1 Monday, 18 September 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, please call the
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Case number IT-04-74-T, the
8 Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Mr.
10 Registrar. Today is Monday, the 18th of September, 2006. I'd like to
11 greet everyone in the courtroom. Good afternoon, Mr. Scott, all of you
12 Defence counsel and the accused here in the courtroom and I'm very glad to
13 see that the three accused who were not here last week are now in a
14 position to be with us. I'm very pleased about it.
15 Furthermore, the Trial Chamber will now deliver two oral rulings.
16 I'm going to read them slowly for the interpreters to interpret. First, we
17 have a decision regarding the admission of documents related to Witness BK.
18 On the 29th of August in order to decide on the admission of document P
19 08346 under seal parked for identification purposes, the Pre-Trial Chamber
20 had asked the Prosecution to provide the decision that accompanied the
21 death certificate. The Prosecution provided the document under number P
22 09696 on the 5th of September. On it we have 162 names of people who died
23 in the Prozor municipality. The Prosecution asked the Trial Chamber to
24 admit Exhibit P 08436 under seal as well as the list of names of deceased
1 The Defence was asked what it had to say about it and opposed the
2 admission. After hearing the parties, the Trial Chamber believes that
3 documents P 08436 and P 09696 for number 51 on the list, we believe that
4 this confirms the statement of the witness with respect to the death of his
5 father. Therefore, the Trial Chamber admits under seal documents P 08436
6 and P 09696 but only with respect to number 51.
7 Let me sum up. We've decided to admit Exhibit P 08436 and as for
8 P 09696, we only admit the part of the exhibit that is listed under number
9 51. This was the first oral ruling.
10 Second ruling related to the application of Ms. Alaburic related
11 on the 14th of September 2006. On that date, Ms. Alaburic asked for an
12 extension of time as provided for in Rule 73 to reserve the possibility of
13 appealing the decision of the 7th of December, 2006 -- 7th of September,
14 2006 for a judicial notice of adjudicated facts.
15 In support of her application, she stressed the fact that she
16 needed the translation into English of the said decision before requesting,
17 if necessary, a certification for appeal. The Trial Chamber would like to
18 recall that Rule 73 C of the rules provides that decisions for
19 certification should be filed within seven days of the challenged decision.
20 The Judges see no reason to -- not to go by this ruling or by this
22 French is one of the working languages of this Tribunal and this
23 Trial Chamber is a French speaking Trial Chamber. Therefore, it is up to
24 the parties to organise their teams by -- and taking this into account.
25 You can always have assistants who can speak French.
1 As a result, the Judges have decided to partly dismiss the
2 application made by Ms. Alaburic. However, exceptionally the Judges have
3 decided to grant an extension of time until tomorrow, Tuesday, 19th of
4 September, 2006. Therefore, we'll grant you an extension of time until
6 Let me just say that this decision by the Chamber is a 35-page
7 decision, but what was important even if you can't read French, what was
8 important for you is to know which facts had been admitted and the admitted
9 facts are listed very clearly in the decision. Number 7, 8, 9, 14, 15.
10 Therefore, even if you can't read French you can see item 7, 8, 9, 14, et
11 cetera have been admitted, and that is enough to give an overview of the
12 decision rendered by the Trial Chamber.
13 Therefore, you now have until tomorrow. We've extended the time
14 limit of seven days and we've extended it to tomorrow. Therefore, you will
15 have plenty of time to consider what you will do.
16 Personally speaking, I would like to add the following: Judicial
17 notice is a procedure that always provides for the Defence the possibility
18 of rejecting these judicial notice. It's not because we decide to take
19 judicial notice of something that it is accepted forever. Through the
20 cross-examination of a witness you can always challenge items that have
21 been accepted through this process.
22 Final point before we proceed I'd like to notify the parties of
23 the following, this is something that we've received today through the
24 electronic system. As you know, the Judges met last week and they amended
25 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, especially with regard to Rule 92 bis,
1 and the Judges have already adopted Rule 92 ter and 92 quater. 92 ter has
2 to do with admissions of written statements and depositions and Rule 92
3 quater relates to unavailable witnesses.
4 Considering the new Rules now adopted and the aim of which is to
5 gain time, both the Prosecution and the Defence will be a position -- in a
6 position in due course to submit lists of witnesses that might be heard
7 according to Rule 92 bis in its new version or under Rule 92 ter.
8 Let me specify that Rule 92 ter also relates to testimony that
9 can prove the acts or the behaviour of -- or the conduct of an accused. So
10 this is something completely new.
11 I would like to invite you to read these new provisions, to
12 consider them very seriously and to adapt your strategy in accordance to
13 these new Rules.
14 Today we have the last day of cross-examination of the witness we
15 all know. If everything goes according to plan, we should be able to
16 complete the testimony today, but if Mr. Karnavas was to find it necessary
17 to prolong his cross-examination, he would be in a position to do so at the
18 beginning of tomorrow's hearing in the afternoon. But knowing Mr. Karnavas
19 and the way he can summarise his cross-examination, I'm sure he will be
20 able to complete cross-examination today.
21 I will now therefore ask the usher to bring the witness in. The
22 witness has been waiting for several days to come back to this courtroom.
23 I'd like to thank the counsel who gave us the documents they want
24 to tender later on with the corresponding numbers. This will enable us to
25 follow the cross-examination.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] From what I understand, Mr.
3 Pusic's counsel need an additional 15 minutes. Ms. Nozica will take 20
4 minutes, and then Mr. Karnavas will take the remainder of the time.
5 Yes, Mr. Ibrisimovic.
6 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. We
7 have no further questions for this witness. We have completed our
8 examination, and I informed the Defence of Mr. Prlic that if they wished to
9 do so, they can avail themselves of our time. Thank you.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, Mr. Ibrisimovic. I
11 understand that you do not wish to put further questions to this witness.
12 You've completed your cross-examination.
13 Ms. Nozica.
14 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honour. With
15 the Court's indulgence I would like my colleague Mr. Karnavas to begin his
16 cross-examination first because I think that it is proper that somebody who
17 has not questioned the witness at all can could so first and I retain my
18 right to my 20 minutes later on. Thank you.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. It's all the same to me.
20 Mr. Karnavas, you have the floor.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you. Good afternoon Mr. President, Your
23 WITNESS: WILLIAM TOMLJANOVICH [Resumed]
24 Cross-examination by Mr. Karnavas:
25 Q. Good afternoon, sir.
1 A. Good afternoon.
2 Q. I take over the past week, you did not watch the proceedings when
3 Mr. Galbraith was here?
4 A. No, I did not?
5 Q. Just to be on the safe side, I have to ask you this question, I
6 take it you did not go into the system check your transcript to see how he
8 A. No, I did not.
9 Q. Very well. Before I start, I just want to try to pin you down a
10 little bit as to what exactly you are an expert in. You told us what
11 you're not an expert in, the fields of the various disciplines that you
12 have not studied. Could you please tell us, just very concisely for this
13 particular case what is that you are an expert in? Can you describe it?
14 A. Yes. First I should make the distinction as a legal term and
15 expert simply as somebody who knows quite a bit about a subject.
16 Q. I'm asking you very concrete questions. What are you an expert
17 in for this case? Don't tell me what in legal terms you are, because
18 you're not a lawyer, you're not competent to give advice on that. So tell
19 us, what are you an expert in?
20 A. I've spent the better part of the last seven and a half years
21 working with documentary evidence concerning, amongst other things, these
23 Q. These questions being the HVO, the HZ HB, that's it?
24 A. The -- well, among other things, the political and governmental
25 structures and processes.
1 Q. All right. So that's what you are an expert in?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. And would that presuppose that you also looked into
4 documents as to, for instance, foundational documents such as the
6 A. Which constitutions do you have in mind, because Herceg-Bosna did
7 not have a constitution.
8 Q. I know it didn't a constitution, but Herceg-Bosna was in Bosnia-
9 Herzegovina was it not?
10 A. Yes, it was.
11 Q. Okay. Now did you look at that constitution for that country?
12 A. I've looked at the 1974 Bosnia-Herzegovina constitution but not
13 for this particular report.
14 Q. Okay. Were you told not?
15 A. No I was not told not to.
16 Q. Okay now you told us that you had been given your marching
17 orders, as they were, from the Prosecutor as to what you should do, what
18 kind of a report you should you should prepare and I take it from listening
19 to your testimony Mr. Scott left it up to you as the quote unquote expert
20 what to look at and what not to look at?
21 A. Well as far as --
22 Q. Yes or no.
23 A. Well, that's not a questions I can answer yes or no because
24 there's a number of premises in your question.
25 Q. All right. Well let me break it down, sir.
1 A. Sure.
2 Q. Did Mr. Scott tell you what you do look at and what you could not
4 A. No not at all.
5 Q. So it was your discretion.
6 A. Yes, it was.
7 Q. Did he give you a page limitation?
8 A. He strongly suggested that I keep it under 100 pages, although I
9 was not able to --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would ask you to slow down.
11 The interpreters find it difficult to follow.
12 MR. KARNAVAS:
13 Q. So keep it down to 100 pages?
14 A. Well, no, hold on. I was about halfway through the answer. I
15 was told that I should keep it as brief as possible. It would be best to
16 have it under a hundred pages although I wasn't able to do that. But I did
17 get close but that was set as sort of a loose guideline for what it
18 probably should be.
19 Q. But if you needed 200 pages he wasn't going to stop you, was he?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Okay. And did he, in asking you to prepare this report, did he
22 ask you just to prepare sort of an outline for the Trial Chamber to assist
23 the Trial Chamber on what it is that this HZ HB was all about or did he
24 also tell you to include any opinions, suppositions or what have you that
25 you would come up with during in writing this report?
1 A. First of all I was told to avoid opinions and suppositions or
2 anything that wasn't actually in the documents I was citing. As far as the
3 first half of your question is concerned, I was told to give the Judges a
4 very basic description of what these structures and organs were and
5 processes were.
6 Q. All right did you avoid providing opinions?
7 A. Personal opinions that aren't based directly on the documents I
8 cited, yes.
9 Q. Okay. Personal opinions. That means opinions that you hold
11 A. Yes, that I can't --
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. -- base on the evidence which I'm using in this report yes.
14 Q. All right. Okay. Let me get ahead of myself a little bit. You
15 called this a statelet the HZ HB at one point, that they created a statelet
16 and you also called it a para-state. Now help me out here is that a
17 conclusion or opinion: Yes, no, maybe, I don't know.
18 Q. Well, it's a term --
19 A. It's a term.
20 Q. No, just answer my question. You're Ph.D. from Yale, you've
21 taken orals, you know exactly how to answer questions. So let's cut to the
22 chase. Is that an opinion; yes or no?
23 A. It's a characterisation but and it's a term that I chose to use.
24 Q. Is it an opinion?
25 A. Well, that depends on what you call an opinion and that's a
1 semantic question.
2 Q. Well, if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, swims like a
3 duck, has feathers like a duck, quacks like a duck, is it not a duck?
4 A. Well, in this case, yes, it would be a duck.
5 Q. Okay what was your definition by the way of what a state is
6 before we can get to what a statelet is?
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. A state as a -- that is number of things a state usually has.
10 Q. Is that based on your opinion or is that based on some knowledge
11 are you going cite something?
12 A. No, I didn't cite anything because I wasn't asked to I know in
13 some other trials constitution experts --
14 Q. Is that based on some knowledge of yours, particular knowledge,
15 did you look up what defines a state? I mean did you Google it for
16 instance? Or is this something that you as a layperson, like the rest of
17 us, are opining at this particular moment?
18 A. Well, I can explain if I go backwards.
19 Q. Just tell me one of the two. Did you have a definition of what a
20 state is in front of you and if so, what was the basis of it? What did you
21 look at? Did you constitution a constitutional scholar? Did you look at
22 any books?
23 A. No, I did no. The only thing I consulted in using the terms
24 statelet and para-state in this stays is my own prior knowledge from
25 history and from having worked here about the sorts of things people
1 generally attribute to a state.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. I wasn't asked to make constitutional conclusions about
4 constitutional issues.
5 Q. All right. You --
6 A. In that sense.
7 Q. You would agree with me would you not and let's slow down a
8 little bit I'm trying to compress about four days of cross-examination, but
9 you would agree with me would you not that that's a term of art?
10 A. That which is a term of art, statelet?
11 Q. Yeah.
12 A. Or state?
13 Q. Both.
14 A. It can be but it --
15 Q. Well --
16 A. But it doesn't necessarily have to be used as one.
17 Q. But in this instance, sir, you're using it as one, are you not?
18 A. I can tell you why I used it.
19 Q. No, no. I'm not asking you why. I don't want why. When I want
20 why, I'll ask why. In this instance, you are using it as a term of art,
21 are you not? If you don't want to say yes or no just say maybe and move
23 A. Well, that depends on what you call a term art. I think you
24 could call anything a term of art if it's used -- it's more how the word is
25 used rather than the word itself which would make it that.
1 Q. In this instance, sir, are you not using it as a term of art
2 statelet and para-state are you not using that and there's a point to this?
3 A. Hmm. Well, I'm not sure if saying term of art in this case has
4 a particular legal meaning.
5 Q. I'll take that. I'll take that. You were asked a question last
6 time by Judge Trechsel if I believe whether you were told specifically what
7 to put in your report; do you recall that question?
8 A. I recall.
9 Q. The question being posed and you said no, he told you, you know,
10 he left you free reign, didn't tell you what to do; right?
11 A. I wouldn't put it like that my answer and I don't think I did
12 then either. I was given a definition of the sorts of things I should be
13 talking about and the sorts of things I should leave.
14 Q. But he didn't tell you what to put in, that's what we're trying
15 to get at. Mr. Scott didn't order you to put something into your report?
16 A. Oh, no, absolutely not.
17 Q. Okay. All right. Now and it struck me that that question was
18 asked and we should take you at your bona fides but you know I'm a little
19 troubled by that and I'll tell you why. You were commissioned to write
20 this report in November 1993 -- 2005; right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. Now, you had been working on this case for six years or
23 cases related to this case for about six years prior to that right?
24 A. Yes, well over.
25 Q. Okay, well over. You were familiar with the facts in this case;
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Had participated in interviews?
4 A. Yes, three I believe for this case.
5 Q. All right. You had participated in strategy sessions?
6 A. Yes, I had.
7 Q. And I take it you were well aware of what the Prosecution's
8 theory of the case was because you also participated to one degree or other
9 in shaping the form of the indictment; right?
