart to be consistent with

8 your report and your findings or observations?

9 A. Yes, they are.

10 Q. The description and the role of the Presidency, the HZ HB

11 Presidency, again the box in the upper-left portion of the overall chart

12 and the way it is portrayed here, again does that -- is that accurate to

13 the best of your knowledge?

14 A. Yes, it is. The HZ HB Presidency in the upper left-hand corner,

15 who was in it is described here with a slightly different translation than

16 we saw on the other exhibit. It's also shown with the line that they

17 elect the president of the HVO HZ HB, and the presidents responsible to

18 them. Mr. Mate Boban presides over it. And from the bottom, from the

19 municipalities, you see that it's people from the municipalities, the

20 representatives, who are in the HZ HB Presidency.

21 Q. You made a brief reference early this afternoon that in addition

22 to the departments -- well, let me go back. Sorry. Strike that.

23 In the box that is marked "HVO HZ HB," and with Mr. Prlic being

24 the president, are the departments that you've identified earlier this

25 afternoon, are all those departments indicated in that box?

1 A. Yes, all six are there.

2 Q. Now, what I started to say was you also indicated briefly this

3 afternoon that apart from departments there were also other things called

4 commissions, services, and other administrative bodies, and do you see

5 that portrayed on the chart?

6 A. Yes. That's over in the left-hand side here, and there's just

7 selected ones of particular importance, I think, for the case that are

8 selected here. There are certainly far more of them.

9 Q. All right.

10 A. And they're directly subordinated to the HVO HZ HB all of these

11 commissions, services, and other bodies.

12 Q. All right. We'll be coming back to some of the other charts in

13 the course of your examination-in-chief.

14 I'll be moving off that chart, Mr. President and Your Honours,

15 unless you have questions that you want to put at this time.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, about this organisation

17 chart. On the right we see Petkovic, Praljak, and then Petkovic again.

18 And if we go back up, we see that this square, there's a link with this

19 square to Mate Boban, the Main Staff, and then we see that there's a

20 link-up with Mr. Bruno Stojic. So when we look at this chart, do we have

21 to understand the following: Does this mean that the military chain of

22 command obeyed directly or was directly under the command of Mate Boban

23 whilst being subordinated to Stojic? That's what I see on this chart.

24 THE WITNESS: Yes. I believe the answer to that is found in the

25 order on -- I forget if it's an order or decree on the internal

1 organisation of the Defence Department. That mentions that the Main Staff

2 is within the Defence Department and that it is responsible both to Mate

3 Boban, president -- well, it doesn't mention Boban by name. It mentions

4 that the president of the HZ HB is the commander-in-chief, and that for

5 other purposes they also answer to the head of the department for defence,

6 who was Bruno Stojic. But the different ways in which they're responsible

7 to both is spelled out there explicitly.

8 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

9 MR. SCOTT:

10 Q. Again, we'll come back is to some other parts of the chart or

11 other charts in the course of your testimony. If we could then turn

12 specifically, in fact, to the Department of Defence. Could I ask you to

13 go to Exhibit P 00586.

14 And as soon as you have that, Mr. Tomljanovich, if you can tell us

15 what that is and how it enters into the work that you did.

16 A. This document is the decision on the basic principles of the

17 organisation of the Defence Department signed on 15th of September, 1992,

18 by Mate Boban, and it's forwarded on the -- this copy has been forwarded.

19 The cover letter is also attached here. But this decision, if we look at

20 section B on page 5 in the English translation, I think answers Judge

21 Antonetti's question directly. It says here in section B -- yeah, right

22 there. "The man stay of the Croatian Defence Council shall be part of the

23 department.

24 "The Chief of the Main Staff shall head the Main Staff."

25 And here it explicitly says: "The chief of the Main Staff shall

1 be responsible to the head of the department proposing and implementing

2 measures for all administrative tasks and issues relating to the budget

3 and material supplies and to consumption and general organisation of

4 civilian life, as well as wartime organisation of the Armed Forces."

5 And then the next paragraph below that says: "The Chief of the

6 Main Staff shall be directly responsible to the president of the Croatian

7 Community of Herceg-Bosna for all issues relating to the Supreme Command,

8 unit organisation, strategic and operative plans, and the use of the

9 armed forces in ... war or peace." I'm sorry, "... in times of war or

10 peace."

11 Q. Is there anything in particular else about this document before

12 moving. I certainly don't intend to go through every part of the

13 document, but is there anything more about this document as it relates to

14 your analysis that you'd like to point out?

