1 Thursday, 7 September 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.15 p.m.

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

6 the case number, please.

7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President. Case

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

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

10 present in the courtroom. It's Thursday, and it's the last hearing this

11 week.

12 Given some of the questions posed by the Defence, I would like to

13 say as far as the time for the witness is concerned, the Prosecution has

14 taken up six hours and 20 minutes. And given the 60 per cent rule that we

15 are applying, the Defence has 10 hours. We made calculations on the basis

16 of two days plus three days, but Mr. Scott needed some additional time,

17 which means that the Defence has 10 hours, or 600 minutes.

18 So Mr. Murphy has taken up 87 minutes. He took up 87 minutes

19 yesterday. I don't know how many seconds. So you have 10 hours minus 87

20 minutes.

21 I regret having to make such precise calculations, but we have

22 time restrictions, which is why it is necessary for us to bear this

23 problem in mind. There are others who follow on these hearings.

24 But first I would like to ask the registrar to move into private

25 session.

1 [Private session]

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 6235-6237 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 [Open session]

23 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,

24 Mr. President.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: Just very briefly, Mr. President. I understand the

1 Court's calculations. I must say I'm troubled and disappointed.

2 Yesterday, we were operating under the assumption that we would

3 have 11.5 hours, and accordingly we divided ourselves with that. Now,

4 today you've come in and you've recalculated. And I understand there's

5 been this formula out there. I totally disagree with it, and I think I've

6 made myself clear on that. But now we're down to 10 hours, and I do think

7 that we are being prejudiced. This is a gentleman who spent 7.5 years. I

8 think we lose nothing by giving us that other hour and a half. The Trial

9 Chamber should cut us off if we're going into areas which are not

10 relevant, but I would appeal to the Court, to the Trial Chamber, to

11 reconsider and give us back that hour and a half. We will do everything

12 we possibly can to be -- to streamline it, but I think that he's such a

13 vital witness for the Prosecution that we need that extra time. Thank

14 you.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] What I have said so far seems to

16 cover your requests. Mr. Murphy took up 87 minutes yesterday, we have

17 four hours today, and tomorrow it's another four hours, so that's eight

18 hours. And as I have already I said -- I mean, when I said tomorrow,

19 well, I meant Monday. Monday, that's four hours. And yesterday I said,

20 and this is in the transcript, that if necessary, if you needed two

21 additional hours, because Mr. Scott had also taken up two hours, in that

22 case you'd have two hours some other day. Four hours today, four hours

23 Monday, that's eight hours, and then two extra hours, plus the 87 minutes,

24 and we arrive at the same total.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues] ...

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I said that perhaps we

2 wouldn't need the two additional hours, but perhaps we will. That depends

3 on how things unfold. All the Chamber desires is that you reach an

4 agreement. If it were up to me, we would stay here until midnight, but

5 unfortunately that's not common practice in this Tribunal.

6 Very well. Mr. Kovacic, very briefly, because time is running.

7 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I'll try to be brief, Your Honour,

8 but could we go into private session since I have a question that concerns

9 the restricted scope of the questions we can put in the course of our

10 cross-examination.

11 [Private session]

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 6241-6242 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 [Open session]

17 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,

18 Mr. President.

19 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, while that's being done if I can just use

20 one minute. The Defence has gone on now for some 25 minutes, so I would

21 like the Prosecution to at least have one minute to respond.

22 Just so the record -- so there is a balanced record on the issue

23 of time, the Prosecution was originally given two days for the previous

24 witness, for Mr. Tomljanovich, two days. Now, what does two days mean?

25 The registry record indicates that in fact, in fact, the Prosecution used

1 six hours and 20 minutes. Now, one might reasonably think that six hours

2 and 20 minutes is pretty roughly at least barely two days. So the notion

3 of -- in the way this institution works and the time taken.

4 The notion that we used extra time I'm not sure is a completely

5 fair one, with all respect. Nonetheless, we do appreciate the flexibility

6 the Chamber showed. But to give balanced record on this, Your Honours,

7 it's just the record should clearly indicate that now the Defence has been

8 given approaching twice as much time as the Prosecution took so I don't

9 think the Defence can claim any unreasonable prejudice when they've been

10 given -- may be given almost twice as much time as the Prosecution was

11 allowed. Thank you.

12 [The witness entered court]

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We've taken note of

14 what you've said.

15 WITNESS: WILLIAM TOMLJANOVICH [Resumed]

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good day, sir. We apologise for

17 having made you wait but there was a procedural issue that we had to

18 deal. I'll now give the floor back to the Defence. I don't know whether

19 Mr. Murphy will be taking the floor or Ms. Nozica.

20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

21 Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:

22 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir. I would just want to check

23 something that I have calculated with regard to the total amount of time,

24 10 hours, and 87 minutes taken up by Mr. Murphy. Mr. Stojic's Defence has

25 another 25 minutes left.

1 I'd like to inform the Chamber that Mr. Pusic's Defence has

2 granted us their one hour, and therefore, I have 85 minutes at my

3 disposal. Since I can only take up 60 minutes until the first break, I

4 want to maintain my right --

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We are glad about that.

6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation].

7 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, my name is Senka Nozica. Let me introduce

8 myself first of all. I'll now put some questions to you on behalf of

9 Mr. Stojic's Defence.

10 Towards the end of Mr. Murphy's cross-examination, we were dealing

11 with certain issues that you dealt with in your report. For example,

12 detainees and camps. Let's remind ourselves of some parts of your

13 answers, your report, and I will share some documents, and I think the

14 Judges have all of these documents, and we've also provided the

15 Prosecution with these documents.

16 We won't be tendering any documents through this witness because

17 we don't believe the conditions have been met to tender documents through

18 this witness. And this concerns our evidence and also certain evidence

19 that the Prosecution presented, but we'll deal with that later.

20 Could we first have a look at Prosecution Exhibit 00292. I should

21 like to remind you that it is a decree about conduct with individuals

22 captured during armed conflict. You have it on the screen. If you have

23 the screen divided into two, then you will have the decree on -- in

24 English on the left and the B/C/S on the right.

25 May we now look at Article 2 carefully and see what it says and

1 then try to logically clarify what it says. And I don't think we need any

2 legal knowledge for this. We need logics.

3 Article 2 reads as follows: "The head of the justice and

4 administration department, in cooperation with the head of the Defence

5 department and the head of the Department of the Interior, shall designate

6 the location where prisons shall be kept in accordance with the provisions

7 of the aforementioned Convention in Article 1 of this Decree."

8 Can we say, then, that this is the task of the justice department

9 first and foremost, because he is mentioned first and he is given this

10 assignment of solving the problem with the others mentioned afterwards.

11 So if we apply logics here, because you said you don't have any legal

12 knowledge, but I'm sure you have a lot of documents of this kind which

13 determine who does what in a similar way. So will you agree with me that

14 the number one person mentioned here is the head of the justice department

15 to cooperate with the other two departments and choose or designate a

16 location? Do you agree with me?

17 A. Yes. The article reads that the first person appearing in the

18 article is the head of the justice and administration department, and he's

19 to find the locations for camps in cooperation with the head of the

20 defence department and the head of the Department of Interior. Of course

21 this leaves out any details of exactly what -- how this is going to happen

22 but as far as that goes, yes. That's what it says in the article.

23 Q. Now, to go on to the next article, Article 3 states: "The Defence

24 department shall be in charge of the facilities stipulated in Article 2 of

25 this decree, which means when the locations are established pursuant to

1 Article 2, then it is the defence department which is in charge of them.

2 Am I right in stating that?

3 A. Yes, absolutely. That's what the article reads.

4 Q. Now, in your work, in preparing your work and your work over the

5 last seven years, did you see a single facility or location or centre

6 established pursuant to this particular procedure?

7 A. I'm not sure if this particular decree is mentioned in the

8 preamble to the declaration or the order, I forget which, establishing the

9 Heliodrom, but I'd have to take a look at that to remember. I'd have to

10 take a look at that exhibit which I cited.

11 Q. You don't have to do that. We'll come to that in due course.

12 I'll provide the exhibit. But what I'm talking about is the procedure

13 that you have confirmed and said that it would be the Ministry of Justice

14 who would need to find a location, and we'll come to Heliodrom and see

15 whether this procedure was indeed respected.

16 On the 5th of September, during the examination-in-chief, and this

17 was recorded on page 97, lines 9 and 10 of the record, in response to the

18 Prosecutor you explained how the camps were organised, who organised them,

19 and did you have any insight into the documents pertaining to this. Your

20 answer was, and I'm paraphrasing the question and your answer: Yes, but

21 not for all camps. But some of the documents which you saw showed a

22 general formula according to which this was done, how the organs or

23 structures of the HZ HB acted upon them, and who was responsible for

24 this.

25 After that, to confirm that observation of yours, you were shown

1 another document, Prosecution exhibit which you mentioned a moment ago, it

2 is on the establishment of a central military prison and its

3 establishment. May we have a look at the document. It is P 00452.

4 That's the number. You can perhaps find it among your documents as well.

5 So we have it in front of us now, and I'd like to confirm some

6 essential points. The date is the 3rd of September, 1992, is it not? At

7 that time, was there any conflict between the Muslims and Croats in

8 Mostar, to the best of your knowledge based on your documents and what you

9 knew of the subject? And the date is, I repeat, the 3rd of September,

10 1992.

11 A. First of all, yes, I confirm in response to your first question

12 the date is the 3rd of September, 1992. And if the question is, was there

13 any armed conflict between the Muslims and the Croats in Mostar at that

14 time, the answer would be no. There would be some political conflict at

15 that time already.

16 Q. Let's move on. In the decision it says "Pursuant to Article 2 of

17 the Decree --" in the preamble I'm talking about. Pursuant to Article 2

18 of the Decree that we saw a moment ago, the central military prison for

19 the HZ HB is hereby established at the location of Mostar-Jasenica within

20 the Heliodrom barracks. And the head was appointed, or warden, and it

21 goes on to say that this decision was made on the basis of the proposal

22 from the head of the department for -- of justice and with a need to

23 separate the military prison from the district prison in Mostar after it

24 was established that these facilities satisfy all the prescribed

25 conditions.

1 So procedure wasn't respected there, was it? Not completely,

2 would you agree with me? If we look at the decree on how to handle

3 person -- detainees. And this was -- decision was taken the other way

4 round. Am I right? I don't understand your grimaces. Do you not

5 understand me?

6 A. I do understand. However, it's my impression this is their

7 understanding of what the process was at the time and they follow the

8 procedure. As we mentioned earlier, the head of the Department of Justice

9 and Administration was first in the list and was supposed to cooperate

10 with the head of the Department of Defence in finding the location for the

11 camp, and indeed they did cooperate here. But did doesn't necessarily say

12 who is to do what in that cooperation, nor necessarily who is to sign the

13 order to found the detention centre.

14 Q. Let's forget for a moment about this debate on that subject,

15 although you seem to be a little contradictory. A moment ago you said it

16 would be a good idea if that were done by the head of the justice

17 department, to find the location, to determine the location, but now you

18 say that this procedure is as they understood it. So I'm afraid this is

19 guesswork on your part, but let me ask you, did you see any other decision

20 of this kind and then on the basis of three decisions we could perhaps say

21 how somebody understood something. Have you seen any similar decisions?

22 A. Well, first of all, if I could go back to the first part of your

23 question. I don't believe further up that I said that it would be the job

24 of the head of the justice department primarily to find the location. I

25 think I agreed he was first in the order, being named, and that he was to

1 cooperate with the other two department heads, but I don't believe I ever

2 said that it was his job to find the location or to sign the order.

3 As far as the second part of the question, you mean similar

4 decisions in terms of founding of detention facilities.

5 Q. Yes. That's what I asked you.

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Did you see any other decision of this kind, a similar decision

8 establishing or founding anything that related to the decree on how to

9 treat detainees, the one that we saw a moment ago, decree on treating

10 persons captured in armed conflicts, et cetera?

11 A. Well, in my report I cite the decision on Gabela, a camp being

12 established.

13 Q. Very well. Fine. I'll come to that. Apart from that decision on

14 Gabela, which according to procedure is not similar to this at all really,

15 have you seen any other decision?

16 A. Yes, and I didn't include these in my report for a number of

17 reasons, but I have seen, and it was some time ago, the orders under

18 which the military police take over control of the facility at Dretelj.

19 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich. Mr. Tomljanovich, don't let's stray from the

20 subject. I'm not asking who took over control now. I'm not asking you

21 that. We're talking about a decree relating to the designation of

22 locations and I am talking about the establishment.

23 Now, who established what location and was in control of it, I'm

24 not asking you that. All I'm asking you is, on the basis of this decree

25 did you see any other decision establishing any other location? It's just

1 a question which requires a short answer, so can we hurry up, please?

2 You've heard that my time is limited. You can say yes, no, you don't

3 remember, any of those three answers.

4 A. No, I haven't seen other orders which followed this same

5 procedure.

6 Q. Well, then I can ask you this: How could you say then during the

7 examination-in-chief that you looked at some documents which represented a

8 general formula of how the organs and structures of the HZ HB treated or

9 what their conduct was towards, as the Prosecutor said, camps if you say

10 now that this is an exception?

11 A. Well, I forget the context in which I would have said that if I

12 did indeed say that. I may have said that about the camps and their

13 management in general. I don't remember specifically, and I could be

14 wrong, because I said a lot of things in my direct testimony, saying

15 anything that specific about the foundation of the camps and the pattern

16 being followed consistently for all camps.

17 Q. You said that you had not looked through everything but that these

18 examples, and one of those examples is this one here, and you were only

19 shown two other documents, that they indicate, you said, that this was a

20 general formula applied. Now, from that we deduce that if you're talking

21 about different conduct -- now, if we look at the establishment of

22 locations, then this example cannot be taken to be a general formula.

23 Would you agree with that?

24 MR. SCOTT: I'm going to object, Your Honour. I'm not going to

25 belabour it but I do not think that's what the record would show. I don't

1 think there was such testimony as the three items here but the record will

2 speak for itself. But I object to the characterisation.

3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Well, I don't mind. If the

4 Prosecutor has objected, then let him tell us what it was in the

5 transcript that he objects to?

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. With respect to

7 the contents of the objection, as far as I have understood the problem,

8 Ms. Nozica is trying to clarify something with the witness. We have the

9 3rd of July decree, which is P 292, which says that it is the Department

10 of Justice in cooperation with others who shall designate the locations

11 where prisoners are to be detained. So in theory, there must be a

12 decision by the minister or head of the justice department designating the

13 location.

14 Now, we have another document, P 452, where it is not the justice

15 department that designates the Heliodrom but it is Mr. Stojic.