10 A. Well, for the first half of that, I was certainly aware of the
11 general Prosecution theory of the case when you get down to the particulars
12 of say the crime base that I'm --
13 Q. I'm not talking about crime base.
14 A. -- fuzzy about.
15 Q. We're getting back to that statelet issue?
16 A. General, okay well --
17 Q. That was part this strategy was it not or did that come to you
18 out of blue to just call it statelet, didn't know anything about the
19 Prosecution's case?
20 A. Well, I did know about the Prosecution's case.
21 Q. Okay?
22 A. Although that's not why I chose terms I chose.
23 Q. All right, but you knew that was part of their theory and by the
24 way there's no need to read the transcript. You understand English so you
25 could just follow along and answer.
1 A. I'm not sure I understand the last question about following
3 Q. You don't understand my English you need to read it as well? I'm
4 from the mid-west too, by the way, so we have the same accent more or less.
5 A. Well, I said earlier that I did --
6 Q. All right let's move on. Now, in the middle of writing your
7 report, the Prosecution was preparing to amend the indictment; right? And
8 in fact amended the indictment.
9 A. That I do not know.
10 Q. You don't know that the indictment was amended?
11 A. Let me think back.
12 Q. No, no --
13 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour the record will show the indictment the
14 motion to amend the indictment was filed far before the report was
15 prepared. It's a matter of record in the file.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. I'll take that.
17 Q. So when you sat down to write your report, did you read the
18 indictment by any chance?
19 A. No, I did not.
20 Q. Okay. But you knew what was in it?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And you knew that the -- that the Prosecutor who is sitting right
23 there was alleging that Herceg-Bosna, the HZ HB, or HR HB, was a para-state
24 or a statelet?
25 A. Yes, that's the case.
1 Q. Okay. Now, I want to work backwards. Tell us, sir, in your
2 opinion, what was functioning in the state of BiH as state?
3 MR. SCOTT: Objection, Your Honour. It falls outside of the
4 scope of the report. The witness was not asked to do any work on the
5 existing State of Bosnia-Herzegovina. He was asked to specifically give a
6 report on the structures and functions of HVO and Herceg-Bosna. No part of
7 his report was intended or commissioned to deal with the BiH government.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may respond, Your Honour, and I will deal
9 with it as the Third Reich defence, he was only following orders. The
10 point of this is as follows: How can you characterise something to be a
11 statelet or a para-state within a state? How can you claim that you are
12 objective and in his direct examination he said background in context, and
13 the whole purpose of this is to show that the gentleman, and I dare say we
14 will see, was totally ignorant of the state.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Witness, you have
16 heard Mr. Scott. Could you answer him now with respect to the state of
17 Bosnia-Herzegovina? Mr. Scott was on his feet, made an objection, said
18 that didn't come within the scope of your expert report. Are you able to
19 answer the question? Because after all you're somebody who has done
20 important studies and you're an expert. You're qualified as an expert. So
21 does your level of knowledge allow you to answer the question that Mr.
22 Karnavas asked? And of course your answer will be useful to the Judges
23 because everything that you say and that is said in the courtroom is of use
24 to the Judges.
25 THE WITNESS: Yes. I'll deal -- I think Mr. Karnavas asked a
1 couple of questions and I can answer both of them based on my knowledge
2 from working on other cases not based on what I looked at for this report.
3 MR. KARNAVAS:
4 Q. So it's not in your report. There's nothing in your report about
5 the state instruments, or whether the state was functioning or not from
6 which then we can look and see how this para-state or statelet evolved;
8 A. Well, no. And I wasn't asked to look into the Bosnia-
9 Herzegovinian government.
10 Q. I'm asking you a concrete question, sir. It's not in your
11 report; right? Is the answer to that yes?
12 A. No, the answer was no, it's not in, and I've already answered
14 Q. It's not in your report. Now, tell us what was functioning in
15 BiH at that point in time?
16 A. Well, with the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina organs, first of
17 all, you have to make a distinction between what's functioning and what's
18 functioning well and what's functioning in different places.
19 Q. Okay let me walk you through.
20 A. Now --
21 Q. Was the central bank functioning sir: Yes, no, maybe, I don't
23 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour again I'm sorry to interrupt but I'm
24 going to make the point again I'm going to continue making the point. Mr.
25 Tomljanovich is now speculating beyond the basis of his report and
1 answering questions for which he's not prepared. He's not done any
2 research to answer a questions as to whether the central bank is
4 MR. KARNAVAS: And that's my point, they presented a report with
5 a --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers not speak at the same time,
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Witness, you have just
9 said that you are capable of answering what was functioning and what wasn't
10 functioning, that you could give an answer about that and it would be
11 important for us to know what was functioning and what was not functioning.
12 So tell us, please, what was functioning in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the State
13 of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
14 THE WITNESS: Well, that is very broad -- I mean my knowledge on
15 this have I'm speaking very broad and in very vague terms. First of all, I
16 know the republican organs, they had police authorities and military --
17 which functioned with varying degrees of success all over the territory
18 which they were able to control or had aspirations or -- to control.
19 Now, as far as the central bank is concerned, that's something I
20 don't know a lot specifically and of course.
21 MR. KARNAVAS:
22 Q. Do you know anything?
23 A. Wait. If I may answer the question. As far as the central bank
24 is concerned, the reason I didn't answer that is because I'm aware of the
25 fact that the Prosecution calls on --
1 Q. I'm not asking you --
2 A. -- asking the financial --
3 Q. Again -- excuse me, sir.
4 Mr. President I'm going to object to this. Give me three or
5 four days if he continues in this direction. I'm tired of this notchy
6 defence, I'm only following orders.
7 MR. SCOTT: I object to that.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Was the central bank functioning? He either knows
9 or doesn't know. Why is that important? It's important on the issue of
10 whether in other areas of the country, the municipalities had to fend them
11 in trying to develop some sort of payment system. That's why it's
12 important. So when he's characterising it as a statelet, there must be
13 some reasons and we need to get to the bottom of it. To what extent was
14 the state functioning?
15 MR. SCOTT: No, no, no.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, I've understood the point.
17 Mr. Scott.
18 MR. SCOTT: Number one, the structure that Mr. Karnavas is trying
19 to present a completely false and artificial one. Mr. Karnavas wants to
20 make a point. It's a point that he's made in the proceedings before. It's
21 point that I assume he'll continue to make and he may try to make in his
22 own case to make his argument to present his case as to why Herceg-Bosna
23 did what it did. But this witness is not prepared to address those
24 matters, and I'm saying as a matter for the Prosecution Mr. Tomljanovich
25 should not speculate and go outside the basis of his report. It's just
1 like having anyone walk in here and start talking about any topic off the
2 top of their head. This was not the purpose for which this witness was
3 called, and it is not it's completely unfair for Mr. Karnavas to say that
4 that somehow goes to the nature of his report. What he was asked to give a
5 report about was the structure and processes of the HVO Herceg-Bosna, and
6 whether any other government in Bosnia was functioning at the time is
7 entirely beside the point.
8 And finally before I sit down, Your Honour, I object in the
9 strongest terms, and Mr. Karnavas should know better referring to me or
10 anything that I do or my team says as Nazi-like.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Well.
12 MR. SCOTT: I object to that.
13 MR. KARNAVAS: That was taken out of context. I said the
14 Defence, I'm only following orders. We've heard this 20 minutes this is
15 the Third Reich defence but --
16 MR. SCOTT: No, it's not.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: But if I may if I may very simply respond to the
18 Prosecutor. Had the gentleman simply --
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, are you not perhaps mixing things
20 up? This is a witness, an expert. It's not an accused. He's not an
21 accused so I think --
22 MR. KARNAVAS: He's an employee.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: -- your comparison on your Third Reich defence
24 is really out of place.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, Your Honour I think -- I think -- I think --
1 I think, Your Honour, we've heard enough and every time the gentleman
2 doesn't want to answer a question is: It's outside my scope. Now if you
3 look at this report, if the report did not have opinions and only stated
4 what was in the legislation, I wouldn't have a problem but the moment he's
5 calling it a statelet, the moment he's calling it a para-state, it's
6 opinion it's a conclusion and at that point in time, I'm entitled and the
7 door has been opened for me to question him. He would have you believe and
8 the Prosecutor would have you believe that this is an objective report, and
9 I dare say it's not.
10 Now, I'm perfectly willing to sit down and not ask any more
11 questions if there is a finding of fact and conclusion of law at this point
12 in time that one, he is biased. That two, that his report is not credible
13 and that none of his testimony will be taken into consideration. But I
14 think all of these questions are relevant. How can he formulate certain
15 opinions if you don't look at everything in the historical context, in the
16 background, and that's why I'm getting into it. They would have us believe
17 that that the financial system that was put into place by Herceg-Bosna was
18 somehow -- the area.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're not going to spend all
20 our time discussing Mr. Scott's objection and Mr. Karnavas's responses.
21 I'm going to put the question in the proper manner.
22 Article 90 of the Rules is very precise. It is 90 H (ii) and
23 this is what the Rule says it said if a party - "In the cross-examination
24 of a witness who is able to give evidence relevant to the case for the
25 cross-examining party," and Mr. Karnavas has the idea in his behind of
1 showing that the Republic of Herceg-Bosna was the only state which showed
2 that this -- which was functioning, and the party he is confronting the
3 witness with the elements that the witness has and counsel should put that
4 the witness the nature of the case to the party for whom that counsel
5 appears which is in contradiction of the evidence given by the witness.
6 So Mr. Karnavas is asking about the descriptions given by Herceg-
7 Bosna but he wishes to talk about Bosnia-Herzegovina and how that
8 functioned and he's just asked a question about the central bank. I would
9 like to say that we did raise the subject of the central bank here in the
10 court. It was a subject that we discussed.
11 Now, at this point the witness can either answer or not. He can
12 say yes, no, maybe. So it's up to the witness to answer, and that will be
13 much more useful than to spend our time raising objections which slow down
14 -- slows down the process. The Judges can see whether the witness is apt
15 or inept in answering questions. If he has knowledge about the function of
16 the central bank he will tell us. If not, he will also tell us. And if he
17 researched the structure of the HVO and of Herceg-Bosna as a republic, he
18 must have asked himself about -- questions about the functioning of the
19 international monetary fund and the central bank and the relationships
20 thereof, the dinar, the convertibility of the dinar and so on and so forth.
21 So he's able to answer or not.
22 Mr. Karnavas, please proceed but I'd like to remind you that
23 you will have to look at the -- what the witness has said and the evidence
24 you have and try to see if it tallies or if it does not tally.
25 I think we have understood each other now please proceed and I'd
1 like to appeal to both parties to remain calm.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Let me back up. Go step-by-step. In your report, do you not
4 fail to explain the cause and effect relations between the wartime events
5 and the activities of all the conflicting parties?
6 A. Well, at the risk of being compared to the Nazis, I'll say that I
7 didn't think that that was something that I was supposed to do so I didn't
8 do it.
9 Q. Now, concerning your methodology, accepting that you have told us
10 what your task was from the Prosecutor and we've heard this many, many
11 times, is it your understanding -- is it still your understanding that your
12 report is objective and balanced? Yes, no, maybe?
13 A. Yes, it is. And I should also add that I didn't intend to put an
14 entire case forward or comment on the entire case.
15 Q. You've told us that you've told us that and I don't need that
16 tagline we've heard it. We've heard your excuses. Now, does -- does your
17 report does it not lack context by simply focusing on the HVO while
18 ignoring the actions of others and how they affected the Croats especially
19 the Serbs, the Muslims the UN, the EC mediators and what have you?
20 A. Well, there's an awful lot of things I had to ignore in order to
22 Q. Sir --
23 A. -- be able to write a report which could be presented in one
25 MR. KARNAVAS: This is exactly what I'm talking about Mr.
1 President I mean we're going to hear this excuse over and over again.
2 Q. Does it not lack context? Do you simply not focus on the HVO as
3 if nothing else existed around the HVO?
4 MR. SCOTT: Object to the form of the question. What was
5 happening somewhere else has nothing to do with the structure of the HVO
6 and whether the structure of the HVO whether the president was in the
7 executive branch or in the HVO HZ HB or whether the exchange for services
8 reported to the president or not. What was happening in Sarajevo has
9 nothing to do with this.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll move on, Your Honour I'll move --
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Mr. Karnavas. I
12 understood it that if an expert was given the task of investigating a
13 subject then he studies the question but also looks at what's happening at
14 the outside, around it, because an expert report must be a comprehensive
15 report and not just on one aspect. That is how experts work. Then look at
16 the whole picture.
17 Take an example. If an expert in tropical medicine, for example,
18 if he studies the effects of mosquito bites in Africa, he will have to ask
19 himself about mosquito bites in Latin America.
20 Proceed, Mr. Karnavas.
21 MR. KARNAVAS:
22 Q. Are you not selectively citing in your report that is what
23 certain citations particularly the presidential transcripts?
24 A. Well --
25 Q. Yes or no?
1 A. Well, you're putting words in my mouth if I have to say yes or no
2 on this question. I believe -- can I answer in one sentence, please.
3 Q. Are you selectively not using portions of the transcript. You
4 can say yes or no if you don't think you're doing that?
5 A. Yes, I have selectively using portions.
6 Q. Okay. And don't you think that by doing so you are providing a
7 distorted interpretation of the citations that you're selecting?
8 A. No, I do not because --
9 Q. Even if they're not in context?
10 A. -- may I finish answering the question?
11 Q. No. Do you not see the -- do you not see that perhaps you're
12 putting something -- taking something out of context by just selectively
13 choosing something out of a hundred page presidential transcript.
14 A. No, I do not because I know what I'm putting in.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. I know the context.
17 Q. All right. Very well. Well, at one point -- I don't want to get
18 too far ahead of myself, but at one point you do mention --
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] A follow-up question first.
20 Mr. Karnavas, you've asked a question about presidential transcripts.
21 Now, in your report when you quote a portion of the transcript
22 I hope that you read the integral transcript, all of it.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have, and on a number of occasions with the
24 ones I cite those we've used on other cases and those I also indexed years
25 ago so I've seen all of those quite frequently.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
2 Q. Now just as an example and I don't want to spend too much time at
3 this point in time on it, but you do cite the presidential transcript of
4 September 17, 1992; correct?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. And I did notice that not all pages of that presidential
7 transcript were put in for translation. Is there a particular reason? In
8 other words, what was translated was only the part that you or somebody at
9 the OTP thought was necessary to have translated and not the entire
11 A. Yes, I can answer that question. That's mainly a problem of
12 resources. Now, with the transcripts, we have in our possession right now
13 well over 660 --
14 Q. Okay, you've told us what the resources were.
15 A. Yeah.
16 Q. But here you are citing a presidential transcript, 17 September
17 1992 and the pages that were omitted less than 50 and I'm referring to, for
18 the record, P 00498. I'm curious who is the person or persons that select
19 what portions of a transcript or what portions of a document especially one
20 that I have cited will not get translated albeit it might contain some
21 information that could be viewed as exculpatory for the Defence?