15 A. Well, it's also useful in that it lays out the responsibilities of

16 the deputy head and his leadership of the civilian section on page 3. It

17 lists the four deputy heads of the Defence Department on page 3, and lists

18 the offices and administrations under the assistants as well.

19 And then finally, just sort of as a catch-all, but it's important

20 to note, Article 15 at the very end of this document on the last page,

21 page 7, notes that the "The inner organisation of the Main Staff, the

22 command and control of the Main Staff's internal organisational units and

23 other relations shall be determined by the Chief of the Main Staff with

24 the approval of the head of the department and the president of the

25 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna."

1 Q. So going back to your chart a moment ago, this would in fact be

2 consistent with that -- there was -- there was a chain, if you will, a

3 line going from the head of the Main Staff both to the president of the HZ

4 HB and to the head of the Department of Defence; is that correct?

5 A. Yes, and for reasons laid out in section B of this document.

6 Q. Very well. We will tender Your Honour, Exhibit P 00586.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would like to put a follow-up question

8 regarding page 5 and the last but one paragraph. There we read: "The

9 Chief of the Main Staff shall exercise superior authority over the Command

10 of the Croatian Defence Council, within the scope of general and specific

11 powers vested in him by the President of the Croatian Community of

12 Herceg-Bosna."

13 Now, Croatian Defence Council I think is HVO, but it's a different

14 meaning of HVO. Could you perhaps elaborate?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I read it as saying that the Chief of the Main

17 Staff is in fact the commander of the army under the president, but I'll

18 listen.

19 THE WITNESS: Yes, to make it clear at this point, it is

20 confusing. The term HVO depending on the context is used in documents in

21 many different ways. Sometimes the HVO can mean the HVO HZ HB and talk

22 about the cabinet, the executive cabinet. Sometimes when people HVO,

23 they're generically referring to all the Herceg-Bosna authorities or

24 they're generically referring to what in official documents is usually

25 called the armed forces of the HZ HB. Another use of the term HVO is

1 with the municipal executive authority. The municipal executive

2 authority in Livno, for example, would be called the Livno HVO. So if

3 someone talks about the municipal HVO, that's the municipal executive

4 authority. The HVO is also the governing cabinet. It's also used for the

5 military armed forces and it's also sometimes generically, colloquially

6 for all Herceg-Bosna institutions.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Now, why does it say here that "the Chief of the

8 Main Staff shall exercise authority over the command of the Croatian

9 Defence council"? Not over the Croatian Defence Council. Could you

10 explain that, please?

11 THE WITNESS: I will have to look. It might help if I take a

12 look quickly at the original in B/C/S. Here we go.

13 Maybe it would help, or maybe it wouldn't help if I read the

14 original B/C/S into the record as well. I'll do it and we'll see what it

15 says.

16 [Interpretation] "Within the scope of the principal and concrete

17 authorisation of the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna,

18 the Chief of the Main Staff is superior to the command of the Croatian

19 Defence Council."

20 MR. SCOTT:

21 Q. Can we then go on, please, to Exhibit --

22 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may interject here. Just a point of

23 clarification, because obviously this is very confusing. The gentleman

24 indicated that he reads B/C/S. I assume that he's read these documents in

25 the original as well as the translation. He indicated that he had

1 analysed and synthesised or synthesised and analysed, I can't remember

2 which came first, assuming, you know, I would suspect analyse and

3 synthesise, perhaps he could give us the interpretation, what does this

4 mean and, if he consulted with anybody to try to figure out in the event

5 that he didn't understand it when he read it, because obviously there

6 seems to be some confusion. So I think we need to figure out to what

7 extent this gentleman has gone through to understand this, because he's

8 rendering opinions.

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would reformulate your question in asking what

10 is the meaning, if any, of the word "command" here.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour.

12 THE WITNESS: My suspicion or my opinion based on comparing this

13 with the Law On Defence and all the other multitude of military documents

14 that I've seen over the past few years is that this is poorly written, but

15 what Mr. Boban was trying to say is that the Chief of the Main Staff

16 exercises military command over the various military commanders of the

17 armed forces of the HZ HB.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

19 MR. SCOTT: If we can then go on to Exhibit P 00588.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

21 MR. SCOTT:

22 Q. It may or may not shed any light on this, but could you tell us

23 what that exhibit is, please?