16 Now, there are two solutions here, two possible solutions. Either

17 it is Mr. Stojic who did not take into account the previous decree, or

18 there's another hypothesis that presents itself, and that is that the

19 justice department made a decision, let's say referring to the Heliodrom,

20 and then Mr. Stojic took another decision, a different decision, and said

21 that it was also the Heliodrom.

22 Now, Mr. Expert, on the basis of your research into the documents

23 and so on and so forth, what is your conclusion on the basis of that?

24 THE WITNESS: Well, I think, Your Honour, your second hypothesis

25 is absolutely -- is probably absolutely correct, because the justice and

1 general administration department may have had all sorts of decisions

2 which we don't know about, because speaking broadly we never had access to

3 the general archival collections of the Department of Justice. We were

4 much more fortunate with the Department of Defence. And that could very

5 well be the fact that we have a document from the Department of Defence

6 and not one from the Department of Justice, could very well be just simply

7 an artefact of the sorts of documentation we've been able to find.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] May I proceed? No intervention from

10 the Prosecutor with respect to the establishment of this general formula

11 or pattern?

12 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, the point that we made yesterday, and

13 I'll say it again, I'm trying to be brief, is that the structure of

14 Mr. Tomljanovich's report and the structure of the direct examination was

15 largely, and I'm sure not perfectly so, but largely in the first day to

16 talk about broad structures, the broad -- the broad framework of the

17 Statutes, the decrees that set certain structures and processes in place.

18 Then following that we spent a great deal of our time looking at several

19 different scenarios, largely the ultimatum in January 1993, the very

20 similar ultimatum in April, 1993, and the operation of the camps in

21 general. Not just their establishment but their operation and how orders

22 were given. Actually that was the fourth example. The third example was

23 mobilisation and how that took place and how you could see a chain of

24 orders. So it wasn't just on this one particular point that that was done

25 or, in fact, not on this particular point specifically. So I think, with

1 due respect to counsel, it's not a fair characterisation of the record to

2 put that to the witness in that way. That was -- the pattern that I

3 indicated was the pattern that was shown not whether every HVO prison was

4 sited in a particular way.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. But allow the Defence to

6 conduct its cross-examination, because the documents were '92. We didn't

7 reach '93 yet. Perhaps the Defence is going to show that in 1993 the

8 situation was different. I don't know.

9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour, yes. And I'd

10 like to thank the Prosecutor. It would be much easier for him had he read

11 the page that I referred to, 97, lines 9, 10, 11 and 12 to see that what I

12 claimed was precisely what the witness said, that this particular document

13 and the previous document on the establishment of a military prison was a

14 pattern of how they were formed and then later on who was in control of

15 them or who was not in control of them. But my client is sending me

16 messages and I'd like to clarify here and I think it's clear that we're

17 establishing a central military prison here. We're dealing with the

18 central military prison. I know that we have some problems with

19 translation, but what we're talking about now is the central military

20 prison within the frameworks of the barracks previously used by the JNA at

21 Heliodrom.

22 Now, these examples speak about central military prisons or,

23 rather, a district military prison as well, one of two examples, Gabela

24 and this one, so they're not camps. They're not centres of any sort

25 provided for by the Geneva Convention, and what is notorious with this

1 example is that we have established that the establishment of this

2 centre -- central military prison was done before any conflict took place

3 with the Muslims. Isn't that right?

4 While you're taking time to answer --

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Are you asking him a question?

6 You've asked him a question, so allow the witness to answer, to tell you

7 whether he agrees with what you've just said.

8 THE WITNESS: First of all, yes, the document clearly says both in

9 the translation and in the original "Central military prison." That's the

10 first half of the answer. And the second half is, no, there was not a

11 military conflict between the Croat forces and the Muslim forces at that

12 time, although the HVO was involved in hostilities with Serb forces at

13 that time.

14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

15 Q. Yes, but whether together with, as you say, the Muslim forces took

16 part in this conflict. HVO. The HVO together with the BiH army took part

17 in the conflict against the Serb forces; right?

18 A. No. I would rephrase that, because "together" implies an amount

19 of coordination that did not exist, I don't think, especially -- well,

20 certainly after October. Probably not in September either. They were

21 both in different areas involved in hostilities. Both the ABiH and the

22 HVO were involved with hostilities with the Serbian forces, but to say

23 they were doing it together would probably be a misrepresentation.

24 Q. I am astonished by your answer now. So I conclude that the

25 documents which relate to that part of the conflict are ones you haven't

1 read at all. Am I right? Or have you read them and interpreted them

2 quite differently than has been presented before this Trial Chamber in the

3 case both by the Prosecution and the Defence? Did you have any insight

4 into that documentation at all, in the documents relating to the conflict

5 with the Serbs up until mid-1992?

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, the first document,

7 292, when you look at the preamble of that document, the prison was

8 established for the members of the JNA, for the reserve JNA forces, and

9 then there's mention of other persons, but we don't really know who those

10 other persons are. But anyway, on the 3rd of July when the decision was

11 taken to establish the locations designed by the justice department, it

12 was for JNA prisoners. That is in the preamble. So the document which

13 follows in September is within those legal frameworks. Did you note

14 that?

15 THE WITNESS: Yes.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You can take a look at the

17 document again if you like, and you will see that Article 1 speaks of JNA

18 prisoners.

19 THE WITNESS: Yes. Yes, I did take note of that. And at that

20 particular point in time, any prisoner they would have taken at the time

21 would have been JNA or Serb irregular or VJ forces.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I think that

23 clarifies matters.

24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

25 Q. But anyway, at that time they weren't members of the BH army or,

1 rather, the Muslims?

2 A. You may be right. I'm not sure of what the official foundation of

3 the ABiH was.

4 Q. In order to be very precise and specific, and since the Trial

5 Chamber has seen the location, may we just have a look -- I don't think

6 this is on e-court, but on the ELMO, 2D 00136 would be the next exhibit,

7 please. The page is page 39.

8 And I'm ask you, Mr. Tomljanovich, you'll receive a set of those

9 documents. These questions arose from the examination-in-chief yesterday,

10 so we haven't been able to put it on e-court, but I'm talking about the

11 plan for the Heliodrom concentration camp. It is a Prosecution Exhibit,

12 and that's where we get that term from, and that is on page 39. This is

13 the diagram for the Heliodrom. It's what the usher has placed on the

14 overhead projector, but I think it's page 39 that we need, which is

15 practically the last page.

16 No, it's not the map. It's the diagram. That's it.

17 Are you familiar with this location at all? Were you ever there,

18 Mr. Tomljanovich?

19 A. No, I was not.

20 Q. I would just like to ask us to focus in a bit. Focus in on the

21 central part. That's fine, yes. Great. Thank you.

22 Now, do you see that it says "SV -- SV prison, central military

23 prison," and it indicates just one building? "SV Zatvor" it says.

24 A. Yes, I do see that.

25 Q. We're just determining what it was when it was established

1 according to the decision and decree. Can you tell me whether you know

2 why -- or, rather, whether you know what was happening in Mostar at all

3 during the fighting with the Serbs and so on? Do you have any idea how

4 many prisons Mostar had before any conflicts broke out? Do you happen to

5 know that?

6 A. I seem to remember there was a civilian prison in Mostar itself,

7 but I'm not positive about that, no. I don't know about the prisons as

8 they existed before the war.

9 Q. Very well. Well, we're not going to speculate. You saw a series

10 of reports. I don't have time to go into them now, especially with

11 respect to the justice department where it says that this particular

12 prison, the central prison, which was damaged during the conflict with the

13 Serbs, was later up at the front line of the conflict between the BH army

14 and HVO, and Mostar didn't have any other prison for a long time except

15 this one.

16 May we now -- and I have to refer to what you said when the

17 document was shown you, the document on the establishment of this central

18 military prison when the document 00514 was shown to you, if you remember

19 it. I don't have time to show you all the documents, but anyway, it was a

20 document in which you said Mr. Valentin Coric was in command, in -- was

21 ordering that a central military prison be established after a decision by

22 Mr. Stojic. And when decision was shown you on the establishment of a

23 central prison -- when you were shown these three examples, because you

24 were shown three examples, you said that it was the system as it

25 functioned.

1 Now, I'm going to ask you whether you know or whether you saw a

2 decision on the establishment of the following camps, because that's what

3 it says in the indictment, camps. It refers to them as camps. Have you

4 seen the indictment?

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The document is not 514. It

6 should be 515.

7 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, you're quite right, Your Honour.

8 I thought I said 515. P 00515 is the right number, yes.

9 Q. We don't need to go back to that now. If you wish to look at it

10 I'll give you time to do so, but what I'm asking you now is the following:

11 Have you seen or did you see a document on the establishment of the

12 prison, the camp - all terms used in the indictment - in Vojno?

13 A. No, I did not.

14 Q. Did you see how the prison in Vitina was established?

15 A. No, I did not.

16 Q. The prison at Otok or on the island?

17 A. No, I did not.

18 Q. Grabovina, the Grabovina barracks?

19 A. No, I did not.

20 Q. The Silo at Capljina?

21 A. No, I did not.

22 Q. Varos, Majdan?

23 A. No, I did not.

24 Q. The Ljubuski prison?

25 A. Yes, I have seen documents, although I didn't look at them for the

1 purpose of making this report, for Ljubuski.

2 Q. Have you seen a document on how the prison in Dretelj was

3 established?

4 A. Yes, and I've heard a lot of evidence about the prison in Dretelj,

5 which was originally run by a paramilitary unit, the HOS, and then went

6 over to the HVO military police, I believe in December of 1992 or

7 thereabout.

8 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, I'm asking you very specifically. Have you seen

9 the decision on the establishment of Dretelj? I'm not asking you who was

10 there, who controlled it, who guarded it, or who brought whom there. I'm

11 just asking you whether you have seen the decision, because it's the

12 decision we're discussing now. On the basis of two decisions, you said

13 they represented the pattern for all the other prisons, so I'm just asking

14 you about this point now, and later on we'll move about who was in control

15 or who was guarding what prison. Yes, or no, or you don't remember?

16 A. Well, actually neither because I'd have to rephrase it, because I

17 don't remember ever saying that that pattern was followed in all prisons,

18 because certainly I'm aware of the decision of Gabela and that was done

19 bit order of Mr. Prlic, which certainly wasn't the same pattern. So if I

20 did say that earlier, that this pattern was always followed, I would have

21 misspoken, although I don't believe I did say that.

22 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, all I want to say is that the entire part of

23 your testimony referring to this topic was based on two decisions and your

24 conclusions based on only two decisions for two camps, and I repeat that.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Two prisons, interpreter's correction --

1 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation].

2 Q. I repeat that they were prisons and not camps.

3 You yourself say that you did not look at all the documentation

4 referring to this area. You told the Prosecutor as well as Mr. Murphy

5 that you didn't delve into this topic a lot. Am I right?

6 A. No, I did not, nor did I intend to.

7 Q. Since you're presenting conclusions here and since you're here as

8 an expert, I think you should know a little more about this and not draw

9 conclusions based on a superficial insight into the documents.

10 Can one draw conclusions on a certain topic if the indictment

11 refers to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 detention centres, and more are

12 listed in the annexes, and you have the insight into the foundation of

13 only two of them and the manner in which they were established? Doesn't

14 this put into question all your conclusions about the other camps

15 mentioned?

16 A. No, and I should say first of all that if I could in one witness

17 report in one week's worth of testimony deal with the governing structures

18 and processes of Herceg-Bosna as well as a comprehensive treatment of all

19 of the items in the indictment, in particular the camps, which is a large

20 part of this case, if I could have done all of that the trial would be

21 very quick. I had to limit my report to the -- to what I was charged to

22 do, and I looked at the establishment and closing of the camps, but I

23 didn't look into their actual operation, nor did I feel any -- nor did I

24 think my charge was to look into every single camp mentioned in the

25 indictment.

1 Q. Very well. This is sufficient for our purposes. So you were

2 given the task of establishing how they were established and how they were

3 closed down. Only two or all?

4 A. First of all, I should say I wasn't given the task of establishing

5 how camps were established and how they were closed down. I was given the

6 general task of describing for the Judges the governing processes and

7 structures of Herceg-Bosna, and this at a very high -- at a higher level,

8 because time wouldn't allow us to go any further. And I didn't feel going

9 into any more detail than I did was appropriate, but with every subject I

10 cover that's always a judgement call and that's always a difficult

11 decision to make how much detail I can go into on any given subject.

12 Q. But excuse me, you as a scholar know that you cannot draw a

13 conclusion if out of 12 samples you deal with only two. Then your

14 conclusion about all 12 is highly questionable. Can that represent a

15 pattern in any kind of investigation of anything, especially such a

16 sensitive topic as this, the topic of prisons and collection centres?

17 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, once again my apologise. I'm going to

18 object, and this is not a fair characterisation of Mr. Tomljanovich's

19 work. Perhaps the Chamber and counsel would like to review once again

20 paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of the report and remember the description of his

21 work in the -- on Monday, and that was focus on the process -- the

22 structures and processes of the Herceg-Bosna HVO government. It was

23 never -- this report was never presented, never has been presented as a

24 report on the detailed establishment and operation of the camps.

25 If counsel can find a place in the report or in his testimony, in

1 his testimony, where he said that he drew a conclusion as to all 12 camps

2 based on this, I ask her to put that to the witness very clearly and

3 specifically.

4 This is a mischaracterisation of the work the expert has done and

5 the report. It's beyond the scope.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are both right. The

7 question put to you by the Defence, but I'll put it to you myself is as

8 follows: In paragraph 258, under the title "Prisoners and Camps," you

9 described the structure of the prisons. Defence counsel claims that you

10 based your conclusions on two establishments, whereas in the indictment at

11 least 10 establishments are referred to. So the conclusions that you have

12 drawn in your report, are these conclusion that is can be applied to the

13 10 prisons referred to in the indictment or the conclusions you drew and

14 the conclusions that can in fact concern two of the prisons?

15 That's the point of the question. You can answer it very easily.

16 THE WITNESS: I can -- I can only draw conclusions based on the

17 material I consulted and the material I consulted was simply dealing with

18 these particular institutions. I'm not making any representations about

19 Vojno or any of the other places.

20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Very well. So you are referring only to these two and drawing

22 your conclusions only on the basis of these two; is that right? And does

23 this refer both to your report and to your testimony before this Court?

24 A. Any conclusions I reached are based on the documents that I cite

25 here and wouldn't go beyond that. I don't believe I ever implied that I

1 was drawing conclusions which were applicable to Vojno and the smaller --

2 smaller detention centres. If I gave that impression, then I -- you know,

3 I'd like to correct that, because that was never my intention to talk

4 about all of these various centres here, there, and everywhere, especially

5 not in any detail.