22 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, for the -- as this witness has already
23 indicated and demonstrated in court repeatedly he reads and works in B/C/S.
24 He writes -- he reads and works in B/C/S.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: That's not the question, Your Honour.
1 MR. SCOTT: So whether it was translated or not doesn't have
2 anything to do with what this witness has read.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, that's precisely the
4 question that I was going to ask. And thanks to the relevant question,
5 pertinent question asked by Mr. Karnavas with respect to the transcript, 50
6 and 60 per cent of the pages were translated it's a problem of resources.
7 Now, the question that arises is what about the pages not translated into
8 English? Now you know B/C/S. Did you read them in B/C/S then?
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. This particular transcript I've read
10 repeatedly, yes, in B/C/S and the -- to answer Mr. Karnavas's question put
11 earlier, it's persons like myself, various analysts who read the original
12 who decide which passages get translated and which do not because we simply
13 don't have the wherewithal to translate every single page of every single
15 MR. KARNAVAS:
16 Q. So it's you or someone like you who in this instance will decide
17 what portions of a transcript that might contain exculpatory evidence will
18 not be translated?
19 A. Oh, no. That's not true. If there is exculpatory evidence then
20 that's a Rule 68 issue then we have to translate that.
21 Q. And you obviously know what rule 68 material looks like, not
22 being a lawyer, as you told us over and over again?
23 A. Everyone who works in the OTP is briefed frequently on what is
24 Rule 68 material and encouraged that if there's even a shadow of a doubt
25 that something may be Rule 68 then it should be brought to the attention of
1 the lawyers if you're not sure about it.
2 Q. Now, just since we're on this topic on the 17th of September, if
3 we were to look at this entire transcript, not just portions that you
4 decided or somebody else decided to translate and just cite, but the entire
5 context this conversation, first of all, I think we can agree that there
6 are a lot of people participating in this meeting; right?
7 A. Quite a few, yeah, I'm not sure exactly how many.
8 Q. And it would appear that everyone gets an opportunity voice their
10 A. Well, I'm not sure of that. Frequently in the transcripts,
11 people who are present do not speak.
12 Q. But there are lots --
13 A. This one I'm not sure.
14 Q. -- lots of folks are giving their opinion in this transcript;
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. All right. And I think we can agree that the general essence of
18 this conversation that's taking place deals with the Croatian question in
19 Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
20 A. Well, the question of Herceg-Bosna and what to do with it. I
21 don't know if I'd say call it the Croatian question necessarily but --
22 Q. Well, certainly --
23 A. -- yes.
24 Q. You don't want to misrepresent to the Trial Chamber that the
25 entire conversation has to do with Herceg-Bosna, do you? And I remind you
1 you're under oath. Inside, they're talking about what to do and how to
2 protect the Croatians in Bosnia and Herzegovina; are they not doing that?
3 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, that is false - we're on a false trail
4 here. The entire transcripts have been known and turned over the Defence
5 years ago. All the accused know B/C/S, most of the lawyers read B/C/S, so
6 if there's a suggestion that there's been selective disclosure on what'
7 translated or not translated, they have the entire -- every single entire
8 transcript. They've had them for months if not years and they all read in
9 B/C/S. If there is some other part of the transcripts they want to use,
10 they can use it in their own case. They can put the specific question to
11 the witness. We're just going down completely false trails here they're
12 going down and wasting time.
13 MR. KARNAVAS:
14 Q. Sir was this not --
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You seem to be saying that in
18 the expert report -- the expert report was only based on certain passages
19 translated in English whereas there were B/C/S passages that would go to
20 your case. So give us an example, put the pages to the witness, say: Why
21 didn't you refer to such and such passage?
22 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues] ... we're going
23 to put in the entire document but when I have such time limitations which
24 are, with all due respect, unrealistic to conduct the cross-examination of
25 this kind of a witness, it's impossible. But I don't want you - well, you
1 can shake your head all you want, Judge Trechsel, but it is. I can assure
2 you. And if there is better way or faster way, I'd like to know it with
3 you in this particular what I want to do is goat the essence.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But you haven't got an example
5 to quote.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues] ... give an
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Give us an example then.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Let's look at what Jozo Maric said, and it starts
10 on page -- let me have a moment, Your Honour. Okay it would be 01508795.
11 Now, the Prosecution stopped the translation on page -- on the
12 previous page in the middle of what Jozo Maric was saying. While that's
13 being pulled up, let me ask a couple of preliminary questions.
14 Q. Sir, do you know who Jozo Maric is?
15 A. Yes. He was an HDZ politician I believe from Grude, and he was
16 also in the commission for exchange.
17 Q. Okay. And incidentally this -- I guess the documents that we're
18 referring to is 1D 00918, for the record.
19 Now, in -- now, you said you read this several times. Do you
20 recall by chance what Jozo Maric was -- was advocating at the time?
21 A. No, not off the top of my head.
22 Q. Okay. Well, let's look and see what was omitted. And this is on
23 the page 01508795. He says in the middle of the page and I'll just read
24 slowly: "I'm saying this first of all because of historical continuity.
25 I'm interested in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Croatian people as a whole in
1 the following hundred 200 or 500 years." The page I guess it would be 1D
3 "If we agree now to a civil unitary Bosnia-Herzegovina, we will
4 live to see what the municipalities in Central Bosnia saw in the last 30 or
5 40 years. So by having lenient attitude and by constant movement
6 westwards, we are just going away, but if we have our areas in future, our
7 municipalities, we will remain there, and we will invest more easily. We
8 will have our schools, et cetera."
9 And he -- the next passage talks about Livno. Now, if you go
10 into the next page, in the middle of it with the paragraph it says:
11 "Therefore, for the future of my grandchildren and those who would like to
12 return, I want my piece of land. I want my share without giving up,
13 without giving up," I point this out, "without giving up Bosnia-Herzegovina
14 as a whole, and for what I am often criticised."
15 Now, if that's something that should be included that's
16 exculpatory, I don't know what is, but this page was not even included in
17 their document and is certainly not cited by this gentleman, but I'll go
19 MR. SCOTT: No, we're not going to allow it to go on while Mr.
20 Karnavas has mischaracterised the record. Number one, there's no
21 indication of anything of how that's exculpatory of any of the accused.
22 There's no indication whatsoever; in fact, it's consistent with the
23 Prosecution's case. Third, we tendered the entire document into evidence,
24 it is Exhibit P 00498. Now, what Mr. Karnavas is trying to suggest is that
25 the Prosecution has selectively used this exhibit.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: These pages --
2 MR. SCOTT: We have tendered the entire transcript into evidence
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Not in English, Your Honour, not in English.
5 MR. SCOTT: For the reasons indicated and the counsel can do they
6 can use any other part of this they wish.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: So much for going for the truth. So much for
8 taking the Prosecution at its bona fides.
9 MR. SCOTT: That's false, Your Honour, because the witness has
10 testified several times now that he read the entire transcript in B/C/S
11 himself. So everything that -- if Mr. Karnavas if he would think before
12 he moves his mouth and what's been done and not been done, it would be much
13 better for everyone, because the witness has said I reviewed the entire
14 document in B/C/S. The entire document is in the record the Prosecution
15 tendered the entire document we have kept nothing from the Court for the
16 Defence so all these allegations and insinuations by Mr. Karnavas are just
17 dead wrong and I object to it. This cannot be allowed to continue.
18 MR. KARNAVAS:
19 Q. Now if we go on to the next page --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a moment, Mr. Karnavas.
21 This is how I understand the situation: It appears that in the
22 presidential transcript in B/C/S we saw Mr. Maric's intervention and he
23 raised a point that was related to Bosnia-Herzegovina, and, I'm summarising
24 now, it seems to say -- or, rather, on the Croatian side, the decisions
25 will be taken up and implemented. They will be applied.
1 Now, if it was translated into French, the Judges would have been
2 able to understand the expert report better and to appreciate it better.
3 Now, what Mr. Maric said, does it go against your vision, the
4 vision you gained? What do you think? Yes or no? We can see you shaking
5 your head, but would you like to explain, please?
6 THE WITNESS: Yes. As far as I can tell from the passage of Mr.
7 Maric's speech which was read to me, that's exactly what the general
8 thinking was, that they did not want -- the people involved in Herceg-Bosna
9 at that time did not want to have a centrally organised Bosnian state, or
10 as they usually would put it, a unitary Bosnia-Herzegovina. They wanted
11 control over their own municipalities.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll move on, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please proceed.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes.
15 Q. It says "Without giving up Bosnia-Herzegovina." They're not
16 talking about breaking away. They're not talking about being annexed to
17 Croatia. And now -- and he's -- and incidentally Tudjman is president at
18 the time; right?
19 A. Well, first of all, you're saying, They're not talking about
20 breaking away. I say, He's not talking about breaking away. Well, in --
21 although I'm sure what he says in that Croat because I said repeatedly and
22 this is the reason.
23 Q. Sir, I'm asking you -- I know you want to filibuster, but I'm
24 asking you a different question. He says without giving up Bosnia-
25 Herzegovina; is he not saying that? Can you not see that?
1 A. Well, let me see. I wouldn't be surprised if he said that at
2 this juncture.
3 Q. Now, later on in the following page, 0501508797, so that would be
4 the following page, in the middle of that paragraph he says and I'll just
5 read slowly: "I support what someone said we should return all able-bodied
6 young men from Bosnia-Herzegovina who are bathing in the sea while walking
7 around because they have the obligation to defend their homeland just like
8 those who stayed there. They come here to work as waiters, to work at this
9 and that, and find all possible ways."
10 Now, here, sir, is Mr. Maric not saying that Croats from Bosnia-
11 Herzegovina should get back to Bosnia and Herzegovina to defend their
12 motherland? Is he not saying that here?
13 A. Yes, although -- and --
14 Q. I'll take the yes --
15 A. No. I should add that I think when he thinks of the motherland,
16 he's thinking of Herceg-Bosna, not the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
17 Q. Well, that's what I'm saying. He's asking those people --
18 because there are allegations here that everybody that went to Croatia was
19 this foreign force, and here we have Jozo Maric saying that Croats from
20 Bosnia and Herzegovina who are either bathing at the sea or working as a
21 waiters in wherever should get back to defend Bosnia and Herzegovina;
22 right? That's what he's saying.
23 A. Well, this first of all is consistent with what else I say in the
24 report. The problem of people hiding in the Republic of Croatia not
25 turning up for service is something that's mentioned quite a bit in my
1 report and the meeting in October of 1993 is mentioned as well.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. Now, after that, and I don't want to
3 spend too much time on this, Mr. President, because I do -- we all will
4 have the --
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, just one point.
6 You've just outlined the statement of Mr. Maric and based on this statement
7 you've contradicted the statements of the witness, but under the guidelines
8 set by the Chamber for the admission of exhibits, we stated what that --
9 that when a party wishes to challenge an exhibit, that party then has to
10 submit the translation of the relevant document of the text, therefore the
11 translation here of the statement of Mr. Maric, do you have this
12 translation in English?
13 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, Mr. President. I thought it was provided.
14 It's 1D -- 1 -- 1D 00918. We translated all the missing pages in English
15 so you would have the entire transcript.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
17 MR. KARNAVAS:
18 Q. And after that, we see that Mr. Zoran Buntic speaks. I don't
19 want to go into it, but let me just say one thing regarding this. Would it
20 be fair say, sir, that if we were to read this entire transcript and put it
21 into context what we have is a dialogue among all sorts of folks trying to
22 figure out how to resolve the Croatian question in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
23 Isn't that what it's all about, the general essence of this discussion?
24 A. Well, once again I wouldn't necessarily phrase it saying the
25 Croatian question in Bosnia and Herzegovina, because that implies certain
1 things, but yes they're talking about the situation of Croats in Bosnia and
2 Herzegovina. That's true.
3 Q. And -- and the gist of this is nobody's asking for annexation to
4 Croatia or for breaking away from Bosnia and Herzegovina, are they, if we -
5 - if we look at this entire transcript, and the Judges will be able to read
7 A. Shall I answer the question? Yes?
8 Q. Well, I mean it would be nice if you could.
9 A. Well, no one is proposing full independence at this juncture.
10 Q. Now in -- I'm talking about in this -- we're talking about this
11 conversation, sir. I'm not talking about some other juncture?
12 A. Okay.
13 Q. So work with me. Work with me. You know, we're talking about
14 September 17, 1992. You know, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure
15 this out. In this discussion here. They're not talking about breaking
16 away, is it?
17 A. Well, I'll try my best to work with you. What they're talking
18 about, and if I could summarise the general gist of what's decided here --
19 Q. No, is anybody advocating at this point in time to break away, to
20 form a statelet?
21 A. Well.
22 Q. To form a para-state? Is anybody saying it's a yes or no. The
23 Judges will have the transcript. They'll make the determination
24 A. Well --
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, let the witness answer. If Mr. Karnavas
2 is going to ask a question, then let the witness answer.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The counsel, based on the
4 transcript of 17 September 1992, including Mr. Maric's statement starting
5 at page 12 in the English version, therefore, the Defence is asking whether
6 Mr. Maric talks about the possible dismantling of Bosnia and Herzegovina in
7 favour of Herceg-Bosna or Croatia. The question is rather straightforward.
8 What do you think about this matter? Because you've read the transcript.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Or as Mr. Karnavas seems to be
11 suggesting, they're saying exactly contrary. Is that the case?
12 THE WITNESS: Well, first of all, and maybe it's a problem with
13 the translation, but I believe what Your Honour just asked me is slightly
14 different than what Mr. Karnavas just asked me. If the question were
15 simply what Mr. Maric thought, then I would say I don't remember the
16 entirety of his speech. If the question is what everyone at the meeting
17 was saying and doing and what the general consensus was, that's another
19 MR. KARNAVAS:
20 Q. Okay. Answer the latter question. Are you suggesting that there
21 was somebody in there advocating for the Croats to break away or break away
22 from Bosnia-Herzegovina or dismantle Bosnia-Herzegovina? Yes, no, maybe, I
23 don't recall? Four choices, pick one.
24 A. Well, I'm afraid if I can only pick those four choices I can't
25 give you a very good answer.
1 Q. Okay, very well.
2 A. But I can give you a two-sentence answer.
3 Q. I'm just asking is there anything when we read this when we walk
4 away will the Trial Chamber walk away with the impression that what is
5 being discussed in here by anyone is that the Croats of Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina are talking about dismantling the State of Bosnia-Herzegovina
7 and going off on their own, creating a statelet or being annexed to
8 Croatia? Yes, no, maybe?
9 A. They're definitely talking about creating their own institutions
10 and creating something that's -- I would call a statelet, yes.