24 A. This is the revised decree on the armed forces. That's not what

25 we have right now on the screen. There we are.

1 It's the decree on the armed forces of the Croatian Community of

2 Herceg-Bosna, and this regulates the armed forces of Herceg-Bosna. I

3 should point out that this is the revised decree from 17th October, 1992.

4 The initial decree was issued on the 3rd July, 1992.

5 I discussed some of the differences in my report which are

6 relatively minor, with the exception that in the revised decree there is a

7 great deal of information on mobilisation and the draft which were not

8 present in the original decree on defence. It -- it's a very long

9 document. It defines the military. Under Article 3, it lists the

10 obligations of every citizen of the HZ HB to the military and begins by

11 saying: "Each citizen of the HZ HB has an obligation to protect and

12 defend the independence and territorial integrity of the HZ HB and, with

13 relation to the above, especially in the following," and lists the five

14 ways in which citizens are bound to assist the armed forces of HZ HB, then

15 moves on to the work obligation of all adults, Civil Defence.

16 Beginning with Article 9, it lists the competencies of the HVO and

17 the bodies of the HZ HB in matters of defence. Continues on through

18 Articles -- and it also outlines the various offices and administrations

19 and their duties and those of other bodies. Defines the armed forces in

20 Article 21.

21 And I'll only point out here at this point in Article 24, the

22 armed forces are defined as consisting of peacetime and wartime troops.

23 And then it's here, Articles 29 through 32, that the leading and

24 commanding of the armed forces, the sorts of issues we were just talking

25 about are addressed. And then it moves on to discuss reinforcement of the

1 armed forces, military duty, and mobilisation. And we won't go through

2 all of those. It's a very long document, and I won't go through all of

3 the particular sections there, but we'll just leave it with Articles 29

4 through 32, which once again define the role of the Supreme Commander.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we please go back to

6 Article 29, point 2, about the role of the Supreme Commander, the

7 president. How do you interpret point 2 of this article?

8 THE WITNESS: I myself have not seen a plan of utilisation as such

9 referred to. I suspect that, and other documentation would seem to

10 indicate this, that the commander-in-chief is -- well, honestly, I can't

11 say anything than what's in -- than what's in that particular line.

12 Now, speculating on that, I assume --

13 MR. KARNAVAS: I will object to any speculations unless the Trial

14 Chamber is asking for speculation, in which event, you know, I won't

15 object, but --

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Without speculating,

17 apparently according to point 2 we get the certainty that the president

18 makes decisions with regard to the utilisation of armed forces and with

19 regard to their use on the ground.

20 Based on the documents you've reviewed, have you found any orders

21 issued by Mate Boban to the Ministry of Defence or to the head -- the

22 Chief of Staff to conduct military operations in various areas? Have you

23 seen anything of the kind?

24 THE WITNESS: No, I have not, but I should make it very clear that

25 as the charge I'd been given with this report was to discuss the governing

1 and political structures, I didn't undertake to get a comprehensive view

2 of all of the military orders. I didn't review all of the orders of the

3 Chief of the Main Staff, and I didn't review all of the incoming orders to

4 the Chief of the Main Staff. And my answer would be no, I have not seen

5 that, but I would also add that in this particular instance I wasn't

6 looking for that either because that was not my understanding of what the

7 scope of my report was.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

9 MR. SCOTT:

10 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich --

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

12 MR. SCOTT:

13 Q. If we could then go on very quickly to touch on several additional

14 documents just to see how they fit in this structure. Of course, we do

15 tender, if we have not already, P 00586 and P 00588.

16 If I could ask you to be shown Exhibit P 00293. And I'll just

17 asking you as that's being pulled up and you're looking for it, can you

18 tell -- confirm for the Judges that the Department of Defence of the HVO

19 had Rules of Military Discipline?

20 A. Yes, it did, and I believe the exhibit number you just mentioned

21 are the Rules of Military Discipline. Let's see here. Yes, Exhibit 293.

22 The Rules of Military Discipline, which is another one of the orders or

23 pieces of legislation, enactments that was passed on the 3rd July, 1992,

24 by the Presidency of the HZ HB and signed by Mate Boban, and it's 111 --

25 112 articles on military discipline.

1 Q. Can I ask you to go to Exhibit P 00951. And can you tell us what

2 that is, please, if you have it?