6 Q. Can we move on, and I will show you that your conclusions refer to

7 a much broader area than you now wish to admit.

8 Yesterday, in paragraph 261 of your report, you say that the first

9 evidence of serious problems, the first evidence that there were serious

10 problems with their detention centres had reached the HVO HZ HB no later

11 than mid-July, 1993. And then you go on to deal with a number of

12 documents in order to prove this thesis. I'm referring to paragraph 261

13 of your report. I haven't noted down the page in English because I wasn't

14 intending to show it, but you know what I'm talking about.

15 Have you found it?

16 A. Yes, I have it.

17 Q. It says "the first serious problems." What I read, is that right?

18 A. Well, this is the first time I have any evidence that they were

19 aware of serious problems. That doesn't necessarily mean this was the

20 first time there were serious problems in the context of these events in

21 the summer of 1993.

22 Q. You're now correcting what you wrote in your report?

23 A. No. That's -- no, that's precisely what I said in the report.

24 MR. SCOTT: Could I have a citation to the report, please? What

25 page are you referring to?

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: 94.

2 THE WITNESS: Yes.

3 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

4 Q. I do apologise. Unfortunately I won't be able to deal with all

5 these points, but I have to say -- or, rather, I have to ask you, have you

6 read the B/C/S translation of your report?

7 A. Only in small parts. I haven't read the whole thing beginning to

8 end.

9 Q. Because the Croatian version reads differently from what you said,

10 but we won't go into it any further.

11 The Prosecutor, during examination-in-chief, showed you a number

12 of documents. I will not refer to all of them now, but let me remind you.

13 Please listen carefully, and I think you'll remember.

14 The first one is P 003565. This is a conclusion from a session of

15 the 18th of July, 1993. We can have it in e-court if that makes it easier

16 for all to see.

17 And in point 1, it says that accommodation should be provided for

18 prisoners of war that prisoners of war have to be provided with

19 accommodation, material and medical assistance in compliance with the

20 rules of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of the prisoners of war.

21 "If the current conditions do not meet these rules, the head of

22 the Department of Justice and the general administration section in

23 cooperation with the defence section and internal affairs section will

24 provide new locations. This is the 18th of July 1993, and the same

25 procedure is being provided as the one provided for in the decree but now

1 we are dealing with 1993.

2 After that, you were shown document 35, P 03560. And these are

3 minutes from the 46th session dated the 19th of July, 1993. I put these

4 documents into chronological order in order for us to establish who did

5 what and whether your conclusions as to what was done or what was not done

6 were justified.

7 So now we are dealing with the 19th of July, 1993, and the

8 minutes. The document is 5 -- 03560. Do you have it?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. But it's still not on the screen. We still have that decision we

11 dealt with before.

12 A. Sorry, but I see something in -- sorry, can I intervene? Can we

13 go become to last exhibit.

14 Q. Yes, yes, please go ahead. But please be brief.

15 A. [Previous translation continues] ... can we go back to the page we

16 were at. I saw the dates both at the beginning and the bottom. No, I

17 believe this is -- the conclusions, not the -- yes. There we go. If you

18 take a look at this here at the top of the page in the Croatian version,

19 the date's 18th of July, and at the bottom it's -- the decision is signed

20 on the 19th. So there is a discrepancy within the one document.

21 Q. I don't know why this should be a problem. The decision was typed

22 out and it reached someone's desk for a signature on the next day. Even

23 in better ordered states such problems occur, and in better ordered

24 systems. So why should this be a problem?

25 The conclusion was reached at the session on that day, and you've

1 seen what conclusions at sessions usually look like. They are written

2 down and then later this is all typed out. Is that the procedure? Am I

3 right? What are you doing now, Mr. Tomljanovich? Are you following me or

4 have you strayed?

5 A. No, I'm following you. I'm just checking something in my report

6 as you're asking the question, but I'm following. Excuse me.

7 Q. Please, I believe that the Judges will also ask you whether you

8 have anything to add, but I'm short of time.

9 We were talking about P 03560. These are minutes from the 46th

10 session, dated the 19th of July, 1993, and I'm referring to page 4 of the

11 English, and then it goes on, on page 5, a conclusion which again

12 says: "Provide accommodation, material and medical supplies to prisoners

13 of war in compliance with the Geneva Conventions, and if the current

14 accommodation is unsuitable, new locations will be found by the head of

15 the Department of Justice and General administration in coordination with

16 the defence department and the Department of the Interior." Is that what

17 it says?

18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter notes she did not see the entire

19 text on time so the wording is a bit different.

20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

21 Q. So this is at the bottom of page 2 in the Croatian version. When

22 you were answering questions by the Prosecutor, you seemed to find your

23 way about these documents much more quickly.

24 Have you found the conclusions under 7 on pages 4 and 5? Have you

25 found this?

1 A. Yes, I have.

2 Q. We have the same wording here that we had before. The Department

3 of Justice is tasked with designating new sites in coordination with other

4 bodies.

5 I will now describe the next document, 3995. You'll remember it.

6 It's an order issued by Mr. Stojic on the 6th of August, 1993, where he

7 appoints a five-member commission. I think we spoke extensively about

8 this yesterday. And he authorises this commission to list all detained

9 persons. Do you remember that? Have you found this? Do you recall it?

10 Okay. Then we don't have to look for it.

11 Let me remind you that in answer to Their Honours' question, you

12 said that it follows from this that Mr. Bruno Stojic was transferring his

13 authority or his powers to these five people. If we look at all these

14 decisions, is it possible to reach a -- the conclusion that

15 Mr. Bruno Stojic had any kind of powers that he was transferring to

16 someone else, and what were these powers about? What did they concern?

17 A. Well, it's implicit in the order, because Mr. Stojic is ordering

18 this commission to be established, and he's ordering the various wardens

19 or commanders of detention units to follow their instructions. So he has

20 the authority to make the wardens or commanders follow the orders of these

21 five men, this board, and that order is his own order and based on his own

22 authority.

23 Q. What authority?

24 A. Oh, I'm sorry.

25 Q. What authority?

1 A. The authority of Mr. Stojic to order this commission to be formed

2 and to order the wardens or commanders to follow their instructions.

3 Q. Yes. I agree with you, but that was the only authority he had.

4 He was not transferring to them authority to act. He had the authority to

5 establish the commission, and this authority follows from the conclusions

6 previously adopted at sessions of the HVO HZ HB. Would you agree with

7 this? Is that what his authority follows from?

8 You have seen at least two sessions where these issues were

9 discussed, because I have been showing you the documents in chronological

10 order as the events unfolded. Am I right?

11 A. Yes, but I don't see any explicit mention in Mr. Stojic's order of

12 these previous meetings.

13 Q. Please read the preamble and it will be clear to you. The

14 conclusions from all the previous meetings are mentioned. It's quite

15 logical. Following the need to introduce more order on control, is that

16 what was said at the sessions?

17 A. Well, yes, in a general thematic sense he's talking about the same

18 things but to say that his authority to do this follows from the

19 conclusions reached at the other meeting, I think, is an inference that I

20 don't think I'd be able to make.

21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If we look at the degree with which we started,

22 Article 3 says, "the defence department shall be in charge of the

23 facilities." Does that not mean that the authority is with the defence

24 department and with the head of the defence department, and it's an

25 unfettered authority it seems?

1 THE WITNESS: That's exactly my reading of it, Your Honour.

2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honours, by your leave I am

3 attempting to show during this cross-examination what centres were

4 established pursuant to that decision giving the justice department [as

5 interpreted] authority over those camps. I'm trying to show that the

6 justice department can have authority only over those camps according to

7 the procedure. May I proceed? Thank you.

8 Q. After this, were you shown Exhibit P 4275 [as interpreted]? You

9 referred to it. It wasn't tendered by the Prosecutor. It's a working

10 meeting held on the 18th of August on the premises of the HVO HZ HB in

11 Mostar. We won't go back to the document unless necessary, but again the

12 justice department and the Department of General Administration is tasked

13 with taking over administration of civilian prisoners -- prisons and the

14 same department is tasked with taking measures to organise military

15 prisons.

16 Pursuant to everything we have seen up to this point, may we

17 conclude that at these meetings, at these sessions formal and informal,

18 the HVO HZ HB was still saying that something had to be established, that

19 these centres were yet to be established, that sites were to be found?

20 May we conclude -- and the last document I showed you bears the date the

21 18th of August, 1993. May we conclude that at least as far as these

22 bodies were concerned there was still no awareness as to how any possible

23 centres were established because all the tasks assigned here were to

24 establish and organise camps and three departments within the HVO HZ HB

25 were being assigned this task.

1 A. Excuse me, could you tell me which article -- or which point in

2 the meeting of the 18th of August we're talking about here? In terms of

3 subordination. Because it's my general impression that what they're

4 talking about at this point is forming yet more detention centres,

5 additional ones, although I'd have to look at the section to be sure.

6 Q. We are referring to the working meeting held on the 18th of

7 August, 1993, which you deal with in your report, and the conclusions --

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. You found them. Yes.

10 A. Yes, now I found that point.

11 Q. Does it say here with precision: "The Department of Justice and

12 General Administration is tasked with undertaking measures and activities

13 to organise civilian prisoners." Is that what it says?

14 A. That's what it says. I don't see the original in B/C/S here but

15 that's what it says in translation, yes.

16 Q. The defence department --

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. "The defence department and the Department of Justice and General

19 Administration is tasked with undertaking measures and activities to

20 organise civilian prisons and accommodation for prisoners of war in

21 compliance with international conventions." Is that what it says? And

22 may we conclude, then, that the HVO - it was still not the cabinet - on

23 the 18th of August, 1993, was still dealing with issues of organising

24 accommodation for civilians, prisoners, and detainees?

25 A. Yes, although I should add I think in this context they're

1 describing making more facilities. There are already existing facilities,

2 but they're still organising the system and developing it further, yes.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to have to have our

4 break. For the sake of the transcript, contrary to what it says in the

5 transcript it's not 4275 but 4276.

6 It's ten to 4.00 now, and we will resume at 4.10.

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

8 --- On resuming at 4.10 p.m.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed.

10 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Counsel.

11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] My colleagues drew my attention to

12 something in the transcript, and I'd like to correct that. On page 38

13 from lines 1 to 6 when I explained or, rather, spoke about the objectives

14 of the examination linked to a question asked by Judge Trechsel whether

15 the decree dated the 3rd of July, 1992, gives the defence department the

16 right to determine locations, I said that I was trying through the

17 cross-examination to show which locations were established in conformity

18 with the decision or, rather, decree, and for which, objectively speaking,

19 the defence department could have been responsible, and in the transcript

20 it said that it was the justice department. That is what I wanted to put

21 right.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I would just like to state that there must be

23 either something wrong in the transcript, because that was not my concern.

24 I was only speaking on Article 3 expressly. But while you bring this up.

25 Witness, have you any -- have you come across anything that would

1 permit you to answer the question whether Article 2 of this decree would

2 apply to the extension of an already-existing facility at a location

3 already used for purposes?

4 THE WITNESS: Yes. Let me just take a quick look at that again,

5 if I can find the exhibit. 3rd of July? The exhibit number?

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: 292.

7 THE WITNESS: 292. Oh, yes. It's further. Thank you. Actually,

8 I don't have it in the binder here, I believe, or did I take it out? No.

9 Ah. Thank you. Oh, yes, this order of 3rd of July, 1992. I'm sorry, I

10 was confused. I thought we were still talking about 1993.

11 And the question again is if this could be applied to making --

12 extending existing camps?

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The question was: Do you have any indication as

14 to whether the defence department was competent to expand, extend,

15 increase the capacity of existing camps at the same location?

16 THE WITNESS: Yes. And this is outside of the realm of what I was

17 supposed to -- or thought I was going to testify about, but I do believe

18 that in the Heliodrom they did use -- they expanded and used more hangars

19 as time went on and more prisoners came, so that they did expand the

20 facility. I don't believe all the hangars were in use for detention from

21 the very beginning, but I'm not positive about that. But I think --

22 that's my understanding.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.

24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

25 Q. I don't understand you at all I must admit. This decree is dated

1 the 18th of November, 1991, and --

2 A. [Previous translation continues] ...

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: That's a different one.

4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

5 Q. It was intended -- had it been intended to deal with extensions of

6 anything, that would have applied up to locations who -- which were formed

7 up until that order, but we heard what you've said. May we move on,

8 because I only have half an hour left and we have a lot to get through?

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think we have to avoid misunderstandings. We

10 were speaking, I certainly was, of the decree of 3 July, 1992.

11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes. Sorry, you're quite right.

12 Yes. That's the date that I wanted to refer to, facilities which existed

13 up until that time. You're quite right, Your Honour.

14 Q. I'd like to remind you now -- we don't need to go through

15 documents -- the documents again. You were shown the exhibits yesterday.

16 But following on in time, based on these questions, is Exhibit P 04352,

17 and that was a letter by the warden of the central investigation --

18 investigating prison of the 20th of August, 1993, Mr. Bruno Stojic [as

19 interpreted], where he presents the problems that he is facing as the

20 warden, as the warden of the prison. Do you remember that exhibit?

21 A. Yes, although I think either -- I'm listening to the translation,

22 but either you misspoke or there's something wrong in the transcript

23 because I believe you list Mr. Stojic as the warden of the investigating

24 prison.

25 Q. Mr. Stanko Bozic.

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Yes. Then you were shown P 04765, and that is the minutes from

3 the collegium of the defence department held on the 2nd of September, 1993

4 beginning at 9.00. I'm sure you remember that and the words you quoted

5 yesterday where Mr. Stojic said, "I consider that we have two military

6 prisons, the Heliodrom and the military prison in Ljubuski. And other

7 places, Gabela and Dretelj, where detainees are kept I don't consider to

8 be military facilities."

9 Do you remember that?

10 A. Yes, and I'm looking at it right now, yes.

11 Q. After you were shown Exhibit P 04841, which are the minutes from

12 the working meeting of the government of the 6th of September, 1993, where

13 once again in the conclusions it says: "To determine or designate

14 locations in which measures of detention for military detainees are

15 regulated and regulations governing prisoners of war in prisons which

16 should be based on the provisions of international war law."

17 Do you remember that?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. After that, we have the next letter by Mr. Stanko Bozic. We have

20 said what his position was. And it is the 11th of September, 1993.

21 That's the date. So it's letter from the warden of the central military

22 prison. And we're dealing with October and November, 1993.