11 Q. Okay. What you would call a -- now, is that a term of art when
12 you call if a statelet --
13 A. Well, I can go --
14 Q. -- yes or no? Is that a term of art because we need a definition
15 there what is a statelet on based on what educational background you're
16 going to give us this opinion? So is that a term of art yes or no?
17 A. Now, if it's a term of art or not I stated earlier that that's
18 not --
19 Q. Okay, then we'll move on.
20 A. -- that's --
21 Q. Then we'll move on. Sir, we'll move on. To what extent was the
22 central government able to pay salaries at the municipal level, at the
23 local level? Do you know? If you don't know say I don't know. So I don't
24 want you guessing?
25 A. I'm sure it was different in a lost different places.
1 Q. I'm asking you yes or no, sir, were they able to pay salaries for
2 the teachers? Were they able to pay for the medical facilities? Were they
3 it able to pay for the pensions? Were they able to provide the normal and
4 necessary services that state institutions who would be able --
5 MR. SCOTT: Objection.
6 MR. KARNAVAS: -- and are required to --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues] ...
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to put the question
10 to the witness myself to avoid any objections.
11 Sir, you're an expert. The question that was put to you is the
12 following was the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in a position to pay
13 the teachers, because that's the example that's mentioned here, was it in a
14 position to pay their salary? Do you know, you don't know, you can't
15 answer? That's a straightforward question.
16 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, could I just ask for clarification as to
17 where and when to pay the teachers in Sarajevo in 1992 or --
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Outside Sarajevo.
19 MR. SCOTT: -- or Tuzla, or where? Where and when?
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Was it in a position -- were
21 they in a position to pay the salaries in Sarajevo or in the -- on the
22 entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Or maybe you've not looked at
23 the issue. That's also another possibility here.
24 THE WITNESS: No, I haven't looked in the issue. There are
25 things I can say from my general impression but that's all I'm be able to
1 tell you.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you. I'll accept that, Your Honour.
3 Q. And you also --
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but what's the general
5 opinion? You've said that you've not looked into the matter but that you
6 can give a sort of general impression, general opinion about this. What is
8 THE WITNESS: Well -- yes, well I know generally, especially in
9 the earlier periods of the war that persons not just in government but in
10 general in quite a number of the former Yugoslav republics not just Bosnia
11 and Herzegovina were paid infrequently if at all, and I would be very
12 surprised if everyone were being paid and certainly be very surprised if
13 they were all being paid on time, because I know that there wasn't the
14 funds to pay people in general, especially in the early periods of the war.
15 MR. KARNAVAS:
16 Q. Okay. Now, in preparing your report also as I understand it that
17 you didn't think it was necessary to consider the peace proposals as they -
18 - and how they relate, perhaps, to that period or time.
19 A. Well, I department think it was appropriate because I thought
20 that was going to be --
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. -- dealt with by live witnesses.
23 Q. My questions are very precise. If I want to know whether it was
24 appropriate or not I'll ask you. The question is you did not consider it;
1 A. Well, I had to consider them as part of the broader context and I
2 did, but the point of the report wasn't to reach any conclusions or even
3 to give the Judges information about the peace --
4 Q. All right.
5 A. -- plans and piece negotiation.
6 Q. When you say in the greater context in the general context, where
7 in your report do you cite anything about the peace proposals and how
8 perhaps a particular peace proposal that's on the table might be affecting
9 what is going on on the ground? Is there anywhere in your report there?
10 A. Yeah. I believe in at least two occasions I mention the Vance-
11 Owen Plan --
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. -- in connection with the first half of 1993 because this is
14 something which all of the persons active in Herceg-Bosna were talking
15 about a great deal as was everyone in Bosnia at the time, and then I
16 believe I mention Owen-Stoltenberg --
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. -- in the late summer --
19 Q. All right?
20 A. -- of 1993 --
21 Q. Now --
22 A. -- at least less than I mention the other.
23 Q. In your report, do you do you not fail to examine critically the
24 actions of the Muslim side and the workings and the legitimacy of the
25 Bosnian government?
1 MR. SCOTT: Outside the scope of the report Your Honour.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: We've heard that, Your Honour.
3 MR. SCOTT: Yes, and I'm going keep saying it Mr. Karnavas with
4 put questions to the witness for the next two weeks that have nothing to do
5 with his report this witness was not asked to look at the Muslim side of
6 the government. He was asked to look at the structures and processes of
7 Herceg-Bosna and the HVO during the time period 1991 to 1994. He was not
8 commissioned to do any work of --
9 MR. KARNAVAS: We've heard this, Your Honour.
10 MR. SCOTT: -- do a report based upon what the Muslims were doing
11 or not doing. It's outside his report.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: We've heard this.
13 MR. SCOTT: I'm going to keep on saying it. I do not understand
14 why it is so difficult for anyone in the courtroom to understand the
15 concept what Mr. Tomljanovich was asked to do and what was in the scope of
16 his report and what is outside the scope of his report. It's a very basic
17 concept. It's stated in report itself I have quoted it to the Chamber of
18 what the scope and what the purpose of the report, it's stated in the
19 report, I won't quote it again. I don't know why it's so difficult for Mr.
20 Karnavas to understand that concept.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll move on, Your Honour.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott is right, Mr.
23 Karnavas. If you put the question it's because you're relying on something
24 or you want to establish something. What do you want to establish?
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. Here's why I objected because as I noted,
1 another Trial Chamber would not accept such the gentleman as an expert but
2 we have in this case because of the tradition we have in this Tribunal.
3 The gentleman was asked to write a report about, you know, about how
4 Herceg-Bosna was created and how it was established. It wasn't established
5 in a vacuum. Things were going on. Things were happening. They were
6 reacting. Their peace agreements, their friendship agreements all of these
7 things are driving the process. So if -- and I keep stressing this, Mr.
8 President and Your Honours, if the report was merely an account of what the
9 legislation was, the dates and chronology, then I wouldn't be here doing
10 this. But the moment that we have argument, the moment that we have
11 opinion, the moment that he's forming conclusions especially when the
12 gentleman tell us that he's ignorant of the various disciplines that would
13 require them to form those opinions, at that point in time, it is my God-
14 given right here as a Defence lawyer to be able to challenge him and to
15 show that the report is biased, is one-sided. It's not -- they can't have
16 it both ways. They've created the problem. If they -- if they want to
17 excise all of the opinions, all the conclusions and then resubmit the
18 report, then I -- I have no problem and I would be more than happy to
19 assist them on that project. It might turn out to be like ten pages, but
20 that's what we're talking about, Mr. President.
21 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, not one thing that Mr. Karnavas has
22 said so far contradicts the report of this witness. Everything he has
23 asked him so far has been largely -- sorry I don't want to -- not
24 everything, most of what has been asked by Mr. Karnavas has asked so far
25 was been completely outside the scope of this report, and this witness'
1 work, and nothing contradicts what he's done. Not one single thing in the
2 last hour and a half two hours not one thing has contradicted this witness
3 so it's just a false statement by Mr. Karnavas.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: May I simply proceed, Your Honour? I will move
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please proceed, Mr. Karnavas.
7 MR. KARNAVAS:
8 Q. Well, let's just look at some of your report you will know we're
9 not going to have a chance to look at all of it?
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Ibrisimovic was on his
12 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President. If I
13 might be of assistance. I think that the witness did deal with the
14 reactions from Sarajevo and some decisions of the Constitutional Court of
15 Bosnia-Herzegovina as well. So what Mr. Karnavas is asking I think is in
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, and we're going to get to that constitutional
18 decision, Mr. President, but I'll move on I just --
19 Q. In your first paragraph, you know --
20 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Sorry, there's something I failed to understand
21 or probably misunderstand, I wouldn't like to stay with the
23 MR. KARNAVAS: That's okay, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I look at the report which ends with a sort of a
25 summary, and if you look at the very large paragraph in 333, I read that
1 the HZ HB was replaced by a new constitutional framework with the HR HB
2 beginning in August 1993. The new HR HB was more permanent and more like a
3 state than HZ HB had been. I read that as saying that it was not a state
4 but less unlike a state than the previous was unlike a state. And whereas,
5 of course, the terms like statelet and things like that come up, I think
6 that this is the essence of the report, and I think that it is a bit of a
7 skeet shooting to go at single occurrences where the terms like state or
8 statelet come up when we have a statement here that I read as being quite
9 nuance and open to the issue which obviously is contested.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I would agree with you in part.
11 Again, I cannot overstress that I need three or four days to cross-examine
12 this individual. It would be calm. It would go step-by-step. I don't
13 have that luxury. So when you're saying skeet shooting. I'm trying to
14 shotgun this approach. I don't particularly enjoy this. I can tell you I
15 have over a hundred hours of preparation in this for this three-hour
16 preparation. It's not fair, but this is the best that we can do. So if I
17 may -- if I might go on, hopefully I'll clear things up a little bit.
18 Q. In your report on paragraph 1, you say you focus on the top "on
19 top levels of government in administration." You say that. But you do not
20 examine whether the top levels were able to effectively control local units
21 or extra governmental groups and organisations. Isn't that a fact?
22 A. Well, that's two questions there. First of all, as far as local
23 governments is concerned, I do address that as best I can with what the
24 documentation allows me to do.
25 Q. Now, sir.
1 A. As far as extra.
2 Q. I'm asking you whether --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 MR. KARNAVAS:
5 Q. Can you deal with whether they were able to effectively --
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: The microphone.
7 MR. KARNAVAS:
8 Q. -- extra governmental groups? Yes or no. If it's yes, I'll move
10 A. Well, local governments I do deal with. Local military units I
11 do not.
12 Q. Do you deal with effective, the effective control, sir? Do you
13 understand the term of art effective control? You've been here for seven
14 and a half years. Where have you been? Do you understand that term? And
15 that's the question the essence of the question is did they have effective
16 control at the very local level? Yes, no, I don't know, I didn't examine
18 A. Well, there's a few different things you mentioned. First of
19 all, if we're talking about municipal governments I can only answer insofar
20 as I do in the report and cite the documents I do which I think shows --
21 Q. Very well sir?
22 A. -- a good level of control now.
23 Q. I understand you're not answering the question we'll move on. In
24 your -- in your -- your research you examine those organs -- this is on
25 paragraph 2 -- that you assume, my word, that you claim effectively
1 exercise power. Okay. Now this is an assumption on your part you assume
2 that they "effectively exercise power," are you not?
3 A. Well, if you read the next sentence, I explain what I mean by
4 that. And what I mean is I'm talking about those organisations that
5 actually functioned as opposed to temporary governments that were set up as
6 parted of a peace programme but never got off the ground.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. That was there to preempt talking about those things.
9 Q. You say in paragraph 3 you chose not to discuss the day-to-day
10 workings of the military combat units. Should you not have at least
11 discussed the relations of military units to local -- to the local civilian
12 organs under discussion?
13 A. No. I believe that not to be part of what I was supposed to do.
14 Q. Okay. So you didn't -- you weren't interested in for instance if
15 there was the effective chain -- the effectiveness of the chain of command?
16 A. I wouldn't say I wasn't interested.
17 Q. Okay but -
18 A. I would say that I did not think I was supposed on it making --
19 Q. Okay. It's not in your report?
20 A. -- dealing with narrowly military subjects and I would consider
21 that narrowly military subjects.
22 Q. Okay. Or the ability of the civil administrators to influence
23 the military including the local militia. That's not in your report
25 A. Well, the relationship, the de jure relationship between the
1 military and the civilian structures is something which I do address.
2 However, their ability to control what you call local militia, I think, was
3 -- that's another thing I thought outside of the scope of this report.
4 Q. So it's not in your report.
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. Now, in paragraph 4 you say that you used extensive --
7 that you -- "Extensive use of primary sources from one side of a conflict
8 has advantages in disadvantages which need to be kept in mind focusing
9 primarily on primary sources written by Herceg-Bosna organs and leaders
10 during the period gives a very direct picture on what they thought and did
11 at the time," and you go on.
12 I take it you stand by that. That's a yes, no, or I --
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. -- disagree with myself.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So here you were only interested in looking at one side of the --
17 the documents of only one side?
18 A. Okay, and I will say with my no, I --
19 Q. I want to ask the question.
20 A. May I finish my answer?
21 Q. I asked you whether you looked at one side and the answer was
22 yes. I move on.
23 MR. SCOTT: No, Your Honour that mischaracterises the record,
24 because what Mr. Karnavas repeatedly does as he does here at line 17 and 18
25 is he gets an answer and then he restates the answer using different
2 Mr. Tomljanovich, you can go through the past several pages of
3 transcript, if you wish --
4 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll listen to Mr. Tomljanovich rather than have
5 to hear Mr. Scott who obviously -- I'll listen to Mr. Tomljanovich, Your
7 MR. SCOTT: Mr. President, he said --
8 MR. KARNAVAS: I would ask, Your Honour, that Mr. Scott be told
9 to sit down and allow me to cross-examine.
10 MR. SCOTT: No.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. Tomljanovich can answer the question.
12 MR. SCOTT: I'm not going to not object when Mr. Karnavas
13 mischaracterises the record so he comes back on line 15 and says: "So you
14 were only interested." He didn't ask him what he was interested in, he
15 asked him what he looked at.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.
17 MR. SCOTT: It's not fair to the witness to say: "You weren't
18 interested in this." That's not what Mr. Tomljanovich said.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: He can answer the question that's fine. That's
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, you should not
22 mischaracterise the questions or -- but please, put your question again so
23 that we can follow the answer of the.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Well.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well.
2 Q. Give us the reason why you only looked at one side, please keep
3 it under two minutes, how about that?
4 And I would appreciate if Mr. Scott would quit making remarks,
5 you know. I can tolerate a certain degree of his obnoxiousness but I think
6 he's going beyond the pale at this point.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please answer the question.
8 Question that you can read at line 23 of the transcript.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. Now, I intended on looking at what -- how
10 Herceg-Bosna structures and organs and what it is they did. Now, what I
11 was saying in the paragraph you cited was that what I wanted to do is take
12 the primary source documents which they themselves produced not quite
13 exclusively but very heavily their documents as a description of what
14 they're doing. Before I did that, I gave the Judges and everyone in the
15 trial the warning that when I'm doing this you have to understand that I'm
16 drawing from their own account of things and when you see my cite their
17 documents, I'm citing from their account of things and that's what has to
18 be remembered.
19 Q. And what was the reason --
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just an example. There's
21 something I found extremely interesting in your report in relation with the
22 establishment of tribunals and Judges appointed by Herceg-Bosna. You deal
23 with this subject.