3 A. Yes. This is the decree on the establishment of a military

4 industry office signed by Jadranko Prlic, 9th of December, 1992, and it

5 establishes this military industry office which is supposed to regulate

6 military production. Just a number of things. It gives orders to the

7 producers, approves contracts on import and experts --

8 Q. Just a moment. When you talk about military production, can you

9 give the Judges an idea of what's being talked about here? What is

10 military production, or if you can refer to a particular section?

11 A. It's the -- it's supposed to regulate the production of weapons

12 within the HZ HB. Its duties are enumerated in Article 2. There is a

13 number of them there. It's also to monitor and oversee the military

14 industry and monitor the situation. I won't read out all of the different

15 things it's charged with.

16 Q. Very well.

17 A. The only thing I should mention, which seems a bit strange if

18 you're not familiar with the topic, is Article 4 mentions that the

19 headquarters of the office will be in Travnik, or the temporary

20 headquarters will be in Travnik and not in Mostar which --

21 Q. Why would that be the case, sir, if you can assist the Judges?

22 A. Well, the area of Central Bosnia is the area in which most of the

23 arms factories were located. The idea in the old Yugoslav system would be

24 that arms factories would be located in the centre of the country, the

25 most remote and hard to get to part, so there's important arms factories

1 in Travnik, Novi Travnik, and Vitez, right in that region, so it would

2 make sense for the office to be there where the factories are.

3 Q. Can you next please look at P 02707. 2707. I don't think that's

4 what I see on e-court new. It should be -- if ERN will assist the

5 registry, 00507630. There we are.

6 Can you tell the Judges, sir, what this is and when it was issued

7 and by who?

8 A. I don't have it in hard copy but -- yes, yes, I know this. This

9 is the entire issue of Narodni List for June -- the 11th issue in June of

10 1993, and it's the "decision on carrying out mobilisation in the territory

11 of the HZ HB in times of the immediate threat of war or wartime," and it's

12 signed, if we could go to the bottom, signed by Jadranko Prlic on the 10th

13 of June, and this orders full mobilisation and goes into details of how

14 people are to report for mobilisation.

15 I should also note that this was done very quickly. Generally

16 speaking the practice in Narodni List is they would wait until they had a

17 full issue of enactments and then publish an issue. This was publish as

18 an issue unto itself. So the implication is that time was very pressing

19 with this particular decision.

20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I ask a question of -- of detail.

21 THE WITNESS: Yes.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Article 5 requires men working abroad of which

23 there were quite a number --

24 THE WITNESS: Yes.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: --before expiry of their work permit to report to

1 a relevant defence office. Were offices established abroad or was this an

2 office which would be within Herceg-Bosna?

3 THE WITNESS: Well, my understand and before answering this

4 question I should add there is separate legislation on the military duties

5 of persons working abroad. There is separate decree or order for that. I

6 assume when "defence office" is used here usually it's a term of art

7 meaning the local municipal office. I don't remember off the top of my

8 head if a separate office was set up abroad, but I assume from Article 5

9 that we're talking about the Defence office in the municipality in which

10 this person comes from in Herceg-Bosna, although off the top of my head I

11 don't remember everything it says in the decree regulating the military

12 obligations of people living abroad. And there is a specific piece of

13 legislation for that.

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Looking at this document, the

16 B/C/S version, in fact, I see that the number 11 in the text of the -- of

17 year II, Mostar, the 10th of June, can you explain that? Why does it say

18 year II, number 11, year II, Mostar? What's the year II? May we have

19 your explanation?

20 THE WITNESS: That would be the second year of existence of the

21 Narodni List. This is the 11th -- the 11th issue of the Narodni List for

22 the second year in which it existed, because 1992 being the first year,

23 1993 being the second. It's not a reference to anything in the French

24 Revolution and restarting the number of years. It's not -- I don't think

25 it's that.

1 MR. SCOTT:

2 Q. There were -- it may assist before we leave this document in

3 Article 2 it makes references to defence offices in all municipalities and

4 in reference to one of your answers to the Judges, was it your

5 understanding that there were various defence offices out in the various

6 municipalities that were charged with such things as mobilisation,

7 conscription?

8 A. Yes, there were, and that's all mentioned in the law on defence

9 and the other founding legislation regarding defence. Municipal --

10 municipalities had defence offices, and above them were defence

11 administrations which, I think, corresponded to the operational zones. So

12 there would have been four of them. And their duties, I think, are

13 spelled out in the law on defence.

14 Q. Could I next -- and I'll tender some of these exhibits all at one

15 time?