23 So we've now seen a series of government meetings and conclusions

24 and demands as to what should be done and how it should be done. We have

25 also shown who was responsible for implementing this; right?

1 A. If --

2 Q. And now -- yes, go ahead.

3 A. In the orders, frequently a lot of things -- specific items are

4 mentioned for which individuals are responsible, but in general the whole

5 problem with the camps and the conditions in the camps we -- we haven't

6 shown who's responsible for them through the documents. In general with

7 the documents, the general impression is that measures keep being

8 undertaken but no one is taking general responsibility.

9 Q. Yes. That's what you've said, and that should be the conclusion

10 of everything that I'm doing here today. But now let's see what the

11 defence department was doing at that time, for instance.

12 Throughout that time, you -- well, you were shown a report by the

13 Prosecutor, and that's what you deal with because it seems to be the only

14 thing of interest here. The health sector of the 30th of September, 1993.

15 It is Prosecution Exhibit P 05503, in which the department for health says

16 that it is providing a report about health supervision in the centre for

17 isolation at Heliodrom. Have you found that? You had that yesterday.

18 But -- and anyway, yesterday you told us the addressees, who it was sent

19 to. You said Mr. Boban, Mr. Bruno Stojic, to Zarko Tole, Ivan Bagaric,

20 and so on and so forth. Do you remember that?

21 A. Yes, I do.

22 Q. Can we refresh our memories? And can you confirm that this health

23 care sector was working within the Defence department or, rather, that it

24 was one of the sectors of the defence department itself?

25 A. Yes, it was.

1 Q. Fine. Now, may we ask the usher to bring the next set of

2 documents which we're going to have to place on the overhead projector.

3 The Prosecution has them and so do Their Honours. We're going to look at

4 four or five documents. Except for one of them all of them have an ERN

5 number, which means that they are all Prosecution documents obtained from

6 the Prosecution. And I'm going to ask you whether you have -- whether you

7 have seen them. Have you seen these documents before? We have the

8 health sector. 2D 00132 is the number. We can place it on the ELMO?

9 THE INTERPRETER: Could Counsel Nozica please be asked to slow

10 down. Thank you.

11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation].

12 Q. 2D 00132. The health care sector. The date -- that's right. The

13 date is the 12th of August, 1993. We're now going to see what the defence

14 department did throughout this period. You have it on the ELMO. You

15 don't have to look for it. It's on the overhead projector.

16 The date is important here, and it is the 12th of August, as we

17 can see. It comes before Mr. Bozic's letter, first letter.

18 JUDGE PRANDLER: Ms. Nozica, the interpreters ask you to be so

19 kind to slow down, please.

20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Yes. But I

21 have a lot of things to get through in the time left.

22 Q. This is a request from Brigadier Ivan Bagaric, the assistant head

23 of the defence department dated 12th of August where he demands that a

24 medical care sector be set up within Heliodrom. I don't have time to read

25 it all. But anyway, this is perhaps important. I think the document has

1 been translated. It goes on to say that everything necessary when it

2 comes to medicines and sanitary material should be sent to the health care

3 service of OZ, et cetera.

4 This is important. The 12th of August, the date, it is before

5 Mr. Bozic's letter of the 20th of August and after the 46th session of the

6 HVO HZ HB of the 19th of July, which speaks about prisoners of war, that

7 their accommodation should be ensured as well as health conditions in

8 conformity with the Geneva Conventions.

9 All these documents from the health care sector are similar, and

10 then we'll summarise at the end once we see them all.

11 The next is 2D 00135. That's right. This is an order signed by

12 Dr. Ivo Suric [phoen]. Once again the health care sector. It is dated

13 the 28th of August, and he is sending the order to the Knez Domagoj

14 brigade commander, Colonel Nedjeljko Obradovic, the head of the medical

15 centre Nikica Sutalo and this is the important part after making an

16 on-site investigation on the 17th of August, 1993, and in connection with

17 the prevention of transmittable skin diseases with the detainees in the

18 prisons of Gabela and Dretelj, and after continuous implementation of

19 medical preventive measures I hereby issue the following order.

20 "1. Twice exert active control over the health care staff," and

21 so on.

22 Yes, I do apologise. I am going to slow down.

23 Anyway, this is an order. The date is the 28th of August, 1993.

24 Eight days after Mr. Bruno Stojic received the second letter from Mr.

25 Bozic and 10 days after the working meeting of the HVO HZ HB, HVO HZ HB,

1 giving him the task -- or, rather, the defence department is tasked with

2 establishing regulations and undertaking measures with respect to the

3 organisation of military prisons.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Perhaps you can ask the witness

5 if he knows the document, if he's familiar with it.

6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I just have two more such documents,

7 just two more documents like that, and then I'll ask him about all the

8 documents together, with Your Honour's permission.

9 Q. All these documents are the same source. I just want to emphasise

10 that it is important to mention in this regard that after this order that

11 we've just seen, Mr. Stojic, at the senior staff meeting of the defence

12 department, said that he considers and accepts only those institutions

13 which were established by the defence department itself, but nonetheless,

14 tells the health care sector to apply measures in these prisons conducive

15 to the Geneva Conventions.

16 We can look at two or three more orders of a similar nature now.

17 The 28th of September, 2D 00134 is one of those documents. So we're

18 dealing with the 28th of September. That's the date. Another order, two

19 pages. May we look at the second page to see who it's from. It is from

20 Mr. Ivan Bagaric. And here he tells all the centres for preventive

21 isolation what they should do, which measures they should apply in order

22 to protect the health of the detainees. And in point 15 he says the head

23 of the health service in the brigades will send in a written report by the

24 4th of October, 1993, on the findings. And once again, it is addressed to

25 the same people as before.

1 The last document in this series, 2D 00131, and there we do have a

2 translation, is the 26th of November, 1993. That's the date.

3 We showed yesterday that Mr. Bruno Stojic, during that period of

4 time, was no longer a participant in the Ministry of Defence. Do you

5 agree there? Is that right? Because a new government was established.

6 But regardless of that, the health department, pursuant to the previous

7 requests of Mr. Stojic, continues and says -- he issues the same order.

8 The text is the same as the order of the 28th of September, and here is

9 why. We'll see that if we look at page 2.

10 Quite obviously, the first order was not acted upon, so in this

11 case, in paragraph 15, a deadline is set, and that deadline, the new

12 deadline, is the 4th of December, 1993. Isn't that right.

13 A. Yes, it says so in Article 15 -- or in paragraph 15.

14 Q. Now, have you seen all these documents before, the health care

15 sector documents, and what was undertaken precisely in the period that

16 you deal with in your report?

17 A. I believe I looked at health sector documents when Mr. Ivan

18 Bagaric was set to testify in a prior case and I looked at them then, but

19 I didn't review any of them for this report.

20 Q. But do you not think that for an objective and unbiased report it

21 would be necessary, having seen these reports already, to indicate here

22 and now, both in the report and before this Trial Chamber, what it was

23 that the defence department, because this sector is undoubtedly without

24 its composition in the defence department, so what the defence department

25 did in order to improve the conditions? That's what was expected of you.

1 A. I'm not sure that's necessarily what was expected of me, but I can

2 explain, that I didn't intend to go to this level of detail with what was

3 going on inside the camps, whether or not improvements were being made and

4 if -- if ordered improvements did in fact take place. Not that those

5 aren't important questions, but I did not understand that as my charge as

6 a witness for this report.

7 MR. SCOTT: And I can confirm that it was not his request.

8 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation].

9 Q. If you took an area to study, then you should have said -- this is

10 what you yourself said, you should have shown how things functioned, in

11 what way they functioned, and it is it impossible for you to establish how

12 things functioned if you failed to indicate the details, to point out the

13 details, because otherwise your report, in that portion, will have almost

14 no value at all.

15 Let me remind you that the -- the six people sitting here in court

16 are sitting there because of that.

17 Yes, I'll come to a question. I will come to a question.

18 And I think that if your report deals with one of the most

19 sensitive areas, and if I might note that yesterday the Trial Chamber

20 showed a great deal of interest in that subject matter, then it was your

21 duty to deal with it comprehensively, as a whole, in total, or not deal

22 with it at all. Am I right?

23 MR. SCOTT: Objection, Your Honour. And this time I'm going to

24 refer to the transcript, because I seem to have to keep coming back to

25 this point. The Defence cannot make this witness into something that he

1 was never intended to be. On the first day of his testimony, on page

2 5932, line starting at line 15, I asked the witness: "Now, in that

3 regard, then, again turning to your report, can you tell the Judges

4 essentially what the -- what commission you received, if we can use that

5 terminology, or what assignment were you given in terms of what report to

6 prepare, that is, what to address and include in your report."

7 Line 20 answer: "Yes, it was you yourself, Mr. Scott, who asked

8 me, I think in November of last year, to present a report to the Judges

9 explaining the political and governmental structures and processes of the

10 HVO in its various incarnations, or Herceg-Bosna and its various

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

12 middle 1991 to early 1994."

13 And then he goes on to talk about the basic approach and structure

14 of his report. And as the witness himself has said and as I confirm as

15 the one who gave him his commission, he was never asked to prepare a

16 detailed report on the day-to-day workings of the prisons and that's not

17 why this witness was tendered.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Counsel Nozica, go

19 ahead and ask your final question in order to -- if you consider that, and

20 the Judges will take note of it, if you consider that he wrote a report on

21 structure but that in that report there's a chapter on prisons, or camps,

22 whatever you'd like to call them, on prisoners and camps, and that on the

23 basis of the documents presented during the cross-examination you wish to

24 establish, try to establish, that you were providing proof and evidence as

25 concerns the health care sector, that a lot was done, a great deal was

1 done, and you're endeavouring to prove this on the basis of the documents.

2 That's your thesis. And that you're surprised that the witness did not

3 mention in his expert report that with respect to the medical aspects

4 certain documents prove that there was a minimum of health care.

5 I think that's what you're trying to establish, is it not?

6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. And with your

7 permission, I have one final document to show, and then I will come to my

8 concluding question. But I'd just like to say before that that we mustn't

9 forget that the witness did deal with the report of the health care

10 sector, but that it says nothing about the system and method of work. So

11 my question was precisely to indicate a series of such reports which, if

12 we look at them at the material time, can be of importance for drawing

13 conclusions.

14 I'm now going to ask the usher to place the final document on the

15 ELMO and show it to the witness. It is Defence Exhibit 2D -- it is a

16 report. Yes, 2D 00137 is the number. The document has not been

17 translated. Can we just have it placed on the overhead projector. I'll

18 just deal with it very briefly. But because the document is important, we

19 will tender it into evidence, or be tendering it into evidence. Can we

20 take a look at page 2 of this document straight away, please.

21 Q. Are you familiar with the name Tomo Sakota, sir?

22 A. Vaguely. I know he held a leadership position in one of the

23 prisons, but off the top of my head I don't remember which one.

24 Q. This is a document obtained in the course of our investigations on

25 behalf of Mr. Stojic's Defence. There is a stamp. When tendering into

1 this evidence we'll deal with that, if there is any objections to its

2 authenticity, but can we have a look at the first page, please. I'll just

3 read out what the role of this gentleman was.

4 It says: "Report on the work, on coordinators, prisoners of war

5 in the territory of the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna for the period

6 from the 22nd of July, 1993, to the 25th of December, 1993."

7 We've been dealing with this period, with what the temporary

8 government did, with whom it assigned certain responsibilities with regard

9 to these centres, et cetera, and here it says, "the activity of

10 coordinator for prisoners of war in the territory of the Croatian Republic

11 of Herceg-Bosna was a role I was given by the president mad Boban, and I

12 commenced performing such duties immediately after having been assigned

13 this post in accordance instructions that I received and in accordance

14 with the agreement between the ministers of the foreign affairs of the

15 Republic of Croatia and the president of republic with regard to

16 disbanding camps in the territory of the republic."

17 This shows that there is someone called Tomo Sakota who is the

18 main coordinator and who was appointed that post by Mate Boban, and this

19 bypasses all the structures that you mentioned in your report.

20 A. Is the question, does it bypass the structures?

21 Q. Yes. My question is whether all this shows that within the

22 structures that you dealt with there was also someone who was appointed by

23 Mr. Mate Boban. He made him responsible for all the detention centres or,

24 rather, he was made responsible to be -- to act as the coordinator for

25 inmates and prisoner of war in the territory of the Croatian Republic of

1 Herceg-Bosna. As far as you know --

2 A. Well --

3 Q. -- And on the basis of your -- of the documents you examined, was

4 this person someone from within the system that you examined?

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Nozica, you are showing a

6 document to us dated the 26th of December, 1993, and it appears that

7 there was a coordinator whose responsibility was to take care -- was to

8 disband the prisons. So that was important for the Judges. We want to

9 know when he was appointed as coordinator. Because if he was appointed on

10 the 25th of December, it's not the same as if he was appointed six months

11 earlier on.

12 Do you know when he was appointed to this post?

13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes. It says "A report on the work

14 of the coordinator for inmates and prisoner of war during the period from

15 the 22nd of July, 1993, up until the 25th."

16 If we examine this report, we can draw the conclusion that he was

17 the coordinator during this period of time, but whether that was the case

18 before, we don't know.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I don't draw that conclusion.

20 In fact, he could have been appointed before the 22nd of July. He could

21 have been appointed on the 25th of July and made a report that concerned

22 the overall situation and included the six prior months. So I want to

23 know when he was legally appointed as coordinator.

24 There is a report on the -- on the period from the 22nd of July

25 to the 25th of December. Perhaps he was appointed prior to those dates

1 but I can't be a hundred per cent sure.

2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'd like to be able to answer your

3 question, but the only important thing for us to determine here is that in

4 the second half of 1993, he had been appointed to this position, and this

5 bypassed any other legal structures in the HZ HB. My question for the

6 witness was only whether on the basis of the documents he had examined and

7 on the basis of this document he was aware of the conclusion we might draw

8 from all these matters, namely that a number of activities had been taken,

9 a number of acts had been made that bypassed the legal procedure, as the

10 witness said, dalega [phoen], and this shows that we -- that the witness's

11 conclusion, the Prosecution's conclusion, on the decision of appointment

12 of the 3rd of July, 1993, shows that the defence department was in charge

13 of these centres and all centres in that territory. It shows that this

14 conclusion is erroneous.

15 MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, Your Honour. I'm having a very hard time

16 following this. What decision on the 3rd of July, 1993, are we referring

17 to? Could we have an exhibit reference? And with my greatest respect to

18 my good friend, I don't -- there is nothing in the record that indicates

19 when this man took up this post, absolutely, and we can draw no

20 conclusions based on anything from this document, which most of us in the

21 courtroom cannot read, or many of us, excuse me, many of us cannot read,

22 and we have no idea when this man took the position or what it was.