24 So in line with Mr. Karnavas's question, I'd like to know the
25 following: As an expert did you wonder whether they decided to appoint a
1 new prosecutor, new judges, set up new courts? Was it because the judges
2 or the prosecutors or the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina were not
3 functioning? Was it the reason why they appointed new ones, or was it
4 because -- was it for other reasons these institutions were working but for
5 some other reasons they decided to appoint new judges, prosecutors and
6 tribunals? I believe that this is a very interesting question. What do
7 you have to say about this?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes, and I think it's an interesting question as
9 well and I think the answer to Your Honour's question comes from and I
10 forget the date but I do cite it in report the meeting of the HVO HZ HB in
11 October of 1992 when they discuss the law on courts. They were presented
12 with two options and two draft laws. One had the advantage of being
13 acceptable to the existing authorities of the republic of Bosnia and
14 Herzegovina, and the other option had the advantage of giving them control
15 and bringing the judicial organs more in line with the other organs which
16 they created. And they chose to pick the version which gave them the
17 greatest freedom of action and which was the most different from the system
18 which preceded.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may ask a question.
20 Q. Are you suggesting that they adopted a new legal system, a new
21 criminal procedure?
22 A. Well, that's --
23 Q. Yes or no?
24 A. That's a different matter.
25 Q. What are you suggesting here?
1 A. Well, when they're discussing I think it's actually now the
2 specifics -I can't tell you off the top of my head - but in October of 1992
3 when they discuss I believe it's the decree on the courts, they talk about
4 setting up a new structure, and there's two proposals and this is the
5 proposal which is the most novel and the most different from that which
6 existed, yes. Now, criminal procedure is another thing, and the Criminal
7 Code is another matter.
8 Q. Did they adopt a new criminal procedure?
9 A. They -- well, the Criminal Code, they adopt the Criminal Code of
10 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as long as it's not in contradiction
11 with their own ordinances.
12 Q. All right. By the way, did they appoint new judges in October?
13 Is that what you're suggesting?
14 A. No. They set up the new structures. Now, as far as judicial
15 appointments --
16 Q. Okay. When you say new structures, explain that to us because
17 you're the expert. When you say new structures, explain this in detail
18 because this is something that you obviously went into and you claim to
19 have some knowledge, so please tell us what structures are you talking
21 A. Well --
22 Q. I mean, if you don't remember or you don't know just say so and
23 I'll move along?
24 A. Unfortunately without my report I can't quote you chapter and
25 verse on the decree they reached. All I can tell you is that when they
1 were confronted with two options at the meeting of the HVO HZ HB --
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. -- They chose the one which was the most novel.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. And that's in the document.
6 Q. All right.
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Main may I just come back to the question just
8 asked, Mr. Karnavas but did not get an answer and it was about criminal
9 procedure. You only got an answer about criminal law and I would like to
10 hear the answer about criminal procedure that was your question.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Yeah, yeah, that would be nice, presupposing that
12 the gentleman read the criminal procedure and compared the two but that
13 would be nice.
14 THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not sure what you mean by criminal
15 procedure. All I've seen is that the criminal code and the law on
16 misdemeanours was adopted, the existing BiH and SFRJ laws were adopted and
17 taken over I think in some case was amendments.
18 MR. KARNAVAS:
19 Q. You know the difference between criminal procedure and
20 substantive criminal law? If you don't know, say I don't know?
21 A. Not as well as a lawyer does, that's for sure.
22 Q. So the answer is you don't know?
23 A. I could guess, but no point in doing so.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: I believe Judge Trechsel that may answer your
1 Q. Now, in your report, you ignore the constitutional and legal
2 basis which imposed the obligation citizens, towns, municipalities,
3 communities to defend their country; is that not correct?
4 A. No, I wouldn't say that.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. Because in this particular well, depends what you mean by that.
7 Q. Well, we're going to get to that. That's why I asked the
9 A. Well, did I cite the law on defence of BiH no I did not cite it
10 but I did look at it.
11 Q. Now, you say the law on defence of BiH, which law are we talking
12 about are we talking about the All People's Defence or the law on armed
13 forces of BiH? What is it that you're talking about? And incidentally I
14 think it should be the SRBiH; right? The socialist republic of BiH at this
15 point in time?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: We're going to take our break. Yes. It's
18 unfortunate, Mr. President, but we'll get back to this.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It is ten to 4.00. We
20 reconvene at 4.10.
21 --- Recess taken at 3.50 p.m.
22 --- On resuming at 4.11 p.m.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resumed.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
25 Q. Okay. We left off, Mr. Tomljanovich, when I asked you about
1 whether you had looked at the constitutional and legal basis which impose
2 the obligation on the citizens, towns, municipalities, and communities to
3 defend their country, and I wasn't sure that you had answered that
4 question. So --
5 A. Shall I answer now?
6 Q. Yes, please.
7 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
8 MR. KARNAVAS:
9 Q. Your microphone.
10 A. Is it on? Is it on? Yes, now it's on. Thank you. Thanks.
11 I looked at the constitutional and legal basis for the
12 obligations of towns, cities, municipalities in -- within the HVO Herceg-
13 Bosna system. As far as the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is
14 concerned, I briefly looked at the law on defence, but I considered that to
15 be outside of the scope of what I was doing.
16 Q. Okay. Now, let me say -- let me ask you this: You say within
17 the HVO Herceg-Bosna system. Let's -- let's backtrack. Before there was
18 Herceg-Bosna, there was the Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, was
19 there not?
20 A. Yes. And actually while there was Herceg-Bosna as well.
21 Q. Okay, but we're going to go step-by-step. And that was just --
22 and before Bosnia and Herzegovina got its independence, it was part of
23 Yugoslavia; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. All right. Now, under the two -- both the -- the federal
1 constitution and the constitution for the republic, the Socialist Republic
2 of Bosnia-Herzegovina, did they not provide for -- or make it obligatory
3 for citizens, towns and municipalities, cities to defend the town in case
4 of need?
5 A. Yes, they had the concept of All People's Defence, that all
6 people would be mobilised in the event of war.
7 Q. Okay. And we're going to get to that. Now, I take it when you
8 said that you looked at -- well, you qualified your answer that you just
9 looked at the HVO -- the Herceg-Bosna system. Did you look at the
10 constitution, the then existing constitution of the Socialist Republic of
11 Bosnia-Herzegovina to see what exactly was inside that legal instrument
12 with respect to municipalities being able to organise themselves in case of
13 a --
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. An emergency. You looked at that?
16 A. I looked at that and it's precisely the things you're talking
17 about. I just briefly looked at the existing constitution in regards to
18 communities and municipalities just for my own background because that's a
19 issue that's going to be coming up.
20 Q. You agree with me if we're going to look at the establishment of
21 the HZ HB where municipalities are organising themselves, keeping in mind
22 of course the events that are unfolding at the time, one would have to look
23 at it within the scope of the constitution of the republic, right, or the
24 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
25 A. Yes and no.
1 Q. All right.
2 A. No insofar as I did not consider it was my role to be deciding
3 whether or not what they did was in fact constitutional and whether it was
4 an allowed association of municipalities because that's a value judgement
5 beyond what I thought I was supposed to do.
6 Q. Okay. Now, let me make sure I understand this correctly, and so
7 as I -- as I stand here asking you these questions, it is your position
8 that you are unable as an expert witness to give an opinion with respect to
9 whether the HZ HB, HR HB was constitutional or not, was within the -- was,
10 yeah, constitutional or not was within the then constitution for Bosnia-
12 A. No, I don't think it was my role to provide a definitive answer.
13 Just to mention who thought --
14 Q. Sir?
15 A. -- who reached which conclusions at the time.
16 Q. Sir, let's assume that you're doing your oral exams for your
17 Ph.D. and your professor wants you to answer the questions directly.
18 A. Well --
19 Q. I didn't ask you what your role was. From your previous answer,
20 it would appear that what -- you're making an admission here that you do
21 not know whether HZ HB, HR HB was constitutional or not; correct?
22 A. I only know that the Constitutional Court thought it was not.
23 Q. I understand what the Constitutional Court -- and we're going to
24 get there, but as you stand here today, because you were asked to look at
25 the construct, how it was established, and I would imagine that in trying
1 to determine how it was established one would have to look at where it was
2 established, in what confines, and of course the circumstances, but in
3 trying to determine how it was established, did you look at the then
4 existing constitution and try to make a determination whether it was
5 permissible for these municipalities under those circumstances to organise
6 -- to organise themselves? Yes or no?
7 A. No, because that would be a value judgement.
8 Q. Okay. Fine. Now, let's assume that you were asked to do that.
9 It would be fair to say that given that, you have no legal training, by
10 your own admission, and I think it was Ms. Alaburic that more or less
11 walked you through some documents to show how you're actually incapable of
12 even understanding and knowing how to read the law. It would be fair to
13 say that if that had been your mission, you would not be able to fulfil it,
14 given your background?
15 MR. SCOTT: If it wasn't his mission, what's the relevance of the
16 question? He wasn't qualified to do something he didn't do.
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Because I dare say, Your Honour -- first I would
18 like to have answer to my question and then I will state the obvious.
19 MR. SCOTT: How -- it's pure speculation, hypothetical, don't
20 exist in the real world. Are you qualified to do something you didn't do?
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At all events, I understood the
22 gist of the question, and it enters into the Defence case theory. Now, the
23 question is the following that the Defence is asking you: On the basis of
24 studies, documents, research, context, everything that you had available,
25 the inhabitants of the municipality, did they have the power to defend
1 themselves, to set up a unity, military or otherwise, and entity, in order
2 to stand up to a potential aggressor? The documents, the constitution of
3 Bosnia-Herzegovina, or texts from ex-Yugoslavia, did they provide for the
4 inhabitants to do that, to constitute some sort of entity, unity,
5 paramilitary, paralegal, legal, or whatever, in your opinion? You studied
6 the question. You examined it. Because it goes to the heart of the
7 matter, to the heart of the Defence case.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, if I could answer Your Honour's question,
9 there's really two parts to that. First of all, as far as the Defence
10 obligation of persons under the constitution, all persons had a duty to
11 defend the existing order and the existing constitution. Now, the question
12 of associations of municipalities is a separate question, and the
13 associations of municipalities are supposed to be done for an economic, not
14 a defence -- not for the purposes of defence, as far as I understand. So
15 that's a separate matter.
16 MR. KARNAVAS:
17 Q. All right. If I may continue, Mr. President.
18 First of all, let's go back a little bit. First, you told us
19 that you didn't -- that you're not competent to thoroughly read and
20 understand legal instruments such as a constitution; correct? You don't
21 have the legal background or the training.
22 A. Well, no, and I'm not worried because that because there's no
23 shortage of lawyers in the room today.
24 Q. Okay. Well, I didn't ask you about the shortage of lawyers.
25 Now, sir, my question was whether you were competent to give us
1 an opinion on whether it was legal or not legal, and you said that that's -
2 - that you were not asked to do that; correct? Am I to understand that?
3 A. No, I was not asked to do that but that's a separate question
4 from my competence.
5 Q. I'm going to get there step-by-step. Had you been asked, let's
6 just say that for the sake of context it would have been necessary for you
7 to make that determination, would it be fair to say based on your previous
8 answers that you would not have been able to fill that part of your mandate
9 because you lack the necessary legal qualifications; correct?
10 A. I've never -- I've -- I have always maintained I'm not a lawyer.
11 Q. All right. Now, you said -- but yet you just stated here, and
12 you just gave a legal opinion to Their Honours that based on your reading
13 of the constitution that they could only -- the municipalities could only
14 gather in -- they could only form associations for economic purposes. Is
15 it your opinion, then, that based on your reading of the constitution and
16 you were reading of the All People's Defence, and your reading of other
17 legal instruments which by the way you've stated you're not competent to do
18 so, but is it your opinion these legal instruments do not provide for
19 municipalities to associate themselves in times of need such as where there
20 is a war?
21 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, the witness --
22 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm going to object to Mr. Scott trying to one,
23 interfere; and two, trying to give witness clues.
24 MR. SCOTT: I'm not going -- I'm going to object.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: He can answer the question.
1 MR. SCOTT: I'm going to object if the questions are improper and
2 the characterisation is improper. What this witness has never said and
3 this is why - and I'm sorry, I tried to come back in here and not get on my
4 feet and I hope not to, but I'm not going to allow Mr. Karnavas to
5 mischaracterise the testimony of this witness.
6 Mr. Tomljanovich has never said he's not competent to answer
7 these particular questions. He said he's not a lawyer. Now, that is not
8 an end to the inquiry. He may be a trained expert in other areas which
9 allows him to read certain historical documents and state an opinion. So
10 if he says, I'm not a lawyer, that's not the same as Mr. Karnavas saying
11 you've admitted you're not competent. They're not the same thing and I
12 will not allow Mr. Karnavas to mischaracterise the witness's evidence.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes.
14 Mr. Tomljanovich, you've said you're not lawyer. We've known
15 that ever since you entered the courtroom. But what we know as Judges is
16 you're a historian and if a historian broaches the history of a country he
17 has to start out and proceed by doing historical research and also deal
18 with problems that are not strictly within the area of expertise that he
19 deals with but that are related, structures, power relations, the army, and
20 the various basic texts, constitutions, laws, rules and regulations, things
21 of that kind.
22 So in your work as a historian, because it's not your work as a
23 lawyer that you're asked about now, but as an historian, did you ask
24 yourself these questions? Did you ask about Territorial Defence matters,
25 defence by individuals faced with an aggression from outside, an external
1 aggression, things of that kind? Did you review those subjects? It's like
2 the secessionist war in the United States, for example. You wouldn't have
3 to be a lawyer. Would he not look at all the legal aspects of the problems
4 at the time?
5 THE WITNESS: I should answer that in a little bit more detail.
6 First of all, I did look at all of those matters, and I've dealt with them
7 in previous trials and in other documents, but in a, you know, rather
8 superficial way. I didn't deal with them specifically for this report
9 because it was my understanding that no one was -- this trial wasn't about
10 whether or not those particular -- whether or not the HVO and its
11 foundation itself was legal. I didn't offer any opinion on that, and I
12 didn't think there was any point to do so.
13 If that does become an issue, I think I've used the documents
14 which would lead the Judges to where you'd have to go to make that
15 decision, but that's certainly -- something in that detail is not something
16 I've looked at, although I do have my own opinion as to what their
17 motivations were and what was allowed under the existing law on
18 constitution, which is not an expert opinion.
19 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may. May I continue, Mr. President?
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, continue, Mr. Karnavas.
21 But what we know is the witness is not a lawyer but an historian. Bear
22 that in mind.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Of 19th century history, by the way, Croatian
24 history, who has taught some survey courses in other periods.
25 Q. Okay. Now, sir -- sir, I take it if I were to walk you through
1 the constitution, the 1974 constitution, or the law on the All People's
2 Defence, it wouldn't make much of -- it would be sort of an exercise in
3 futility since you're not a lawyer.