16 A. Oh, excuse me. On the decree on defence, not the law on defence.

17 I misspoke.

18 Q. All right. I was just saying I will tender some of these

19 documents as a group when we finish.

20 Can I next ask the witness to be shown P 07041.

21 And as soon as it you have, Mr. Tomljanovich, if you could he will

22 it us what that is and how it relates to the defence functions of

23 Herceg-Bosna.

24 A. This is the decree on the manufacture and trade of arms and

25 military equipment in times of the immediate threat of war or in wartime

1 in the territory of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. If we could

2 move down to the bottom for the date and the signature.

3 Q. Next page, please.

4 A. Yeah. It's signed by Jadranko Prlic on the 6th of December, 1993.

5 And this regulates the movement and production of arms on their territory.

6 Q. Could I ask you, Mr. Tomljanovich, to check -- once again to check

7 the dates, because in the --

8 A. Oh, I'm sorry.

9 Q. -- in the English translation of the introduction to the statute,

10 if you will, or decree, it says this was adopted at its session 6th

11 January, 1993, unless it's referring to some underlying statute.

12 A. Excuse me, what's the -- I don't have this in the translation in

13 my binder. What is the exhibit number again, please?

14 Q. P 07041.

15 A. I also don't have that in this particular binder. Could I look

16 the B/C/S version.

17 Q. If the registry could show ERN 00507646.

18 A. Okay. If we could just scroll down a tiny bit. There we are.

19 And now in the preamble, it says that this was adopted at the HVO HZ --

20 HVO HZ HB meeting of the 6th of January of 1993. And if we could scroll

21 down to the bottom. Next page. Yes. The date there is 6th of December.

22 Now, since the serial number is a 1993 -- well, this is strange. The

23 serial number is a 1993 serial number but it is a very low serial number.

24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It is even stranger than this is in the Gazettes

25 of 1993 and it anticipates a decision of 6 December of the same year so

1 something must be wrong.

2 THE WITNESS: It would have to be -- could we go back to the

3 preamble again?

4 Yeah. See? It's from the 1993 Gazette, and of course the HZ

5 HB -- HVO HZ HB didn't exist by January of 1994 -- by December of 1993.

6 So this has to be January of 1993. The other reason I say that is because

7 the serial number at the end is a very low 1993 serial number. If we

8 could move to the serial number at the bottom next to Mr. Prlic's

9 signature.

10 Now, it's a 1993 serial number. From October of 1992 onwards,

11 everything signed by the office of Mr. Prlic or by Mr. Prlic himself had a

12 number and the Croatian word you see that to the left of his significant

13 for number is "broj." All of his documents have the number 01, hyphen, I,

14 hyphen, the serial number within that year, slash, the number of the year.

15 So I know there were hundreds of documents in 1993, so this would have had

16 to have been very early in the year and so it has to be January of 1993.

17 MR. SCOTT:

18 Q. With all that in mind, then, could we -- could I ask you was there

19 also a decree or decision of the HVO armed forces or defence department on

20 the treatment of captured persons?

21 A. Yes, already from the summer of 1992.

22 Q. Could I ask you be shown please Exhibit P 00292. And as soon as

23 you have that, Mr. Tomljanovich, can you tell us what that is?

24 A. Yes. This is the decree on the treatment of persons captured in

25 armed fighting in the HZ HB, signed on the 3rd of July, 1992. I believe

1 by Mate Boban, although I can't see here.

2 In Article 1 it states that -- yeah, Mate Boban. It states that,

3 "persons captured will be treated in accordance with international law

4 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949." It specifically mentions the

5 Yugoslav people's army but also mentioned any other persons captured in

6 armed fighting against the HZ HB.

7 In Article 2, and this is regarding the location of camps [sic]

8 for prisoners, says that the head of the justice and administration

9 department in cooperation with the head of the defence department and the

10 head of the department of the internal affairs or interior shall designate

11 the locations where prisoners shall be kept in accordance with Article 1.

12 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, we tender P 00293, P 00951, P 02707, P

13 07041, and P 00292.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd just like to ask a

15 clarification. Looking at Article 2 here, and, as far as I can read, it

16 would appear that the locations where prisoners shall be kept should be --

17 shall be designated by at least three departments, the justice department,

18 the defence department, and the Department of the Interior. So is that

19 how you as an expert understand this document?