23 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] If the document says --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ibrisimovic.

25 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. I

1 apologise for interrupting my colleague for P 07341. The Prosecution

2 should be familiar with its own document.

3 THE PROSECUTOR: It would have been helpful Your Honour if that

4 would have been pointed out some time ago again I don't have them

5 committed to memory I must say.

6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I thank my colleague. I have this

7 exhibit among my documents. It doesn't have this number, though, but

8 thank you. This significantly facilitates our task. But I wanted to say

9 that if a report is made for the period commencing the 22nd of July up

10 until the 25th of December, then it's quite logical that this gentleman

11 was the coordinator during that period of time.

12 I have run out of time, and it's obvious I haven't even received

13 an answer to my final question, but since Mr. Bruno Stojic has been

14 mentioned at least 20 or 30 times in the report, and in the course of the

15 examination-in-chief there are at least two subjects that I would like to

16 deal with briefly, although I can't proceed fast enough with the witness,

17 but if we have 15 minutes remaining at the end of this hearing, and I

18 don't want to take any time from my colleagues, but if we have 15 minutes

19 remaining at the end of the hearing I would like to deal with these

20 subjects at that point in time. Thank you.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

22 The next Defence team, please. Ms. Alaburic.

23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

24 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:

25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tomljanovich, my name is Vesna Alaburic.

1 I'm a lawyer from Zagreb and I represent General Milivoj Petkovic.

2 Could you please close your binder to start with, because at

3 least at the beginning you won't need your binder to answer my questions,

4 and the documents that we will later discuss are documents that we'll be

5 able to look at on the screen. That will facilitate our communication,

6 and it will be easier for you to concentrate on my questions. Thank you

7 very much.

8 As my learned friend Mr. Scott has said, your report was supposed

9 to show what the -- what the structure and function of the government in

10 the HZ HB was like or, rather, in the Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna

11 later on; is that correct?

12 A. Yes. Oh. I hadn't finished. Sorry. Yes, specifically the --

13 it was the structures and process -- the political and governmental

14 structures and processes of HZ HB, HR HB, yes. Sorry.

15 Q. Thank you. Was Mr. Mate Boban part of that governmental structure

16 of HZ HB?

17 A. Most definitely.

18 Q. Can you tell us what his role was?

19 A. He was the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. What exactly

20 his role was with the General Staff was mentioned in one of the earlier

21 documents. I believe he also represented Herceg-Bosna abroad as its

22 representative, as a sort of head of -- not a head of state since it's

23 not really a state, but like a head of state as well. He also nominates

24 the cabinet, which is then elected by the Assembly. He has his own staff.

25 That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

1 Q. You said that his first role was that of the leader of the armed

2 forces. Is that because he had some other role, some other position, or

3 was that role as commander of the armed forces one that was assigned to

4 him? So the question is: Did this concern some other role he had?

5 A. No. I believe it's part of his duties as president of the HZ HB

6 and later president of the HR HB.

7 Q. Would you agree with me if I said that as president of the HZ HB

8 and later on of the HR HB Mr. Mate Boban was the highest ranking official

9 in Herceg-Bosna?

10 A. Highest ranking, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean most

11 influential in all periods.

12 Q. Would you agree with me if I said that during the period of time

13 that he has been charged with -- the charges relate to, Mr. Mate Boban was

14 the most powerful person in Herceg-Bosna? He didn't only have this top

15 position, he actually had a significant amount of power?

16 A. He always had a significant amount of power, but I wouldn't agree

17 that he was the most powerful person in Herceg-Bosna through this entire

18 period as his at least de facto political power slips especially towards

19 the end, the end of 1993.

20 Q. Since you wouldn't agree that this statement is valid for the

21 entire period, what period do you believe that that statement is valid

22 for?

23 A. Well, that depends on one other thing too. Let me see here, see

24 the precise wording you had here. Yeah. Most powerful person in

25 Herceg-Bosna. In all periods that depends if you count people are from

1 Herceg-Bosna but not necessarily part of the governing structures like

2 Gojko Susak. But he was a powerful man through most of this period, or

3 all of this period.

4 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, my question only concerns Herceg-Bosna

5 officials. I'm not asking you anything about politicians from the

6 Republic of Croatia, about Secretary-Generals of the UN, or about any

7 other politicians. We are only discussing Herceg-Bosna and the people who

8 worked in the bodies of Herceg-Bosna, and that is what your report focuses

9 on too. So if you cannot say that throughout that period of time Mr. Mate

10 Boban was the most powerful person, tell us during which period of time he

11 certainly was the most powerful person.

12 A. Well, I'll say from the outset that's a very -- because you're

13 asking about power, I think, in de facto political sense rather than

14 constitutional powers, and if that's the case, it would be very hard to

15 separate Boban's own personal power from the power he enjoyed because it

16 was known that he enjoyed the confidence of President Tudjman and -- and

17 Minister Susak. Although in the period of 1992 and early 1993 when he did

18 enjoy that confidence, he was extremely powerful.

19 Q. Very well. Tell us, if Mr. Mate Boban, at least during part of

20 that period, was the most powerful person, how is it that in your report

21 you barely mentioned him? One has the impression that he either didn't

22 exist or he was a totally insignificant person in Herceg-Bosna. How can

23 you explain that? In particular, because Mr. Mate Boban died and is no

24 longer of interest to the Prosecution. Is that perhaps one of reasons?

25 A. No, that's not why. There's a number of reasons, actually. First

1 of all, during this period, Mate Boban was involved very heavily in

2 negotiations abroad and in the peace process and was involved in

3 diplomatic activity, and the diplomatic activity he was involved in falls

4 outside of the scope of this report.

5 The other reason why he doesn't figure prominently in this report

6 is because as far as official decisions and decrees in the Official

7 Gazettes or in our possession from the record of documentation, Mr. Boban

8 is rarely present giving decisions and decrees after October 17, 1993,

9 that directly affect the HVO HZ HB or the HZ HB in general. That's

10 another reason.

11 A third reason is that we have some documents which are supposed

12 to come from his office, but the documentary record from Mr. Boban's

13 office is rather thin, and in the absence of public official materials,

14 there's not that much.

15 My suspicion, though, is that the main reason he doesn't figure

16 very prominently in all of these things is because he had the function of

17 representing Herceg-Bosna externally, and that was his most important duty

18 during this period.

19 Q. With regard to the first explanation you provided, I have another

20 subquestion. If the president of your state spent a lot of time outside

21 the borders of the USA, would you exclude him from an analysis of the

22 structure of the political system of government in the USA? You could

23 just say yes or no.

24 A. To this question, no.

25 Q. Thank you. Would you agree with me if I said that since there is

1 no explanation of the role of the president of the HZ HB, your explanation

2 of the structure of government in the HZ HB is not complete?

3 A. No, I disagree with that. I wouldn't say I don't explain his

4 role. I cite all the founding documents in which his powers are outlined.

5 I cite all of the orders and decrees which he signed, especially 3rd of

6 July and in the early period when he was particularly active doing so. So

7 I wouldn't think so, although I will add that I would like to have more

8 hard archival material from the desk of Mate Boban, who, by the way,

9 wasn't in Mostar physically during much of this period either, when he was

10 in Herceg-Bosna.

11 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, tell us, do you know which methodology and

12 parameters used to analyse the way in which a certain political system

13 operates?

14 A. You can use all sorts of methodologies and parameters.

15 Methodologies in this kind of research, it's a bit like talking about, you

16 know, hunting and fishing. If you're going after small fish, you use a

17 hook. If you're going after an elephant, you use a very large gun. It

18 depends on the questions you need answered.

19 Q. If you were familiar with the methods used, you'd be able to

20 understand my question, but the analysis of unofficial centres of power in

21 a territorial unit, is such an analysis important to be able to define the

22 way a given system functions within such a community?

23 A. Yes, it would be in such an analysis.

24 Q. I can draw the conclusion when you say "such an analysis," this

25 implies that you don't consider your report to be such an analysis,

1 because you haven't even dealt with the subject of unofficial centres of

2 power in your report.

3 A. There's two --

4 Q. Please be brief. Just say yes or no.

5 A. No --

6 Q. It's not necessary to go into details.

7 A. That's -- no, excuse me. I didn't answer just no. I was going to

8 say that's not a question I can answer yes or no.

9 Q. I haven't got time to go into details, to expand on this subject.

10 These were just introductory remarks that I wanted to obtain. But would

11 you agree with my conclusion that your report is not in fact an analysis

12 of the structure and functioning of the government in HZ HB or, rather,

13 the HR HB, but as you have said quite explicitly in paragraph 1 of your

14 report, it's an overview of the work of the government on the basis of the

15 rules and decisions that were primarily published in the national Gazette

16 and they were also found in the Croatian archives; is that correct?

17 A. No, would I not agree with that conclusion.

18 Q. Very well. Since I'm defending the general who was the Chief of

19 the Main Staff in this case, I will now focus mainly on the subject of the

20 military structure of the HZ HB, but first of all, I have a different

21 question I'd like to put to you.

22 You said that you cooperated with colleagues from the

23 Prosecution --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, I've been

25 following the question that you put to the witness very carefully, and you

1 mentioned unofficial centres of power. You asked him whether he had

2 studied them. The answer was -- well, he didn't provide a precise answer.

3 If you put the question to him, that means that you have certain

4 information. Can't you add to your question, supplement your question and

5 say if that's what I have said? "Well, why didn't you put that into your

6 report?" We can see you're trying to show that his report isn't complete,

7 but we aren't in the know. What are these unofficial centres of power

8 that have just come out of the blue? We as Judges know nothing about

9 this. Perhaps it would be good to continue with this subject.

10 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will try to provide

11 an explanation, but I don't believe it's necessary to expand on this

12 subject, ask any questions on this subject. I believe that this report

13 cannot be considered as an analysis of the functioning --

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As you wish.

15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] If I may just complete my sentence.

16 It can't be considered to be an analysis of the functioning of a political

17 system because it focuses exclusively on the level -- on the legislative

18 level. There is a formal and legal analysis, an analysis of how a

19 political system functions has to include a number of parameters, and this

20 would include informal centres of powers, lobbies, et cetera. This would

21 have to provide the basis for such analysis.

22 Since I am also a political scientist and this is a very

23 interesting subject for me, to expand on this subject would require a lot

24 of time, and I don't think I can allow myself to use the little time that

25 has been allocated to me to demonstrate that this report doesn't -- isn't

1 an analysis of how the system functions because anyone who knows anything

2 about political science knows that this is not the case. This is just a

3 report that concerns general laws adopted in Herceg-Bosna. It's an

4 overview of certain documents, but I think that as we move on we'll also

5 shed some light on these unofficial centres of power.

6 But with your leave, I would now like to carry on with my

7 cross-examination, and I would like to ask the registrar to show P 09689

8 on the screen, page 5. It concerns the structure of the military forces.

9 It's -- it's a chart that concerns the military forces.

10 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, when we were discussing the first part of this

11 chart, you said that you cooperated with the Prosecution when this chart

12 was made. My question is: Did you cooperate with the Prosecution when

13 this chart that concerns the military forces was made?

14 A. Well, this chart concerns both the military and the HVO HZ HB and

15 the HZ HB Presidency, but if you're asking about the part on the defence

16 department, I was there but I wasn't the one who was the authority for

17 the --

18 Q. This is page 1. Could we please say page 5, the armed forces

19 chart, not political and military organisation but only armed forces?

20 A. Uh-huh.

21 Q. Did you participate in drawing up this chart?

22 A. Only insofar to make sure the diacritic marks were correct. This

23 chart was prepared by military analysts.

24 Q. You told us today that Mr. Mate Boban was the commander-in-chief

25 of the armed forces. Can you indicate where on this chart the Supreme

1 Commander of the armed forces is represented?

2 A. It's not represented on this chart.

3 Q. Thank you. May we conclude, then, that this chart is incomplete?

4 A. Well, with all of these organigrammes the idea wasn't to have the

5 complete structure but a simplified version of the structure which would

6 be of assistance to the Judges. In the general -- in the general chart,

7 if you look at the general chart of the HZ HB and the HR HB, there is a

8 line going from the General Staff to Mate Boban. It's just that this is

9 down in the armed forces proper, and he's not proper in the armed forces.

10 Q. Tell us, please, does the Supreme Command of the armed forces

11 belong to the armed forces or not?

12 A. That's a question you'd have to ask a military analyst.

13 Q. Does the president of a parliament belong to a parliament? Does

14 the Prime Minister belong to the cabinet? Does the Supreme Commander of

15 the armed forces belong to the armed forces?

16 A. Well, if response to the three questions, the first question, yes.

17 The second question, yes. And the third question, I don't know. And I

18 think it would depend on what you mean by "in the armed forces," which is

19 a semantic question. He certainly is --

20 Q. Does a chart representing the armed forces, if it wishes to be

21 complete, have to include the Supreme Commander to see who is in charge?

22 If you feel that it doesn't, just say so.

23 A. Well, this isn't the only chart in the binder, so I don't think

24 it's necessary to put him on this particular chart.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: On page 2 we have a comprehensive chart and there

1 we have a small annex on the right side at the bottom which says "armed

2 forces." Would it be correct to assume that what we find on page 5, a

3 sort of blow-up of this red square.

4 THE WITNESS: That's exactly what it is, as a matter of fact.

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Than would explain why the others are not

6 included.

7 THE WITNESS: Yes. As a matter of fact, I remember when we were

8 putting these together back in December, the idea was to have the first

9 few charts to outline the larger scheme and then to move into more

10 detailed organigrammes.

11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Could I remind Your Honours, as I

12 have provided all the documents I wish to put to the witness, that we will

13 come back to the large chart a little later on.

14 Now I would like to finish dealing with this particular chart as

15 an independent document. So can we come back to it, please.

16 Q. What would you say, Mr. Tomljanovich, what is the Main Staff

17 according to this chart? Would you say that the Main Staff is part of the

18 armed forces?

19 A. Yes, I would. In my non-expert opinion, and I'm not an expert on

20 the military issues.

21 Q. Can you tell us, as you have studied the legislation of

22 Herceg-Bosna, on what legislation do you base this conclusion?

23 A. Which conclusion, that I'm not an expert on military issues? Or

24 the conclusion that they were part of the armed forces? It's my -- okay.

25 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, I think that based on the legislation of

1 Herceg-Bosna you couldn't decide whether you were an expert or not, so

2 that comment is out of place.

3 The question referred to your conclusion that the Main Staff is

4 part of the armed forces of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I'm asking you on what

5 piece of legislation you base such a conclusion.