4 A. Well, that would be entirely up to you and what it is you intend
5 to do with it.
6 Q. Okay. Did you look at the law on All People's Defence which was,
7 incidentally in the Official Gazette of the socialist republic of BiH? And
8 I'm sure your office would have had it. Did you look at it and study it to
9 see to what extent it provided for the citizens at the very local level
10 moving up to the municipalities and further on up to the state level to
11 organise themselves in case of war? Did you study is that?
12 A. Yes, a very long time ago, but it's generally known that in the
13 system of the former Yugoslavia everyone had a defence obligation.
14 Q. Yes. When we talk about everyone, municipalities also had
15 obligations, did they not?
16 A. I believe they had to have a defence plan.
17 Q. They had to have a defence plan. Okay. And you would agree with
18 me at least during that period of time it would have been necessary for
19 municipalities to at least on an individual basis to organise themselves
20 within the municipality to defend themselves?
21 A. Yes, although I wouldn't make any representations as to what was
22 the role of the municipality and what was the role of the central organ.
23 Q. I'm not asking that. But they do have some role?
24 A. They do have some role, yes.
25 Q. I don't want to get drawn back into this argument but from
1 listening to you last time with the central bank not functioning and there
2 being no currency, the state as it was such as it was back in 1992 could
3 not -- was not providing funds at the local level for, say, military
4 purposes. Are you aware of that?
6 A. Well, I couldn't say anything about that with any certainty.
7 Q. Well, did you look into it to see whether, at the local level,
8 these folks could rely on the state government, whether it be for military
9 protection or for weapons, for salaries, et cetera? Did you look into
11 A. No, I did not.
12 Q. Okay. And did you look at any of the municipalities,
13 incidentally I know that you were told to focus, I know only on HVO, only
14 on the Croats, but did you by any chance look to make a comparison if
15 anywhere else in Bosnia-Herzegovina, say in Tuzla or other municipalities,
16 whether they organised themselves and whether they did anything to make
17 sure that they could provide the day-to-day needs for their citizens, needs
18 that were not being provided, services which were not being provided by the
19 state government as it was required to do so under normal circumstances?
20 A. No, I didn't look into that.
21 Q. Okay. All right. Now, you said something about -- and it just
22 caught my ear little bit, about -- you said you weren't -- your mission
23 wasn't there to talk about the legality or illegality of the HZ HB. That
24 was left to somebody else. But if we look at your report, you talk about
25 de jure and de facto, and I have to tell you that outside legal terms, you
1 know, legal -- a legal atmosphere, people don't go around talking about de
2 jure and de facto. What is your definition of de jure and what is your
3 definition of de facto so we know that you as a non-lawyer what your
4 definition is, and I can proceed on my question?
5 A. De jure is how things function according to the law; de facto is
6 how things in fact do function.
7 Q. Okay. I think we can agree on that. I think we can accept that
8 definition. Now if you're not there to make a determination on whether
9 something is legal or illegal, unconstitutional or constitutional, you not
10 being a lawyer by your own admission, how can you then -- and then as
11 you've indicated you weren't asked to look into it, it wasn't part of your
12 mandate, how then can you put into your report a section on the de jure
14 A. Well, I had access to the official Gazettes.
15 Q. Incidentally, and I take it that's what you looked at official
16 Gazettes and the minutes of the meetings, of the various meetings.
17 A. And other documents that we had access to as well but most --
18 most of the legislation we know about is in the official Gazettes.
19 Q. Okay. And I take it you were also looking at the legislation
20 from the state level as well to see whether -- I know we talked a little
21 bit about the Constitutional Court decision and we're going to get to that,
22 but did you look at the other legislation or did you just focus on the HVO?
23 A. When you say state level or BiH.
24 Q. Yeah.
25 A. No, I made a deliberate decision not to deal with that.
1 Q. Okay but nonetheless it is your expert opinion when you talk
2 about de jure it's simply based on looking at these documents?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And when say de jure, at least if I understand your definition of
5 de jure, and the scope of your report within this definition, your analysis
6 is what -- you know, how the law -- you know, if we read it, analyse, it
7 synthesise it, we come up with this de jure analysis that you have come
8 which doesn't mean that it's constitutional or unconstitutional.
9 A. As far as I understand the question, yes.
10 Q. Okay. All right. Okay. Now, you said you looked at it. Then
11 there's a section de facto, and again I need to pin you down a little bit,
12 because earlier on I asked you a question about whether you had looked into
13 to what extent, to what extent the top leaders, as you put it, had actual
14 effective command and control or effective control over at the very local
15 level, and as I understand it, what you said was you didn't look into that;
16 right? You're shaking your head?
17 A. No --
18 Q. Does that mean you did look into it and I'm wrong or you did look
19 at it?
20 A. I looked into it only as documents permitted. There is
21 documentation that I cited in this report of the municipalities and their
22 relationship with the central Herceg-Bosna government but only insofar as
23 documentation allowed me to do so.
24 Q. All right. Okay. All right. Well, I'm not going to go through
25 the 1974 BiH constitution or the law on All People's Defence. We'll save
1 that for someone else. But suffice it to say in looking at your report, I
2 don't see you articulating anywhere or citing anywhere in any concrete
3 fashion the law on All People's Defence. So may I conclude that at least
4 for the analysis of this report, which you say is balanced and complete and
5 what have you, the law on All People's Defence was not considered, hence
6 why it's not in your report.
7 A. In my report, I considered the previous law on All People's
8 Defence to be superseded by the HVO decree on the armed forces.
9 Q. Okay, you say superseded now. Help me out here because you're
10 throwing me off on that one. Are you saying that law was above or below,
11 which one?
12 A. Within the thinking of the persons who applied the law judging --
13 the inference I make, judging on the fact that BiH laws had to be adopted
14 especially by the HZ HB to be put into effect it's my assumption that their
15 law would have priority unless the existing law had already been an
16 adopted, otherwise there wouldn't be any point to adopt existing BiH law
17 such as they did with the Criminal Code.
18 Q. All right. Let me cut this Gordian knot. As I understand it,
19 and maybe you can agree with me, what you're saying is that state law, and
20 that the constitution is above all other laws; right?
21 A. No, I didn't say that.
22 Q. N, but I'm just -- I'm going to walk you through it so help me
23 out here work with me. Is it not your understanding that the highest law
24 in the state would have been the constitution?
25 A. Well --
1 Q. Yes or no?
2 A. Do you mean the republican constitution?
3 Q. Yeah, we're talking about socialist republic of BiH.
4 A. I don't have much of a personal opinion. I just know that it's
5 not something which was thought as the highest law in the land by people in
6 the HVO during most of the period in which they operated.
7 Q. I'm not asking you what you think the HVO did. I'm asking you on
8 a theoretical basis. Now you can tell me, "I don't know."
9 A. On a theoretical basis it sounds plausible that the republican
10 constitution should take precedence over Republika Srpska law and Herceg-
11 Bosna law.
12 Q. Okay. And on a theoretical basis would it also sound plausible
13 to you that the law on All People's Defence, which is at the state level,
14 would also apply, those principles would also apply?
15 A. Not within the HVO HZ HB system.
16 Q. Hold on. Step-by-step I said. On a theoretical basis, because
17 at this point in time you told us that you don't know whether HVO HZ HB is
18 constitutional or not. Okay? And I'm asking you a very concrete question.
19 Is the legislation coming from the state such as the All People's Defence
20 above legislation, above legislation that is being put at the municipal
21 level? Leaving out HZ HB. Yes, no, I don't know? Those -- you know.
22 A. Well, first of all, I think you misrepresented one of the things
23 I said earlier. I didn't say I didn't know whether it was constitutional
24 or not, I just said that wasn't a decision for me to make and that I could
25 only point to the institutions that did declare it unconstitutional.
1 Q. But hold it, hold it, hold it. I'm going to stop you right there
2 because you're now like a back slider, because I thought we established
3 that. You're not a constitutional expert, didn't really consult the
4 constitution, didn't consult lawyers that would be able to help you out.
5 You said it wasn't part your mandate, so now are you saying that it was not
6 constitutional? Are you forming an opinion at this point in time? Yes or
8 MR. SCOTT: No, because the objection is Mr. Karnavas is once
9 again mischaracterising once again what the witness said he doesn't say to
10 say what his opinion was. He cited the two Constitutional Court decisions
11 of the Bosnia Constitutional Court that said both the Croatian Community
12 and Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna were unconstitutional. He don't have
13 to be a lawyer to report as a historian of the Constitutional Court rule.
14 And that's what his testimony has been and again Mr. Karnavas
15 mischaracterises it.
16 MR. KARNAVAS:
17 Q. All right. Were you called here as an expert as an historian on
18 19th century history or are you here to give us an opinion on the legal
19 constructs as you put it de jure and de facto of the HZ HB that existed
20 within the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
21 A. It's my understanding that I'm not supposed to do either. It's
22 my understanding that I'm supposed to point the Judges to the evidence
23 that's relevant to understanding the governing structures and processes.
24 Q. Okay. Well, at one point you liken the HZ HB to the Republika
25 Srpska, do you not?
1 A. Oh, yes.
2 Q. Okay. Now, could you please point where in your report do you
3 make a detailed analysis for the Trial Chamber to make a determination
4 because you're just -- you make that statement, but I see no analysis, and
5 don't tell me what you learned in other cases because I'm talking about
6 this report. Is there an analysis in the report? Yes, no, or maybe you
7 forgot to put it or you ran out of pages or something you were told to take
8 it out. I don't know. What is the answer?
9 A. I'll used the -- you used the folksy metaphor that if it walks
10 like a duck and it talks like a duck, it's a duck.
11 Q. Where's the analysis, sir? A concrete analysis. Let's assume
12 that the Judges have no idea what the RS Republika Srpska is and I cannot
13 make assumption that our Honourable Chamber knows that. Where in your
14 report do you make an analysis so at least when we look at the two we can
15 say uh-huh, they must be the same?
16 A. Well, given that the Republika Srpska was --
17 Q. Sir, sir I'm asking you for your report. I am entitled to
18 notice, I got notice of your report. I'm asking where in your report you
19 make the comparison, the analytical comparison other than merely making a
21 MR. SCOTT: Can the witness please be provided a copy of his
22 report and be allowed to look at pages 8, 9 and 10, please. He doesn't
23 even have his report in front of him. So perhaps if the report could be
24 provided and his attention could be directed to pages 8, 9, 10 and 11 of
25 the report.
1 THE WITNESS: Although I believe I could answer that question
2 without looking at my report.
3 MR. KARNAVAS:
4 Q. Answer the question.
5 A. If I could have two sentences.
6 Q. Okay. Go ahead.
7 A. I didn't think it was necessary to do so because in my opinion it
8 was obvious that an association of municipalities put together stated for
9 the benefit of one particular ethnic group by the political party of one
10 particular ethnic group was a very similar thing, and I thought -- I didn't
11 think I needed to go through every point in which they're similar in order
12 for that to be quite obvious to everyone?
13 Q. Or dissimilar.
14 A. Some ways they may be dissimilar as well.
15 Q. Okay. Now, let's -- since we talked about this constitutional
16 court decision, maybe we could go through that, but just incidentally
17 before we get to that decision, might I ask if you looked at all the
18 documents that were referenced when we had Mr. Kljuic here as a witness
19 showing that the Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina were continually asking the
20 state, asking the government in Sarajevo to take measures because of the
21 imminent threat. And I'm referring to -- we have at least seven documents
22 that were presented. You indicated you saw Mr. Kljuic when he was
23 testifying. You watched that portion. Might I ask whether you looked at
24 those documents? And I can cite them out. Would you like me to cite them
1 A. Well, if you cite them or not, it's entirely up to you, but I can
2 tell you from -- at the beginning I didn't see more than about an hour's of
3 Mr. Kljuic's cross-examination in this case.
4 Q. Did you consider -- did you consider P 00032, the meeting of the
5 Presidency of the HDZ BiH 4 April 1991, it's been introduced. Did you look
6 at it; yes or no?
7 A. I'm not sure although that document probably came up during Mr.
8 Kljuic's testimony in Kordic.
9 Q. They all did I'm just asking you whether you looked at it?
10 A. I said it did in Kordic.
11 Q. In Kordic you were in court, as I understand?
12 A. Yes, I was.
13 Q. A fact that you omitted last time you were asked. You were
14 actually in court and I point that out to the record to further demonstrate
15 how closely intertwined he is in the Prosecution team.
16 What about P 00034, the second meeting of the Presidency HDZ BiH
17 16 April 1991? Did you consider that in your report because I don't see it
19 A. Not specifically for this report I probably looked at all the
20 meetings of the Presidency --
21 Q. What about?
22 A. -- seven years ago.
23 Q. What about P 00041, the sixth regular meeting of the Presidency
24 of HDZ BiH 10 July 1991? These are all incidentally meetings where the
25 same topic is coming up, the imminent threat of danger, the state should be
1 doing something let's organise ourselves did you look at that for your
3 A. No, I did not because I assumed Mr. Kljuic, as a live witness
4 would deal with these.
5 Q. Okay. Now, you say you assume. How did you know I was going to
6 introduce these documents because they didn't come in, even though they
7 have a P number, I was the one who showed them to Mr. Kljuic or many of
8 them how could you make such an assumption?
9 A. Just guessing based on what happened in Kordic.
10 Q. Okay, all right. Okay. So you're clairvoyant as well. Okay.
11 Well what P 00042, the HDZ BiH meeting in Busovaca with the HDZ BiH
12 Presidency and this is 21 July 1991. That's not in your report.
13 A. No, it didn't.
14 Q. Okay. Or P 00047, the second ordinary session of the Main Board
15 of the HDZ in Prozor Rama, 6 August 1992, that's not in there either, is
17 A. No, it isn't.
18 Q. And then there are two more documents that's the 9th regular
19 session which is P 00052 and P 0051 is the press release from the 9th
20 regular session and respectively they are both 26 August 1991. That wasn't
21 in your report, and that wasn't considered; correct?
22 A. I wouldn't say it wasn't considered because all these meetings of
23 the party are things that I have seen a number of times before and I
24 deliberately didn't think it was necessary to put them in the report.
25 Q. All right. But -- okay. If the -- if the Croats are alarmed
1 that there's a war going on in Croatia, that the -- that the JNA is using
2 Bosnian territory to attack Croatia and that the state government, the
3 Sarajevo government is unable or incapable or unwilling to do anything,
4 okay, do you think that the Croats in Bosnia-Herzegovina would be alarmed
5 to the extent that they might look at the All People's Defence in
6 organising themselves at least for the purposes of fending off an imminent
7 threat of danger? Did you that I can that into consideration?