20 THE WITNESS: That's how I understand it. We'll see in other

21 exhibits that at least the Defence department and justice department did

22 so together in one instance, and as far as we can tell from the

23 documentation, this -- in another instance this procedure was not

24 followed. But it's my understanding that it should be according to this

25 second article, that they should be planning the locations, all three

1 persons together, in cooperation with each other, head of the defence

2 department, head of the justice department, head of the department for the

3 interior.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The text that we're looking at,

5 was it after the 30th of July, 1992? Was it modified after that date or

6 abridged or anything, or in 1993 did it still have its juridical force,

7 legal force?

8 THE WITNESS: As far as I know and can remember, I've never seen

9 any amendment or overturning of this particular decree. As far as I can

10 tell, there was nothing that can overturn it or no longer put it in force.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

12 Mr. Scott, we've got five more minutes left, but I can see

13 Mr. Murphy on his feet.

14 MR. MURPHY: Yes. Your Honour, I wonder if the witness might be

15 given an opportunity to correct the record at page 99, line 25, when he

16 talks about camps and there is no reference whatsoever in Article 2 to

17 camps. It merely talks about locations. Clearly that's -- that would be

18 a highly prejudicial error to remain in the record, and perhaps the

19 witness would care to correct it.

20 MR. SCOTT:

21 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich --

22 A. Yes. Could I quickly look at the B/C/S copy of this again? If we

23 could scroll down to number 2. Yes.

24 Yes, you're absolutely right. It's "locations," not "camps," in

25 this instance.

1 Q. Would you also in at that regard, excuse me, look at Article

2 number 3 and what terminology is used to describe --

3 A. Yes. In Article number 3 it says that the department for defence

4 will manage the locations mentioned in Article 2 of this order or of this

5 decree. So that after the locations have been determined by all three

6 departments, the Department of Defence would then be responsible for the

7 management of these locations.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does that mean that those

9 locations were under the control of the Ministry of Defence or Department

10 of Defence? Because under Article 3, that is the ministry that manages

11 that them.

12 THE WITNESS: Well, it's still the Department of Defence here.

13 It's not the ministry. Yes, I understand that this they are managing or

14 directing these locations, and that they're responsible for their

15 activities. It's absolutely, I translate "upravlja" as "manages." I

16 don't know what it is in the English. Can we see the English again? "In

17 charge," okay. Or "directs," you could say as well. I think they're all

18 correct.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said something earlier on.

20 The Department of Defence might come -- be under a different authority,

21 not the Ministry of Defence, because in Article 2 we see there are three.

22 There's the justice -- there's justice, the interior, and defence, and

23 Article 3 seems to link this charge to the defence department. They're in

24 charge. Do you know that or not?

25 THE WITNESS: Well, my reading of this is that in Article 2, the

1 three different departments are in charge of designating where these

2 locations. Once they're established, Article 3 charges the department of

3 defence with managing them.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you.

5 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, I see the time, and I think if we could

6 conclude. There's one additional exhibit I need to tender. I've been

7 told that in fact P 00476 had not been previously admitted. I thought

8 that it had been, but we would tender and do tender P 00476.

9 MR. KARNAVAS: I guess I have one last point of clarification

10 based on the questions that were posed by the Trial Chamber. It seems to

11 me the gentleman is reading a document and giving an interpretation of the

12 document based on a reading that any normal human being, you know,

13 layperson, you know, could reach. Is that the case or is he using any

14 particular knowledge as an expert in this particular area and is imparting

15 his opinion based on his expertise something that we're incapable, and

16 that's why we have this gentleman here.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Defence is going back once

18 again to the same problem. So in a few seconds, when you answer a

19 question asked of you, are you basing your opinions on the simple reading

20 of the text in front of you, or are you giving an answer on the basis of

21 your expert knowledge of studies of the many decrees, documents, and so on

22 and so forth.

23 THE WITNESS: In this particular instance my answer was based not

24 just on the fact that I can read this document in both languages but that

25 I know all of the documents surrounding it, what in fact the practice was

1 following the adoption of this document and everything -- it's informed by

2 everything else I've seen, how I read that. So it's informed by

3 everything else, not simply by my ability to read it.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. It's time to close

5 for the day.

6 Mr. Scott, the registrar has told me that you've used two hours

7 and 12 minutes so far. As it's 7.00 p.m., we reconvene tomorrow morning

8 at 2.15.

9 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.02 p.m.,

10 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 5th day

11 of September, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25