6 A. Off the top of my head, the Main Staff and its place is outlined

7 in the Decree on defence and the amended decree on defence. It's

8 mentioned in Mr. Stojic's order on the internal organisation of defence.

9 And there should be third place that's mentioned but I can't think of it

10 off the top of any head.

11 Q. I wish to put P 00588 to the witness. It's a decree on the armed

12 forces.

13 A. Excuse me, may I look at my own copies of this particular decree?

14 No? Okay.

15 Q. I would like to stick to e-court so that we are all on an equal

16 footing.

17 The decree on the armed forces, the consolidated text from

18 November. 1992, the part that refers to the armed forces begins with

19 Article 21. So could the witness be shown Article 21 to 28 inclusive. So

20 there's command and control. You can look at the entire decree also, and

21 you will see that nowhere is the Main Staff positioned as a part of the

22 armed forces.

23 A. It's hard to skim through this document on e-court.

24 Q. Would you take me at my word that the Main Staff is mentioned in

25 Article 11? Could article 11 be shown to the witness, please, which says

1 that for the performance of specific tasks, and these are listed, the Main

2 Staff is formed within the scope of the defence department and a commander

3 in chief of the armed forces points the leading personnel in the Main

4 Staff. If you take me at my word that these are the only provisions where

5 the Main Staff is mentioned, would you agree with the conclusion that the

6 decree on the armed forces does not provide any basis to conclude that the

7 Main Staff is part of the armed forces?

8 A. If -- if I'm taking you at your word and it's not said so -- it's

9 not made part of the armed forces in this particular document explicitly.

10 Q. Thank you. Could the witness now be shown the first chart from

11 the same exhibit, the political and military structure of the HZ HB. This

12 is P 096810, page 1 from this set of charts, and it refers to the

13 political and military structure.

14 We've already had it on the screen. Yes. It seems we have it

15 now.

16 Mr. Tomljanovich, who is at the top of this chart?

17 A. Mr. Mate Boban.

18 Q. In view of the fact that he was president of the HZ HB and the

19 supreme commander, could we just establish very quickly some parts of this

20 chart, which I need for my purposes, is it beyond doubt that the HVO HZ HB

21 is the executive branch or the cabinet?

22 A. Yes. And from 17th of October, 1992, it's also the legislative

23 branch.

24 Q. You're referring, when you said --

25 A. [Previous translation continues] ...

1 Q. -- legislative to the HVO HZ HB, while the HVO presided over by

2 Mr. Prlic or the HVO presided over by somebody else?

3 A. Well, if you make a reference to the HVO HZ HB, that's -- that's

4 the body here in the middle of the chart presided over by Mr. Prlic.

5 Q. Yes. That's what the chart says. In your view, then, this body

6 also had legislative functions?

7 A. It had -- not only did it have legislative functions, it took over

8 the legislative functions of the HZ HB Presidency after the 17th of

9 October, 1992. On a temporary basis, but it did.

10 Q. Well, these are two different bases, but we'll move on.

11 Would you agree that the military police was a special

12 organisational unit within the defence department?

13 A. Oh, boy. The place of the military police relative to either the

14 armed forces or the defence department gets way beyond what I'm capable of

15 talking about as a non-military expert. It's subordinated to the military

16 defence department, but it's -- the place of the military police in that

17 structure is something I really can't talk about with authority.

18 Q. But I'm only asking you to read the chart. So far you've only

19 been reading and commenting on what was written down or drawn, so please

20 continue doing so.

21 According to this chart, is there a -- military police separate

22 unit within the defence department? Yes or no? It's very simple. We're

23 wasting too much time on simple things.

24 A. It's underneath the defence department. It's underneath

25 Mr. Coric, who is in the defence department, but in this chart the

1 military police aren't in the box for the defence department.

2 Q. Was the military police directly subordinated according to this

3 chart to the assistant minister for security and also according to the

4 documents you studied?

5 A. Yeah, directly in the second instance.

6 Q. Are there grounds to conclude, then, that the military police did

7 not fall within the authority of the Main Staff?

8 A. There's grounds to think so, although I couldn't tell you if it in

9 fact did.

10 Q. The Main Staff is presented here as a special organisational unit

11 within the defence department; is that correct?

12 A. Yes, it is.

13 Q. The Main Staff is simultaneously subordinated to the Supreme

14 Commander of the armed forces who is the president of the HZ HB. So it is

15 subordinated to two persons, the minister of defence and the Supreme

16 Commander; is that correct?

17 A. Yes, it is.

18 Q. The armed forces are outside this box. They are shown as a

19 separate unit.

20 A. Yes, they are.

21 Q. I will read to you, and if you want to go back to the provisions

22 to check whether what I've read out is correct you can do so. The armed

23 forces are defined in Article 25 [as interpreted], paragraph 5, as

24 follows: The armed forces are organised as command units and

25 institutions. The armed forces are organised into commands, units, and

1 institutions.

2 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters do not have the original

3 document.

4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation].

5 Q. Based on what we've said so far, I'll offer you a few

6 conclusions.

7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me. What text are you quoting from? Not

8 the decree on the armed forces.

9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] The decree on the armed forces, P

10 00588, Article 24, paragraph 5.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Oh. I had understood Article 25. Sorry. That's

12 what it -- in that case, it might be an idea to correct the transcript,

13 because there you find Article 25 mentioned. That's what I had heard.

14 It's a slip of the tongue perhaps.

15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. I do see that in -- in

16 the transcript, page 69 -- there is an error. It should say 24, not

17 Article 25.

18 Q. According to this organisational chart, would you agree with me

19 that the term "HVO" refers exclusively to the executive branch presided

20 over by Mr. Jadranko Prlic?

21 A. Well, I don't have the chart in front of me.

22 Q. Can we go back, please? If we can go back to P 09689, page 1.

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. So the concept of HVO is linked exclusively to this body of

25 executive power. Would you agree that the armed -- that the army is

1 calmed the armed forces of the HZ HB, not of the HVO? And would you agree

2 with me that the Supreme Commander of the armed forces is the president of

3 the HZ HB?

4 A. Well, yes. I explained yesterday that the HVO HZ HB is the name

5 of the cabinet officially, but it gets called the cabinet colloquially.

6 There are municipal governments which are also HVOs. And colloquially

7 people do call the armed forces the HVO, but in official legislation it's

8 call the armed forces of the HZ HB. And Mr. Boban is the Supreme

9 Commander. Or was.

10 Q. Yes. Well, we are dealing with a de jure analysis now, so we'll

11 stick to the terminology used in the legislation.

12 We can remove this chart now, and I will now put to you a number

13 of questions in order to show that all communication in the direction of

14 the armed forces did not flow exclusively through the Main Staff as could

15 be concluded from this chart, but that, rather, this communication flow

16 was much more complex. And this will be very important for us in these

17 proceedings when establishing responsibility and possible omissions to

18 prevent or punish.

19 Could we now please look at the decree on the armed forces, P

20 00588. I will try to quickly go through some of the key provisions in

21 order to define the powers of individual bodies of Herceg-Bosna in

22 relation to the armed forces. Let's begin with Article 26, paragraph 1.

23 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] A question to the registrar. Would

24 it be easier if I were to say what page it was in the English text, as my

25 case manager has the page numbers?

1 THE REGISTRAR: It would be easiest if you told us the e-court

2 page numbers, Ms. Alaburic.

3 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I -- oh, the number's down here.

4 Article 26, 0030132. I see it's here now. If we -- yes. Yes. We can

5 see Article 26 here.

6 Q. Article 26, paragraph 1, reads as follows -- oh, this is not the

7 document. Excuse me. The Croatian text is the wrong document, but as the

8 witness reads English -- now I see that there is an error in the

9 translation in the English text. Article 26 reads: "The total size,

10 structure, and composition of the armed forces shall be prescribed by the

11 HVO, which will also prescribe the formations and the dynamics of

12 mobilisation."

13 May we conclude, based on this provision, that the HVO, rather

14 than the Main Staff, decides on the structure or formations and dynamics

15 of mobilisation?

16 A. Yes. That's exactly what it says in this article.

17 Q. Could we now look at article 29 of this decree. In paragraph 1 it

18 says that: "The Supreme Commander establishes the basics of the structure

19 of the armed forces."

20 So may we conclude that this is not something that is decided by

21 the Main Staff?

22 A. No. This is a power given to the supreme commander.

23 Q. That's right. Article 9, paragraph 1 of the decree. 00300126.

24 It reads as follows: "The defence plan of the HZ HB shall be

25 adopted by the HVO."

1 So may we conclude that the Main Staff does not decide on the

2 defence plan?

3 A. I don't have it on the screen, but, yes, I do remember that.

4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I -- excuse me. May I come back to Articles

5 26 and 29? I have the feeling that between Article 26, paragraph 1, and

6 Article 29, paragraph 1, there is a kind of an medley because both the

7 Supreme Commander determines the basic structure, the system, but the HVO

8 also prescribes the structure and the numbers and the dynamics, the

9 structure or formations. Is there a clear dividing line between the

10 competencies of the HVO on the one side and the president on the other

11 side? And how did it work in practice, if you know?

12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] By your leave, Your Honours, I can

13 explain why I didn't put that question. I didn't put it because I feel

14 that the delineations are clear, the distinctions are clear. The Supreme

15 Commander establishes the basics of the structure, whereas the structure

16 itself is established by the HVO. And in all the countries of the former

17 Yugoslavia, the higher level always decided on the basics, and then the

18 lower level would deal with the details.

19 Q. Do you agree with this explanation, Mr. Tomljanovich?

20 A. Well, the last part, yes, although the first part it's only clear

21 insofar as you can clearly define "basic." If you know exactly what the

22 difference is between the basic decisions and the general decisions which

23 follow after it, then it's clear. But from this alone, I don't know what

24 exactly that means.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Are you aware of any document which shows the

1 decisions taken by the president on these basic structures?

2 THE WITNESS: No, I am not, but I was deliberately not looking at

3 military structures.

4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation].

5 Q. If we can move on. Article 9, point 3 of the decree, it's

6 00300126, prescribes that the HVO determines the amount is of and the ways

7 of safeguarding the financial means for the needs and tasks of defence.

8 So is it the Main Staff that determines these issues?

9 A. No. And I know from other evidence that it was -- the cabinet had

10 to deal with the financing of the military.

11 Q. As for mobilisation, Article 37 of the decree, number 00300135,

12 reads as follows: "Mobilisation of the armed forces is ordered by the

13 president of the HZ HB."

14 That's point one. So it's the president of the HZ HB who orders

15 mobilisation.

16 And let's go back to Article 9 now, the competencies of the HVO,

17 point 6, page 00300135. The president orders, but the HVO decides on

18 implementing mobilisation.

19 So can we conclude that the Main Staff has no authority to decide

20 on mobilisation?

21 A. That's implicit here, and I've also never seen any mobilisation

22 orders issued by the Main Staff.

23 Q. Thank you.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's 20 to 6.00. It's time to

25 have our 20-minute break now. We'll resume at 6.00 p.m.

1 --- Recess taken at 5.40 p.m.

2 --- On resuming at 6.00 p.m.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed.

4 Counsel Alaburic.

5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

6 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, the sixth topic on the -- provision on the armed

7 forces, Article 29 of the decree, it's page 10 on e-court, it is control

8 and command, and Article 29 of that decree states that the Supreme

9 Commander shall determine the basic structure of the armed forces and

10 the system of control and command. We're talking about point 1 of Article

11 29.

12 May we then conclude that the system of control and command is

13 something that the Main Staff does not decide upon?

14 A. If you're using "control and command" as a military term of art, I

15 can't answer that.

16 Q. Not in the military sense but in the legal sense, as it is set out

17 in the article, in the decree. If you cannot interpret it in the legal

18 sense, then I'll move on to the next topic.

19 May I then take the nodding of your head as an affirmative answer

20 to my question?

21 A. An affirmative answer that I could not answer the question, yes.

22 Q. May I then take it as a lack of legal knowledge that makes it

23 impossible for you to answer the question about the contents of Article 29

24 of the decree, point 2 of the decree on the armed forces? Is it a lack of

25 legal knowledge which prevents you answering my question?

1 A. Well, I can say -- it might be a problem with the translation,

2 because in the translation your question mentions control and command. In

3 the original, it's a system of leading and commanding, a system of, and

4 setting up the system of leading and commanding doesn't necessarily mean

5 command and control in a military sense, from what little I know about

6 it.

7 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, I was very precise when I spoke about control

8 and command, and if you interpreted legal norms then you must know the

9 title defines the contents, and the portion of Article 29 means control

10 and command of the armed forces. So anybody who has elementary legal

11 literacy, there can be no doubt that this system of control and command

12 relates to the armed forces, and that is why I can just repeat my question

13 once we've seen the heading whether from this provision it emanates that

14 the Supreme Commander is the person and not the Main Staff who determines

15 the system of control and command of the armed forces.

16 A. Yes, the basic structure of control -- of leading and commanding,

17 yes.

18 Q. We'll move on to my seventh question, still on control and

19 command, Article 31. Once again page 10 of the decree. Article 31

20 states: "Control and command of the armed forces shall be carried out

21 through -- by commanders of the armed forces in accord wants

22 authorisations given them."

23 And I'd like to draw your attention to the plural of the

24 word "commander," that is to say commanders. The word is used in the

25 plural.

1 Now, if we link that article up to Article 24, point 5, which

2 defines the armed forces -- Article 24. I think it's on the previous

3 page, which makes it page 9. Let me remind you the armed forces are

4 defined in the following manner: "The armed forces are organised in

5 commands, units, and institutions." When those two provisions are

6 interpreted together, and that's what you do when you interpret a

7 provision, would it be well-founded to conclude that control and command

8 in the armed forces is carried out by the commanders and commands, the

9 commanders of units, and the commanders of institutions, because they are

10 the three elements of the armed forces? Or in more simpler terms, would

11 it be correct to say that the Chief of the Main Staff is not mentioned in

12 Article 31 on control and command in the armed forces?

13 A. Not explicitly, no.

14 Q. Thank you. We'll move on to Article 29, also on page 10 of the

15 decree, and it is the plan for deployment and --

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] May I intervene, counsel. I

17 understood that the expert said from the very beginning that he didn't

18 write a report on the -- on military issues, on the military, that it was

19 on political structures, but that did he not focus on military issues,

20 whereas for almost half an hour or more than half an hour you've been

21 asking him questions of a military nature, control and command, et cetera.

22 I'm sure there will be other experts more qualified or better placed to

23 answer that kind of question.