8 MR. SCOTT: Beyond the scope of the report, Your Honour. Again
9 he wasn't here to speculate as to whether it was right or wrong for what
10 the Croats did what they did but simply to testify as to the structures and
11 processes that were established, whether they were good or bad, evil or
12 good, whatever they were, Mr. Tomljanovich has said not to express value
13 judgements but simply to report the structures as think existed. And
14 that's all he's done. And again Mr. Karnavas wants to talk -- have this
15 witness talk everything about the Defence case which has nothing to do with
16 this what witness was asked to do.
17 Mr. Karnavas can call his own expert, he can call his own
18 witnesses until as long as the Court wants to give him the time to do that
19 but not to ask this witness to do beyond the scope of what he did.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: As I indicated, Mr. President, because there are
21 value judgements in the report, because there are conclusions, it begs
22 these sorts of questions. Now, to suggest that I can call my own expert,
23 well, let me put it -- frankly, I don't have seven years to hire somebody
24 for this kind of money that he's getting paid number one. And number two,
25 that I -- the burden is -- the burden of proof is on the Prosecution, and
1 that's why I'm entitled to go into this. So if the Prosecution is putting
2 forward a report with conclusions, I'm entitled to challenge them.
4 Q. Now, let's go look at the constitutional decision, and --
5 because that's something that you do cite, okay? That's something that you
6 do cite. And do you recall the date by any chance?
8 A. It would have been in mid many of September, 1992.
9 Q. That's 18 September, 1992. Now, before we get there, before we
10 get there, work with me a little bit here, I want to look at one document,
11 and that's 339. I guess it's -- it's P 00339. This is, as you may recall
12 while we're waiting to get it up, this is agreement on friendship and
13 cooperation, okay?
14 A. Uh-huh.
15 Q. Now, to those who don't know too much about this, this is an
16 agreement between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. All right. And in fact, it was an agreement struck between
19 Tudjman, who was -- Franjo Tudjman, who was the president, then president
20 of the Republic of Croatia, and Izetbegovic who was the president of the
21 Presidency, not the president of the country but the president of
22 Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. Now, as I understand it and I doesn't know if this is
25 in the record yet, but I would certainly ask and invite the close scrutiny
1 and attention of the Trial Chamber in reading this agreement to also keep
2 in mind Prosecution Exhibit P 00336. This is a presidential transcript
3 that was on 21 July 1992. I will not be going into it, but this is the
4 transcript of the meeting between President Tudjman and President
5 Izetbegovic, and at the conclusion of this transcript, which is, as you can
6 see, very thick, this agreement is reached, but it talks about -- it has
7 the dynamics particularly with respect to certain language that I wish to
8 highlight here today. So I just put that for the record.
9 Now, sir, if we look at item number 1, this would be on page 2 of
10 this agreement, and the ERN 00810568. It says that they have agreed as
11 follows: The president of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and
12 Herzegovina and the president of the Republic of Croatia have agreed that
13 the future state system of Bosnia and Herzegovina will proceed from the
14 principle of full equality of the three constituent nations, Muslim, Croat,
15 and Serbs. The constitutional political system of the country will be
16 based on constituent units in the establishment of which due account will
17 be taken of national, historical, cultural, economic, traffic, and other
18 elements. You saw that, did you not?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Incidentally, I don't mean to -- I should ding you up a little
21 bit for sloppiness in your report. At one point you talk about ethnic
22 groups, and I believe it -- it kind of struck me odd that you would use
23 that term. I believe it was on page 4. Hold on. Let me look at it for a
24 second. I've got so much -- this is at paragraph 9. You use the term
25 ethnic, and you of all people, and I think I can use that in such a tone
1 that you should know better these are historical nations the Muslims and
2 Serbs, they're not ethnic groups; right?
3 A. Well, that's only if you make the distinction between ethnic
4 groups and nations. I didn't go back into defining the terms. If you want
5 to go --
7 Q. Sir. Sir, you got your Ph.D. from Yale; right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And I understand -- you're probably wondering why is that
10 important. I understand that your mentor or one of them was Ivo Banac;
12 A. Yes he was.
13 Q. Okay. And he's written pretty much the definitive book, I mean
14 the seminal book on nationalities; right?
15 A. Nationalities in the former Yugoslavia, yes.
16 Q. Yeah, okay. And I take it since you were studying 19th century
17 Croatian history and since he was your mentor, you might have read his
18 book, it might have been helpful because for nothing else, for brownie
19 points, that you're reading your professor's books; right?
20 A. Yes, I read his books.
21 Q. Okay. And in fact, he talks about the historical nations these
22 are not ethnic groups. These are nations these are not ethnic groups in
23 the sense of what we know in the United States or other countries.
24 A. Well, that's a distinction Professor Banac makes and I can tell
25 you what he means when he makes that distinction.
1 Q. Are you suggesting that the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina are an
2 ethnic group and not a historical nation; is that your understanding?
3 A. No. It's my understanding they're both.
4 Q. Okay. We'll move on. In any event, go back to the document on
5 the agreement, here they're talking about three constituent nations. By
6 the way, was that not in the constitution, the then-existing constitution
7 in Bosnia-Herzegovina describing them as three constituent nations?
8 A. Yes, and it's frequently cited.
9 Q. It's frequently cited and also in the all the negotiations that
10 preceded that, it was always maintained that the constitution recognised
11 three constituent peoples; right?
12 A. Yes, and what exactly that meant was the root of a lot of
13 disagreement between them as well.
14 Q. Okay. When you say between them, between whom?
15 A. The leaders of the Serbs, the leaders of the Muslims, and the
16 leaders of the Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
17 Q. All right. Well, let me just touch on that a little. That's
18 almost too good to let go. Are you suggesting by any chance that during
19 any of these negotiations the Croats who were negotiating for the Croat
20 people in Bosnia-Herzegovina had a dilemma as to what constituted a -- a
21 Bosnian Muslim who are now called Bosniaks?
22 A. It depends on what you call a dilemma.
23 Q. Well, did they express -- did they ever say, no, he's not -- the
24 Muslims are not a constituent nation? Did they ever say? That's a broad
25 enough question, let alone who is a Muslim.
1 A. They didn't -- well, they didn't, as far as I know, question that
2 constitutional point, although they did question the nationality and the
3 nationhood of Bosnian Muslims rather frequently.
4 Q. Is it not a fact that on every single peace agreement which was
5 proposed and which the Croats signed, that all of them called for and
6 recognised the Muslim people of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a constituent nation?
7 A. I'm not positive but in official documents that would have been
8 the practice.
9 Q. Well, that's what they're signing. Haven't you read any of these
11 A. I've read quite a few of those documents.
12 Q. Okay. All right. Now let's -- if we can go to item 6. Item 6,
13 and this is on page -- with the ERN number 00810569. It says here the
14 armed component of the Croatian - "The armed component of the Croatian
15 Defence Council is an integral part of the united armed forces of the
16 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Croatian Defence Council will have us
17 represent in the Joint Command, in the Joint Command, of the armed forces
18 of the Bosnia-Herzegovina." Do you see that?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. Okay. So in this agreement, HVO, the military component, is
21 recognised officially, is it not, in the --
22 A. Yes, but conditionally.
23 Q. Well, it's recognised, is it not? And this is July 21, 1992. We
24 are going to go on. Now, it says provisional civil authorities, let me
25 underscore that, "Provisional civil authorities established in wartime
1 conditions within the scope of the Croatian Defence Council will be made to
2 conform as soon as possible with the constitutional judicial system of the
3 Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina in talks pertaining to this matter," and
4 talks pertaining to this matter, "will be initiated immediately in the
5 principles stated in point 1 of this agreement." Do you see that?
6 A. Yes, I do.
7 Q. Now, at this point in time, sir, was there a commission or were
8 they planning to form a commission to draft a new constitution for Bosnia-
9 Herzegovina, for the republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?
10 A. At this point I'm not sure.
11 Q. Can you not recall?
12 A. No, I cannot.
13 Q. But at some point there was, was there not? If you don't know,
14 say I don't know?
15 A. Well, at different times there were, but when exactly, I don't
17 Q. When you say different times, I'm not asking you 1994 and I'm not
18 asking you 1995. I'm asking you 1992 now?
19 A. Well, I don't remember if they had a commission in the summer of
21 Q. And then it says on point 7 and I think this might be important
22 in light of our last guest that was here, our last witness: "The Republic
23 of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia will reciprocally
24 allow their citizens to acquire dual citizenship."
25 I highlight that for the Court's attention since that is the
1 contested issue at times.
2 Now, this, sir, was signed on July 21, 1992; right?
3 A. I believe that's correct.
4 Q. And I cited to a presidential transcript. I take it you read
5 that transcript of that particular day and know pretty much the ongoings
6 and negotiations especially where they laboured, and I don't use that word
7 lightly over paragraph one which we read?
8 A. Yes, I am familiar with that.
9 Q. Now if we look at P 00346. This is dated July 26, 1992, and if
10 we look at it, this is a letter that is sent, if we look at it, from the
11 general secretary of the HDZ BH.
12 Now, pay close attention to the very first line. It says: "On
13 July 23, 1992, the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia-Herzegovina received
14 a letter from the Constitutional Court dated 22 July, 1992." Do you see
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. And here is what I'm trying to point out. That a day -- a day
18 after Izetbegovic signs an agreement, it appears that someone in his
19 government moves the Constitutional Court to begin proceedings against the
20 HDZ, the HZ HB, and the HVO, the very same organisations which under the
21 friendship agreement he recognises?
22 MR. SCOTT: Perhaps Mr. Karnavas can tell us how those two things
23 are inconsistent since that is what he implies because there is no
24 inconsistency between the two.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, the inconsistency is as follows: You have
1 the president of the Presidency, who presumably, we have to believe and
2 trust the previous Prosecution witness, Galbraith, who was talking for the
3 entire country he signs the agreement. In the agreement, he recognises the
4 HVO and also if we look at paragraph 6 of the provisional agreement, the
5 second part, it says provisional civil authorities. What were the
6 provisional civil authorities? If we look at all of the headings of the --
7 all of the headings of the -- of the HZ HB and of the HVO, the civilian
8 component; first of all it's part of the HVO and second of all it talks
9 about provisionality.
10 THE WITNESS: I could answer that question if I may. May I?
11 MR. KARNAVAS:
12 Q. Okay. Well, first of all -- first of all, would you agree that
13 this is the day after the agreement?
14 A. I'm not sure if it's -- well, yes, the 22nd would be the day
15 after, yes.
16 Q. Okay. Now -- and I take it you don't see a contradiction in
18 A. No, and I can tell you why not if you want to hear.
19 Q. And you're not going to speculate, are you?
20 A. No, not at all.
21 Q. And you're going to cite something to me, something I can look
23 A. Yes, I will.
24 Q. Okay. Go for it?
25 A. I believe --
1 Q. I don't want you to tell me what you believe. I want you to tell
2 me what you know. Cite me a document that says that -- that explains how
3 is it that on one day Izetbegovic is signing an agreement after a full
4 day's session and the next day you got the Constitutional Court trying to
5 say that these institutions are illegal.
6 A. Well, it's very simple. First of all and then I'll get to the
7 document as I remember it, first of all, there's the separation of powers
8 within Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Constitutional Court could review a
9 matter without --
10 Q. Let me -- okay. Tell me --
11 A. First of all --
12 Q. Hold on. Before you go any further. You said separation of
13 powers. That's something we know the United States and something I studied
14 a little bit about when I was studying constitutional law, but you've told
15 us you're not a lawyer. You've told us you're not familiar with these
16 legal instruments. On what basis, on what basis, what legal basis are you
17 stating that there was separation of power especially, especially by this
18 point in time, as I understand it, there had been a declaration of imminent
19 threat of war, was it not?
20 A. Yes, there was.
21 Q. Okay. And do you know for sure as you sit here that there is, in
22 fact, separation of power at this point in time in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
23 Because if you don't, we're going to stop and we'll move on.
24 A. I can tell you --
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, please. I have a technical problem.
1 The two documents we see: On the left a document in English and on the
2 right a document in B/C/S. I wonder whether they are really the same
3 documents, because you have been insisting that this document was a day
4 from -- from a day after the agreement, and the English document, the
5 agreement was 21st of July, I seem to recall you said, and I read that on
6 23rd --
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Did you if you keep on --
8 JUDGE TRECHSEL: -- they received -- it very well cannot be a
9 letter of the next day if it speaks of another letter that is two days
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'll just read the whole text in
12 English. It says: "On the 23 July, 1992, the Croatian Democratic Union of
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina received a letter from the Constitution Court." So
14 they received it on the 23rd and all these have a number of 22 July 1992.
15 We don't have the letter. But they're making a reference to this. This is
16 -- you know, so we have -- I'm trying to -- I guess you're using
17 circumstantial evidence if you've got the agreement on the 21. They're
18 saying we received the letter on the 23rd but that it was dated on the
19 22nd. It stands to follow that the next day they sent this -- they sent
20 the letter out.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you.
22 MR. KARNAVAS:
23 Q. All right. Now, let me, and I take it at some point you read the
24 decision that was on 18 September, 1992; correct?
25 A. Yes, I have.
1 Q. Okay. And by the way, getting back to the separation of power
2 issue and I don't want to prolong it, but you really are unable at this
3 point in time to tell us with any degree of legal certainty that there was
4 separation of powers at that time?
5 A. Well, what I can tell you with a fairly good degree of certainty.
6 Q. Legal certainty?
7 A. Well, with legal certainty.
8 Q. Okay. Okay.
9 A. That this procedure was initiated by the Court itself.
10 Q. Sir, I'm asking you whether there was separation of power. I
11 know the court could initiate it Izetbegovic can pick up the fop and ask
12 the president of the Constitutional Court to institute proceedings. You
13 don't know that. So I'm asking you, do you know for sure that the law as
14 it existed at that point in time, okay, keeping in mind that you have a
15 state of war, that you had separation of powers, yes or no, because you
16 mentioned it, I didn't?
17 A. I mentioned it in the context of there being a contradiction
18 between the Court initiating a procedure and Izetbegovic having said
20 Q. And that's a guess on your part.
21 A. No, it's not a guess. I don't know if Izetbegovic had any
22 influence over the court. The only thing know with certainty is the Court
23 said they initiated themselves.
24 Q. Now you said, "They said that." Who said that?
25 A. The Court.
1 Q. Said it who, where, in the document or they told that to you
3 A. It's either -- and I should mention too that this particular
4 document you have here and a number others --
5 Q. Sir, stick with me on the separation of powers issue because now
6 you're making an assertion, and at some point the Trial Chamber is going to
7 have a make a decision and I certainly would like to check it. Where is it
8 that you know that there was separation of power in that point in time?