24 If you want to waste your time, you're free to do so, but I think

25 that this type of question, which is very interesting, can be better asked

1 of officers and military experts rather than this witness who, in fact,

2 filed a report focusing on structures -- political structures, and he did

3 not focus on typically military issues. So you're going into detail here.

4 Because then we'll have to look at the rules and regulations governing the

5 former JNA. So perhaps this isn't the right person to ask those

6 questions. But if you wish to use your time that way, you're free to do

7 so.

8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the expertise of

9 Mr. Tomljanovich has to do with military matters as well, includes

10 military questions. He quoted the decree on the armed forces. He

11 mentioned other regulations relating to the army. He defined or, rather,

12 he attempted to define the place and role of the Main Staff and also the

13 Supreme Commander of the armed forces. So this witness confirmed the

14 organigrammes that were prepared by the Prosecution, and in those

15 organigrammes, in my opinion, the position is -- positions are incorrectly

16 depicted.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I didn't understand it that way.

18 I understood that on the organigrammes he was asked to define certain

19 terms in B/C/S, but I didn't understand that he took part in compiling the

20 organigramme. That's not what I understood. He gave his contribution as

21 a linguist with the terms used but not the contents, the subject matter

22 and the contents and the links and relationships between the individual

23 boxes in the chart.

24 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, but the

25 witness did tell us that he explicitly took part in the preparation of the

1 first organigramme which shows the military and political structure. He

2 said so explicitly. He said something else with respect to the

3 organigramme of the armed forces.

4 Can we ask him and he can perhaps confirm it? We can look at the

5 transcript.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Did you take part in the

7 intellectual compiling of the organigramme for the armed forces?

8 THE WITNESS: No.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what I understood.

10 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I might be of

11 assistance. In the report of the expert witness, I don't know the P

12 number but it's been on our table, page 39 until page 47, we have a

13 chapter which says "defence bodies." That's the heading of the chapter,

14 defence bodies. And that deals with part of what we see in the

15 organigrammes. So this expert witness, in his report, within the

16 frameworks of this topic political and administrative organisation of the

17 HR HZ HB, does provide a section on defence or, rather, the army. It's

18 another matter whether he treats this at a formal level and says that this

19 is what is derived from the rules and regulations. But as far as I can

20 see, my colleague is showing us the regulations and reading us as they

21 stand, as they're set out, and I think that that's something that we must

22 do, because the witness is offering the Trial Chamber the wrong

23 conclusions.

24 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I don't want to ask

25 this witness any military questions. This is a witness who is showing us

1 the structure of power and authority, including military, as recorded in

2 regulations. Now, what I as Defence counsel for the general who was the

3 head of the Main Staff at the time, was whether this communication towards

4 the armed forces went exclusively via the Main Staff or whether the

5 Supreme Commander had direct authority over the armed forces and also

6 other bodies of the HZ HB. And this will be a very important point in

7 defining the place, role, and responsibility of each of the accused in

8 this trial. And of course I am most interested in the position of my own

9 client, and of course Mr. Praljak, too, who occupied the same function.

10 So the function of the Main Staff is what I'm interested in.

11 So with your permission, I have only legal questions. The

12 conclusion must be that a link be established between --

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if you're interested in

14 that, go ahead.

15 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel kindly be asked to slow down.

16 Thank you.

17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation].

18 Q. We left off with Article 31, where it says that control and

19 command in the armed forces is exercised by the commanders of the armed

20 forces in conformity with their authorisations, Article 31 of that decree.

21 And my question was as follows: In that provision or article, no mention

22 is made of the Chief of the Main Staff. Your answer to that was: "Not

23 explicitly."

24 Then my next -- then I put my next question, before we entered

25 into polemics, that the plan for the use and deployment of the armed

1 forces, and I'm referring to Article 20 --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It wasn't polemics. It was an

3 observation. I'm listening to what you're saying carefully, and I noted

4 you used the word "polemic." It wasn't a polemic. It was just to see how

5 we use time. It was an observation on my part.

6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. It was not

7 my intention to say that you entered into polemics with anybody. I just

8 understood this discussion as an attempt to clarify certain matters. So

9 the concept of comment is a very positive concept, and it was not my

10 intention to say anything bad. So I apologise.

11 Q. Article 29 of the decree, and at -- the topic is the plan and

12 orders for the deployment of the armed forces. Point 2 explicitly states

13 that the Supreme Commander shall issue the plan of utilisation of armed

14 forces and order their use. And the logical conclusion from that is that

15 the Main Staff is not the body that is authorised to issue orders to the

16 armed forces. Does that emerge from this article?

17 A. No, it does not. It doesn't expressly forbid the Main Staff from

18 making orders.

19 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich --

20 JUDGE PRANDLER: May I say a few words now? And of course I do

21 not want to take away too much time from the Defence and Ms. Alaburic but

22 since the issue of the place of the Main Staff of the armed forces had in

23 a number of occasions been raised by Ms. Alaburic, I would like to draw

24 her attention to the fact that in the report which -- which we now have in

25 our hands, on page -- I mean report by expert Tomljanovich, page 43, and

1 on page 43 we find paragraph 106, 106, and that one speaks about, and I

2 quote: "The place of the Main Staff of the armed forces was spelled out

3 in article 9 of the decision on the basic principles of organisation of

4 the defence department."

5 And of course if there in a way six major indents, I don't want to

6 read them all, but just to say -- let's say if we take number 4 of those

7 paragraphs: "The Chief of the Main Staff shall be directly responsible to

8 the president of the HZ HB for all issues relating to the Supreme Command,

9 unit organisation, strategic and operative plans, and the use of the armed

10 forces in time of war or peace."

11 And then the next indent says: "The Chief of the Main Staff

12 should exercise superior authority over the command of the HVO within the

13 scope of general and specific powers vested in him by the president of the

14 HZ HB."

15 And finally, I quote the sixth incident: "The brigade commanders

16 shall be subordinate and responsible to the president of the HZ HB as the

17 commander-in-chief of the armed forces and to the head of the defence

18 department and Chief of the Main Staff within the scope of the

19 responsibilities in accordance with the powers described above."

20 I really believe this decision in Article 9 of the decision of the

21 basic principles are quite clear enough to give us satisfaction that we

22 know something about the structure of the defence forces in -- in that

23 particular instance.

24 Thank you.

25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I thank you for

1 intervening, because you have enabled me to explain the error in this

2 expertise.

3 If the regulation that you mentioned compared to the article that

4 I'm talking about now, it is the relationship between the laws and bylaws.

5 Now, this article that I'm trying to analyse at present would be called,

6 according to that terminology, a law, the -- what you mentioned would be a

7 bylaw.

8 Now, is this decision in conformity with the provision as a higher

9 regulation on the basis of which the decision was taken in the first

10 place. And the second, more important point, is whether the expert has

11 correctly quoted the contents of the decision to which he refers. In

12 continuation of the cross-examination, we'll arrive at that decision. I

13 wanted to look at the article first, and I will show that this is

14 incorrect quotation of the decision to which the witness refers, the

15 expert witness refers.

16 So I'd like to ask you to allow me to do this, since we're

17 paraphrasing Mr. Karnavas in saying that step-by-step we'll arrive at that

18 decision.

19 Q. The ninth question, if I might be allowed to continue, linked to

20 the decree and the demarcation of the authorities that each of the bodies

21 had, is noted in Article 30, paragraph 2, or point 2. It is page 10 on

22 e-court. And that article states as follows: "The Supreme Commander of

23 the armed forces may delegate certain tasks in control and command of the

24 armed forces to the head of the defence department."

25 You can read all the subsequent provisions. The conclusion that

1 can be drawn from this is that tasks of control and command of the armed

2 forces cannot be given to somebody else, delegated to somebody else.

3 Now, my question is: By this provision, is the Supreme Commander

4 authorised to delegate his authorisations to a representative or head of

5 the defence department?

6 A. It says here explicitly that the Supreme Commander may delegate

7 certain tasks of leading and commanding the armed forces to the head of

8 the defence department.

9 Q. Thank you. Now, appointment and relieving of duty. Article 34,

10 page 11 on e-court. Article 34, please. It states as follows: "The

11 commander in the armed forces shall appoint commanders of the armed forces

12 and relieve of duty. First of all the president of the HZ HB, the

13 commanders of brigades and high-ranking officers shall be appointed or

14 replaced by the head of the defence department or by commanders appointed

15 by him."

16 According to this article or any other rules and regulations of

17 the HZ HB, does it emerge that the Main Staff did not have any

18 authorisation in the appointment of officers or anybody else in the armed

19 forces?

20 A. Well, I wouldn't word it like that. I would say the commanders

21 would be appointed by the president, and commands of brigades are

22 appointed by the defence department or by commanders appointed by him.

23 And I don't know who that is and if that could include the Chief of Staff,

24 but there it is.

25 Q. No, no, no. You're reading it wrong. The president of the HZ HB

1 shall appoint high-ranking officers and the head of the defence department

2 and the commanders that he authorises appoints the rest.

3 I don't know what this says in English, how it's been translated

4 in the English version, but that is what it says in the Croatian text.

5 A. I was looking at the English. Let me look at the Croatian now, if

6 I may, and answer that again. Yeah. Commanders in the armed forces are

7 appointed by the president of the HZ HB, and then it says: "Commanders of

8 brigades and high-ranking officers: The president --" well. No. Well,

9 colon. "The president -- or chief of --" should I just read it into the

10 record in Croatian?

11 [Interpretation] Article 34: "Commanders of the armed forces

12 shall be appointed and relieved of duty by: The president of the HZ HB.

13 The commanders of brigades and high-ranking officers: Shall be appointed

14 or replaced by the head of the defence department or by commanders

15 appointed by him."

16 Q. May we then conclude commanders of the armed forces are appointed

17 and relieved of duty by president of the HZ HB and that commanders of

18 brigades and high ranking officers shall be appointed by the head of the

19 defence department and by commanders that he authorises to do so. As to

20 the other officers -- is that what you wanted to say?

21 A. I think that was what I said in the first place.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I have a question on this. What are the

23 commanders of the armed forces?

24 THE WITNESS: In this context, I don't know if it's the chief

25 commanders or if it's brigade commanders or any commanders. As far as I

1 know it's not clear, but then again I'm not a military expert, so I don't

2 know.

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: It can't logically be commanders of brigades

4 because they come in the next paragraph.

5 THE WITNESS: Exactly.

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Are there several commanders in the armed

7 forces.

8 THE WITNESS: Yes the --

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: According to the zones.

10 THE WITNESS: There's the zones between the top and brigades.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes. I'm sorry for having interrupted.

12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation].

13 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, on the basis of Article 34, does it emerge

14 without any doubt that the Main Staff does not have the authority to

15 appoint and relieve of duty?

16 A. Only if they're authorised by the president or the chief of the

17 Department of Defence to do so. They're not explicitly given that power

18 here.

19 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Now, tell me, to the best of your

20 knowledge when analysing the functioning of a political system, the

21 authorisation of a body to appoint and relieve of duty, is it important

22 with respect to the influence that body has, wields, or is it a negligible

23 function?

24 A. It's usually a very important function.

25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.

1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Can you hear me now? [In English]

2 Okay.

3 Q. We now come to another topic, combat materiel, Article 41 of this

4 decree. Page 13 on e-court.

5 It says that "HVO defence department shall take exclusively charge

6 of supplying the armed forces with materiel (weapons and ammunition)."

7 And equipment, food, financial means, as well as meeting sanitary,

8 veterinary and other needs shall be carried out by the HVO defence

9 department in cooperation with other HVO departments and other bodies and

10 institutions.

11 Now, my question to you is this: Are there grounds to conclude

12 that the Main Staff does not have any authorisation in taking care and

13 furnishing the armed forces with combat material and materiel?

14 A. They're not given the authority to do so in this article. It's

15 given to the defence department.

16 Q. Thank you. I'll move on to another provision, the decision on

17 ranks, conferring ranks and promoting to higher ranks, and on promoting

18 members of the armed forces of the HZ HB. This is Prosecution Exhibit P

19 00295. 295. And you mention this in paragraph 38 of your report.

20 In Article 7 of that decision, page 2 of the electronic version,

21 reference is made on conferring rank and promotion. If we read through

22 this brief provision, we can come to the conclusion that authority to

23 promote and award ranks is vested in the president of the HZ HB, the head

24 of the defence department, and unit commanders, commanders of units in

25 the armed forces who are authorised by the head of the defence

1 department.

2 Can one come to the conclusion that the Main Staff has no role to

3 play when it comes to conferring ranks and to promoting personnel?

4 A. The Main Staff isn't mentioned at all in this article.

5 Q. And tell us, is it important to know who has the authority to

6 confer ranks and promote individuals to higher positions in an army? Is

7 it important to know who has such influence and power in such a military

8 organisation?

9 A. [Previous translation continues] ...

10 Q. Thank you. Let's move on to the third decision on the structure

11 of the defence department. Judge Prandler has already referred to this.

12 I'd just like to point out something that's incorrect in paragraph 106.

13 The expert mentioned the control of the HVO Main Staff, and in a footnote,

14 if I have noted this correctly, he refers to Exhibit 589. It's footnote

15 179. Exhibit 00586 is a decision on the establishment of a branch of the

16 Supreme Court in the territory of the HZ HB in a time of war, and an

17 imminent threat of war, and my conclusion is that this is an error, and

18 the footnote should have the number 00586, which is a decision on the

19 basic principles of organisation of the defence department.

20 Could we please have a look at that decision in its electronic

21 form.

22 Let's have a look at D, items 9 to 11, that concern the Main

23 Staff. The witness has referred to this in his -- in his report. He

24 quotes from that document. Could we focus on the penultimate passage

25 here. And reference was made by one of the Honourable Judges to this

1 passage too.

2 If we have the English and Croatian version. We've already

3 discussed this decision, because Judge Trechsel said he failed to

4 understand this document. In the Croatian language, the title is in -- as

5 part of the specific authorities of the president of the HZ HB, the Chief

6 of the Main Staff is above the command of the Croatian Defence Council.

7 This provision doesn't contain what is stated in paragraph 106 in the

8 report, the penultimate passage.

9 In the report it says the Chief of the Main Staff has Supreme

10 Command over the command of the HVO within the scope of the general and

11 specific powers vested in him by the president of the HZ HB.

12 Mr. Tomljanovich, my question is where does this sentence appear

13 from, the sentence which is in dispute, since it isn't contained in the

14 decision that the Prosecution forwarded to us?

15 A. May I look at my report to see what it is I'm supposed to be

16 talking about?

17 Q. You may. As far as I'm concerned, it's paragraph 106. It's not a

18 problem for you to look at it.

19 A. Yes. And which paragraph are you referring to?

20 Q. Paragraph 106.

21 A. [Previous translation continues] ...

22 Q. It's the penultimate passage, penultimate item.

23 A. Well, to me this appears to be, with a minor difference in

24 wording, what's in the translation here.

25 Q. Tell me, the idea of a supreme power in your -- in your text, in

1 what way is it similar to the text of the decision?

2 A. Well, the only difference between the penultimate point in my

3 translation and my report and what I see here on the screen, yeah, I use

4 the abbreviation "HVO" instead of saying Croatian Defence Council.

5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Are you sure -- I'm sorry, just on this. Are you

6 sure it should be defence council and not armed forces of the HZ HB?

7 Because it could also refer colloquially to the armed forces, could it is

8 not.

9 THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. Yes, and I believe it does here. I

10 hadn't thought of that, but I'm sure it does. Yes, it hadn't occurred to

11 me that that would be -- that there'd be any question of that.

12 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation].

13 Q. But, Mr. Tomljanovich, please, the idea of supreme authority in

14 your report, can you find this in the original text of the decision since

15 you know Croatian? In what way would you be justified in copying this

16 passage where supreme authority is referred to?

17 A. I don't say "supreme authority" in the English original. I

18 say "superior authority." And let me take a look at the Croatian.

19 Q. In the Croatian version of your report, it says "supreme

20 authority," and in the Croatian text it says as part of the specific and

21 concrete authorities the Chief of the Main Staff shall be superior to the

22 command of the HVO, and he shall have such authority by -- from the

23 president.

24 Tell me, how does this work? How can this function in principle?

25 A. Well, as I understand it, the Chief of the Main Staff gives

1 orders to the command of the HVO and all the operative districts within

2 the scope of the powers which he's been given by the president of the HZ

3 HB.

4 Q. Can we conclude that the translation "Supreme Command" in the

5 Croatian text is not correct? In fact, the translation into English is

6 not precise?

7 A. I don't have the translation in front of me, but in the original

8 it should be "superior authority." Yeah. And it should be something like

9 that in Croatian, but I -- I don't know what it says in the Croatian. I

10 don't know the words.

11 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, what I'm interested in is the last item, the

12 last passage in item 9, which says: "Commanders of brigades shall be

13 subordinate and responsible to the president of the Croatian Community of

14 Herceg-Bosna as the commander in chief of the armed forces and to the head

15 of the defence department and Chief of the Main Staff within the scope of

16 their responsibilities in accordance with the powers described above."

17 My question is: Is one justified in considering brigade

18 commanders to be primarily subordinate and responsible to the president of

19 the HZ HB and then only secondarily responsible to the chief -- to the

20 head of the defence part, after which they're responsible for accountable

21 to the Chief of the Main Staff?

22 A. Well, they're mentioned in that order, but at the bottom of that

23 order it says within their scope of their responsibilities in accord wants

24 powers described above, so that the ways in which they're responsible to

25 the different persons should be described earlier in this same decision.

1 Q. How do you interpret the word -- it says brigade commanders should

2 be subordinate and responsible to the president of the HZ HB, but for

3 certain matters they'll also be responsible to the other two individuals

4 mentioned. How do you interpret this?

5 A. Well, that's not what's in the English. Let me take a look at

6 Croatian.

7 Q. In the English text it seems to have to do with the

8 conjunction "and" and not the link word "aj" [phoen] in

9 Croatian, "whereas."

10 A. Let me take -- uh-huh. I'm looking at this one paragraph

11 beginning with "Zapovijednici Brigada."

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Read out the sentence in B/C/S

13 and the interpreters will interpret for us.

14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "Brigade commanders shall be

15 subordinate and responsible to the president of the Croatian Community of

16 Herceg-Bosna as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces and the head of

17 the defence department and Chief of the Main Staff within the scope of

18 their responsibilities in accordance with the powers described above." .

19 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, since the way in

20 which someone reads a text can also be a matter of great significance for

21 the interpreters, and I assume that you will believe me when I say I'm

22 more capable of reading this and making the pauses and accents that are

23 appropriate in the Croatian language, would you allow me to read this

24 text?

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Read the text, and if

1 Mr. Kovacic wants to read it, we'll have a number of interpretations.

2 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] The provision is as follows -- the

3 passage is as follows: "Brigade commanders shall be subordinate and

4 responsible to the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna as

5 the commander in chief of the armed forces and to the head of the defence

6 department and Chief of the Main Staff within the scope of their

7 responsibilities in accordance with the powers described above."

8 It is obvious that this word "a," this conjunction "a," which

9 could be "but" in English is at issue, but I don't think it's decisive for

10 our analysis because it -- the level of responsibility is quite clear, how

11 responsibility is divided is quite clear.

12 Since we are short of time I'll skip the rules on military

13 discipline.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] As far as the French translation

15 or French interpretation is concerned, I had two interpretations, two

16 different interpretations. The first interpretation seemed to indicate

17 that the commander of the Main Staff was responsible to the supreme

18 commander, to the president, whereas the second interpretation

19 indicated "and." So I had two versions in French that can be found in the

20 transcript.

21 There's a very simple solution. We can ask the official

22 Translation Unit, the Tribunal's official Translation Unit to provide us

23 with a certified translation.

24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Is that not exactly what we have in the document

25 now? Who else would have translated this?

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Translation Unit has

2 translators or revisers, specialists, and this should allow us to clear up

3 any ambiguity. It's important to know whether the brigade commanders

4 under three authorities, the president, the minister of defence and then

5 the Chief of the Main Staff or is it -- does it function in a more linear

6 way, along the same line. Perhaps a military expert could clarify this

7 for us.

8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, I'll now summarise everything that we have said

10 when examining the provisions. As far as the Supreme Commander of the

11 armed forces is concerned, if the Supreme Commander acts independently to

12 determine how the armed forces should be structured; secondly, to order

13 how mobilisation should be carried out; thirdly, to determine the system

14 of command and control; and fourthly, to issue orders for the use of the

15 armed forces; fifthly, to appoint and relieve of their duties brigade

16 commanders; six, to appoint and relieve of their duties high-ranking

17 officers; seven, to take decisions on conferring ranks. And there are the

18 competencies; we don't have time to go into that. But is it justified if

19 we conclude that the Supreme Commander has an original and a direct link

20 with the armed forces?

21 A. Has a direct link with the armed forces. Well, from this, I'm not

22 qualified to say. If you mean direct without the mediation for either --

23 for all of these things without the mediation of the HVO HZ HB or the

24 mediation of the Main Staff, then I'm not sure. A link, certainly, but a

25 direct link without the mediation of the defence department, the HVO HZ

1 HB, or the Main Staff and out of all seven of those --

2 Q. Mr. Tomljanovich, if he directly appoints brigade commanders, are

3 we talking about a direct link or not? It's very simple.

4 A. Well, if he does, yes. But you listed seven things here.

5 Q. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Now I just mentioned one thing.

6 Let's now go back to the chart, P 09689, page 1. It's the

7 political and military structure that is concerned here, and we have just

8 said that the supreme commander -- that there is power that links the

9 Supreme Commander to the armed forces directly.

10 Since this chart doesn't show a direct link of the Supreme

11 Commander to the armed forces, would you agree with my conclusion that

12 this chart is not precise?

13 A. No, because you mentioned a direct link in one respect. This

14 is -- and once again, I didn't have -- the parts of this chart in which I

15 was asked is just everything above the box of the defence department. I

16 don't know what was intended by the persons who did make those decisions,

17 the military analysts, but I'm sure they would have -- I suspect, although

18 I'm not sure because I'd be putting words in -- I'm putting words into

19 their mouth to some degree, but I suspect that they think in general this

20 is the general scheme of things, and you have to keep in mind that this is

21 a very general chart. With something this size you can't list every

22 single duty and every single possible responsibility on something -- on an

23 8.5 by 11 size.

24 Q. Could the witness please be shown 4D 00143. Defence Exhibit 4D

25 00143.

1 We have the same chart here. If we could perhaps rotate it a bit.

2 This is the same chart. I worked on it a bit in accordance with the

3 legislation of Herceg-Bosna.

4 Mr. Tomljanovich, you will see there is a line that demonstrates a

5 direct link between the supreme commander of the armed forces with armed

6 forces, and this would mean that according to this chart the commander of

7 the armed forces partially communicates with the armed forces through the

8 Main Staff and partially he communicates with them on an independent

9 basis. Does such a chart tally with the legislation of Herceg-Bosna that

10 we have examined today?

11 A. It's certainly plausible, but --

12 Q. I thank you. If we can move on, because I only have seven minutes

13 left. I have only seven minutes left and there are a number of other

14 issues I would like to deal with.

15 As far as the relation between the HVO HZ HB, or, rather, the

16 government, and I can remind you that you have seen in the legislation

17 that the government would adopt a defence plan, they would determine a

18 manner of security and the funds that had to be obtained to finance tasks

19 and defence. Thirdly, they would determine the size, structure, and

20 number of the armed forces. Four, they would determine establishment and

21 mobilisation. Five, they would decide on mobilisation.

22 I don't want to go into the details of how everything actually

23 functioned in practice. I'd just like to focus on the legal analysis of

24 this matter.

25 Would it be correct to say that one can link the HVO with the

1 armed forces? Could we have a direct line that represents such a link as

2 shown in this chart?

3 A. Although I'm not very qualified to say what's in the lower

4 right-hand corner, I would think so, that you could make a direct line.

5 But once again I'm not qualified to say if it's a direct line or if it's a

6 line that goes through the defence department. And it would depend what

7 the line was representing as well. You've listed a lot of powers here.

8 Q. As far as the defence department is concerned, and I'm emphasising

9 the fact that this is a formal analysis, it's not an analysis of how

10 things functioned in practice, if the head of the defence department,

11 according to the rules and regulations, can take over duties from the

12 Supreme Commander, can take over the duties of commanding and controlling

13 the armed forces, and if he appoints and relieves of their duties

14 non-commissioned officers within the armed forces, if he provides the

15 armed forces with combat material and other materiel, if he has the

16 authority to confer ranks and to promote personnel, if brigade commanders

17 are under his authority, would it also be justified for one to establish a

18 direct link between the defence department to the armed forces, a link

19 that bypasses the Main Staff? And does this chart tally with the laws and

20 rules and regulations of the HZ HB?

21 A. As far as I understand it as a non-military expert, that makes

22 good sense to me. However, as a non-military expert there may be

23 something that I don't know.

24 Q. Thank you. We could perhaps now conclude with this part. I have

25 another three minutes left.

1 Since military matters in this report have been discussed far less

2 than civilian matters, I have agreed with my colleagues that I will

3 conclude today, although there are some areas I won't be able to cover.

4 Sir, could you please explain something for us? Could you explain

5 the relations between the local authorities and the armed forces and tell

6 us, according to what you managed to investigates, were politicians, local

7 politicians or perhaps other individuals who had influence or power, did

8 such individuals have any influence on the armed forces and on the way the

9 units of the armed forces acted in their territory?

10 A. Well, military-civilian interchange at the local level is

11 something I did not focus on. However, I do know that in some instances,

12 particularly in the earlier period, things did happen, that political

13 leaders did have influence over local military.

14 Q. In paragraph 181, you dealt with the subject of municipalities,

15 and among other things, you referred to document P 00128, and I

16 quote: "Municipalities acted as if they were states. They had

17 established a means of obtaining funds and financing defence," et cetera,

18 et cetera. My question concerns funding defence in municipalities or by

19 municipalities.

20 Can you tell us whether members of the armed forces were paid by

21 the funds that municipal -- that municipalities had at their disposal or

22 was that not the case?

23 A. This is actually an issue which comes up in some of the documents

24 that I cite. I believe originally it was the practice that the

25 municipalities would pay them. I know that very soon on, and I'm not sure

1 exactly when, it was supposed to be the central authorities who would be

2 paying military personnel and that in late 1993 this was a problem, that

3 the central HVO HZ HB, or it may have even been the cabinet by that point,

4 wanted local governments to stop paying money to their own -- to the

5 military in their municipalities.

6 Q. I'd like to remind everyone of a Prosecution document, P 05799.

7 These are the minutes from an extra ordinary session of the HZ HB

8 government, dated the 9th of October, 1993, attended by Mr. Praljak and

9 Petkovic. Among other things, they mention the problem of a lack of a

10 single means of funding. So members of the armed forces didn't have the

11 same material position, and this means that in October 1993, as early as

12 that date, individual members of the armed forces were financed by

13 municipalities.

14 My concluding question, Mr. Tomljanovich, is as follows:

15 According to your experience when analysing political systems, does

16 someone who pays an individual have the power to influence the way in

17 which that individual acts?

18 A. Well, leaving aside everything about the meeting, just the

19 question about someone paying an individual, generally speaking, yes, it

20 does.

21 Q. Thank you very much.

22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Yes. You wanted to

24 mention some numbers of documents that are to be tendered?

25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] No. I'll do that on Monday. I just

1 wanted to ask you if I could be granted an additional half an hour on

2 Monday or on any other day once my colleagues have concluded their

3 cross-examination, because I believe that the questions put to the witness

4 at the end concern my client.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If your colleagues agree to give

6 you half an hour, that is no problem. All I'm saying is that it is

7 absolutely necessary for us to conclude on Monday at 7.00, unless two

8 extra hours are granted for another day.

9 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] I'm making such a request because

10 some questions have been put that might be damaging for my client, and I

11 would like to clarify these issues with the witness.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We'll see about

13 that.

14 I must inform you of something concerning the admission of

15 documents. It's a document that concerns Witness BK.

16 On the 29th of August, in order to decide to admit P 08436, we

17 asked the Prosecution to provide us with an additional document. The

18 Prosecution, on the 6th of September, provided this additional document, P

19 09696, which is an excerpt from the registry of the municipality of

20 Prozor. It concerns a list of 162 individuals who were allegedly killed

21 or went missing. In this list, number 51 contains (redacted).

22 We said that the document P 08436 was a sealed document and had

23 been marked for identification. As that is what we said, if the Defence

24 has any comments to make, you can do this on Monday. This is the document

25 that comes from the Prozor municipality. You're familiar with it because

1 the Prosecution filed its motion on the 5th of September, 2006.

2 I apologise to the interpreters because we are running a little

3 late.

4 Mr. Kovacic, is there anything you would like to say?

5 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'd like to know

6 whether it would be all right to respond orally on Monday. I've prepared

7 myself to make a written response, but I don't think it's necessary.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Very well. You can work

9 on this oral response tomorrow.

10 I'd like to thank everyone, and I'll see you all next Monday.

11 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.

12 To be reconvened on Monday, the 11th day

13 of September, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25