9 A. De facto, I can't say with certainty.
10 Q. De jure point it out to me where?
11 A. I believe the constitution.
12 Q. You believe? Do you know for sure? Yes, no, I don't know, I'm
13 taking a wild guess?
14 A. Off the top of my head, I don't know.
15 Q. Okay. Now, if I could look at another document, and this is P
16 00817, and I think this is relevant. The periods are relevant, Mr.
17 President and Your Honours, because it kind of puts things more into
18 perspective if I can say that. You're familiar with this document. This
19 is -- this is the document that was signed by the Prime Minister, Mr.
20 Akmadzic; correct? And he's a Croat.
21 A. Yes, I am familiar with this document and I can tell you why I
22 didn't include it in the report.
23 Q. You see, don't try to --
24 A. Okay. I am familiar with the document.
25 Q. Okay. But here in November 27, 1992, there is a decision signed
1 by the -- by the Prime Minister, and the decision, it says that it appoints
2 and authorises Dr. Jadranko Prlic the president of the Croatian Defence
3 Council, not the defunct or the one that is under the constitutional
4 suspension or the alleged or presumed, but it says the Croatian Defence
5 Council to present to the government of the Republic of Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina and it goes on to list various things. It appoints him for
7 instance, number 1, as a member of the RBH government staff for the
8 collection of items to help RBH population survive. Do you see that?
9 A. Yes, I do.
10 Q. Okay. So, now, just to make sure that I hit this nail through
11 the bottom and it goes through, let me show you also Exhibit 1D 00898,
12 because this is an Official Gazette. So we don't merely have some Croat
13 who is on this government signing a document or a decision which we can
14 then say is motivated by his ethnic or national background but here we have
15 the Official Gazette of republic the BiH and in this official document,
16 okay, around you would recognise it being from the Official Gazette or
17 should recognise it?
18 A. Yes, although I'd have to correct an implication you made
19 earlier. Mile Akmadzic is a Croat --
20 Q. Oh, I he is.
21 A. -- and who he is is essential to understanding these documents.
22 Q. Hold on. Are you suggesting -- are you suggesting that somehow
23 Mile Akmadzic who is in Sarajevo at this time; right?
24 A. I believe he still was.
25 Q. He was in Sarajevo at the time; right?
1 A. I think he still was in November of '92. He leaves somewhere I
2 think a little after that but I'm not positive.
3 Q. Okay. All right. And are you suggesting here, because this is
4 why I had the second document, are you suggesting that this clever Croat
5 was able to get a decision, to issue a decision and put the stamp on, and
6 we all know that the stamp counts, and then somehow get that decision to
7 the Official Gazette for mankind and God to see and no one took notice of
8 it? Because if you have a document to show that this was repealed or this
9 was cancelled or demonstrated that Akmadzic was acting outside his
10 authorities, his legal authorities and without the approval of the
11 Presidency of the RBiH, I would like to know where it is.
12 A. Well, I could give an answer but it would require me talking
13 about closed-session testimony I've heard.
14 Q. Sir, it says here in this decision -- it doesn't refer to
15 Akmadzic. He's the one who has to sign it. This official document says,
16 the last line: "The government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
17 hereby issues the following." So it's not Akmadzic who is actually issuing
18 the decision. It's the government and he's merely the signatory as is
19 required that's what the Prime Minister does and he affixes the seal to it
20 isn't that a fact?
21 A. Well, there is a lot of premises in this question. I'm not sure
22 Akmadzic was acting within his power but this is outside of the scope I
23 intended to talk about and like I said, if you want to know why --
24 Q. Are you suggesting, sir, that these documents and we can talk in
25 open court, are you suggesting that these documents, the one that I have
1 shown to you are somehow forged?
2 A. No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all.
3 Q. Oh, okay. So if it is not an Official Gazette, would it not be
4 available to the public?
5 A. Yes, it was.
6 Q. So someone like Izetbegovic or his associates, his close
7 associates, others involved in the government and received the Official
8 Gazette, they would have been able to see this; right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And you're not suggesting that Akmadzic somehow just slipped a
11 Mickey into the Official Gazette as it were, and you know what I'm talking
13 A. Yeah. But whether he was act being outside of his powers or not
14 and whether or not there was a reaction to that, and that's just one part
15 of this whole thing, on whether or not that's the question, I don't think
16 they ever solved within the authorities there because Akmadzic didn't
17 remain at that post much longer after this.
18 Q. And are you suggesting that that's why he got fired? Is that the
20 A. No. I believe Mr. Akmadzic left on his own free will.
21 Q. Okay. But you have no evidence whatsoever to challenge the
22 authenticity or the intent behind this decision, do you?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Okay. And I take it you haven't read the law on state
25 administration as well. I mean, if you haven't -- right?
1 A. Which law on state administration? BiH law on administration?
2 Q. Who are we talking about? BiH. Work with me, at least within
3 the geographical scope.
4 A. That's precisely the problem there's more than one set of laws in
5 the geographical area.
6 Q. There's the state law the law of state administration it's pretty
7 complex by the way?
8 A. Yes, I've seen it but I did not review it for this report.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. Very well. I don't know how I'm doing on
10 time, Mr. President. I'm kind of -- if I could be told when we have our
11 break so I could just guesstimate how far to go or where to go next.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We could take the break now,
14 MR. KARNAVAS: It could be good. I could organise myself and
15 then -- I can't promise I'll be able to finish tonight but I'm doing my
16 level best as you can see.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We're counting on you.
18 It's 5.20 now. We'll take a 20-minute break and reconvene at approximately
19 20 it 6.00.
20 --- Recess taken at 5.20 p.m.
21 --- On resuming at 5.40 p.m.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Karnavas, you
23 have the floor.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President, Your Honours.
25 Q. Sir, in light of the circumstances and in light of what was
1 happening in -- in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the time that the -- that the
2 Croats organised themselves, the Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina, do you think
3 it was unreasonable for them to organise in anticipation of similar
4 occurrences of what was happening in Croatia, for instance?
5 A. In the broad sense of organisation, no, although specifically
6 doing what they did is another matter.
7 Q. Okay. And you have an opinion on that?
8 A. A personal opinion but one which I tried to keep out of the
9 reports as much as possible.
10 Q. Okay. All right. Now, would not the -- I mean, I take it you
11 must have heard what happened in Ravno.
12 A. Yes, I have many times.
13 Q. Okay. Now, you say many times in the sense that you've heard it
14 from people or you actually know what happened?
15 A. Well, every case I've worked on, the Defence brings it up a few
16 times, every HVO-related case.
17 Q. You say the Defence brings it up as if it's some kind of dirty
18 thing. I guess what I'm trying to get at is what happened in Ravno; yes or
20 MR. SCOTT: Beyond the scope of the report, Your Honour, and also
21 I object to Mr. Karnavas's characterisation. The witness never said
22 anything about bringing it up as if it's a dirty thing. That is purely,
23 once again, Mr. Karnavas's commentary, and again I go back to this is
24 beyond the scope of the report. It has nothing to do with Ravno.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Again, and I guess --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, what is the point
2 and the relevance of Ravno? In what way can this be useful for your case?
3 MR. KARNAVAS: The gentleman was asked to write a report of the
4 establishment of HZ HB. One might ask why was it established how was it
5 established, under what time was it established, what were the
7 The gentleman indicated that he had a personal opinion about
8 what -- what the Croats did, and I think if I'm allowed to proceed, we will
9 see that we're in the living in an Alice in Wonderland world here. There
10 are real events taking place and the HZ HB is established when real events
11 are taking place however much we want to say others are going to discuss
12 it, he's an expert and I'm merely asking him concretely. And the gentleman
13 did go out of his way to say that the Defence bring it up all the time, and
14 I thought the tone and the manner in which he said that seems to indicate
15 that it's as if -- you know, to minimise the events in Ravno.
16 MR. SCOTT: The fundamental false premise of much of Mr.
17 Karnavas's comments just now and throughout the cross-examination is just
18 made clear again at lines 15 and 16 of Mr. Karnavas's statement. "The
19 gentleman was not," and I repeat not "asked to write a report on the
20 establishment of the HZ HB. He was asked to write a report on the
21 structures and -- governmental structures and processes of the HZ HB."
22 Whether they were good or bad, what their historical reasons were. This is
23 -- they had the president, they had a cabinet. They had a legislature
24 called the Presidency. They had a military, a Ministry of Defence. They
25 were related to the military this way. He was never asked to write a
1 report on the history on the establishment of Herceg-Bosna and whether it
2 was justified or not. And that is the whole problem with Mr. Karnavas's
3 cross-examination is he's cross-examining this witness on something that is
4 completely beyond the scope of what he was asked to do.
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, under chapter 1, it's titled
6 "Establishment of Herceg-Bosna political structures and their de jure
7 foundations." When the gentleman testified on direct examination, the
8 Prosecutor there walked him through some documents and the gentleman did
9 comment on how there was this evolutionary process. Well, again it didn't
10 happen in the abstract, and so I think if I'm allowed to proceed, we might
11 -- it might become evident even to someone as closely connected to the case
12 why I'm asking the question. And we've spent five minutes now arguing
13 about it.
14 Q. So, sir, do you know what happened in Ravno?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. Now, was that a Muslim, Croat, or Serb place?
17 A. It's a Croat small town or village.
18 Q. Okay. And who were the victims in that place?
19 A. Croats were the victims in this incident.
20 Q. And when did the incident occur?
21 A. Fall of 1991.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. Maybe October.
24 Q. And we've heard some testimony to the extent that at least the
25 Sarajevo government did not do a whole lot to -- to at least give the
1 Croats a sense of comfort that something was going to be done by the state
2 government in protecting the Croats against these sorts of aggressive acts
3 by the JNA or the Serbs. Would that be correct?
4 A. Well, the way you've phrased the question is that you've heard
5 testimony about that and I don't know if you have or not.
6 Q. Do you agree or disagree with that?
7 A. That you've heard testimony about Ravno.
8 Q. Okay. Do you disagree, sir, that the Sarajevo government did not
9 really -- did not really respond to the needs of the Croats after the
10 events of Ravno?
11 A. Well, I know this is something which has been argued ever since,
12 whether or not the Sarajevo authorities did enough before and after Ravno.
13 Q. Did they do anything with respect to Ravno other than Izetbegovic
14 stating, "This is not our war"?
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're saying that this has
16 been a question that has been widely debated and discussed, but the
17 question is straightforward. Did the government of Sarajevo do what was to
18 be done after the events? You said that the question was widely debated
19 but you as an historian, what is your point of view? Do you have a point
20 of view? If you don't, then we'll move on to another topic.
21 THE WITNESS: As far as the incident in Ravno itself is
22 concerned, I do not have a point of view on whether or not enough was done.
23 MR. KARNAVAS:
24 Q. Very well. Do you know to what extent the events in Ravno would
25 have affected the Croatian Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina? You as an
1 historian, that is.
2 A. Well, I can't speak to their state of mind. However, I do know
3 that they mentioned it frequently.
4 Q. All right. Well, I did recount numbers of documents that were
5 shown to Mr. Kljuic with respect to what the Croatian Community and what
6 the Croatian leaders were talking about. One would assume that had you
7 read those documents, you would have been able at least to form an opinion
8 that the Croats, the Croat leadership and the Croatian people of Bosnia-
9 Herzegovina were indeed concerned during that period of time in light of
10 what was happening in Croatia and what looked like was going to happen in
11 Bosnia. Would you agree with me on that?
12 A. Of course people were concerned.
13 Q. Well, the Croats in particular, not just people. The Croats, the
14 Croat community, the leadership they were concerned; right?
15 A. Yes, they say they were.
16 Q. Well, are you doubting that? You say "They say they were," as if
17 it was Alice in Wonderland?
18 A. No. I'm just trying to make it clear that I'm speaking on the
19 basis of their documents, and I don't know --
20 Q. As an historian, sir?
21 A. -- what was in their mind.
22 Q. As an historian, in light of what was happening on the ground
23 assuming you know what was happening on the ground, do you doubt that those
24 concerns were legitimate?
25 MR. SCOTT: How is this related to the scope of the report? It
1 is not. It is not, and Mr. Karnavas wants to take this witness outside the
2 scope of the report over and over and over again.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, through your
4 interventions you are trying to undermine the work of the Defence. The
5 Defence is trying to state its case through this witness. This case might
6 be right or wrong. The Judges will have to rule about this at the end of
7 this trial. But there is a case here. The case is that something happened
8 in Ravno that had a number of consequences. What was the attitude of the
9 Croat community? What did they do? That's the case of the Defence. Why
10 do you want to put a spanner in the works of the Defence? Let them ask the
11 questions, because we are wasting time here. If the witness does not
12 answer, then the Defence will put the same questions to another witness and
13 then you will get your feet every time again to say that this is beyond the
14 scope of cross-examination. That's -- but that's within the scope of the
15 questions we have to answer. We -- the indictment is not enough for us.
16 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, not this witness. It's beyond the scope
17 of what this witness was asked to do. It's like asking this witness, you
18 wrote a report on the planet Mars and I want to ask you guess on the planet
19 Pluto. That's what he's doing over and over again, we're talking about
20 things beyond the scope over and over again.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness gave an answer, he
22 said he couldn't say anything about Ravno. So then he'll tell Mr.
23 Karnavas, when he puts his questions, "I can't answer these questions."
24 But what I'm saying, I will say also to Mr. Karnavas, if he has the
25 statement attitude towards you.
1 Please proceed, Mr. Karnavas.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Now, in your report you conclude the HZ HB was established with
4 the aim to become a state. And I think this we can glean from paragraph 12
5 of your -- of your report. But it would appear now from listening to your
6 testimony and from the Prosecution's objections that you did not look at
7 the establishment of the HZ HB in the context in which it was founded.
8 Would that be correct?
9 A. Well, first of all, one premise. I don't think I ever said it
10 was founded with the establishment to be a state. If I did, you could show
11 me that and it might be more precise.
12 Q. Okay. So you're not suggesting that -- hold on. Let me stop you
13 there. So are you suggesting that it was not established, it's now your
14 expert opinion that it was not established with the aim of becoming a state
15 or statelet or para-state or anything of the sort within the family of
17 A. No. It's my opinion based on everything I've seen --
18 Q. Uh-huh.
19 A. -- that the ideal solution --
20 Q. No I'm not asking you about solution. I'm asking what it was
21 established for? Now, are you saying, under oath, as an expert for the
22 Prosecution having worked here seven and a half years is it your expert
23 opinion that it was established with the aim of becoming a state or
24 statelet or para-state or anything of the sort? Is that your expert
25 opinion; yes or no?
1 A. It's my opinion that it was created in order to facilitate these
2 areas joining another state.
3 Q. All right. That's your opinion. In other words, for them to be
4 annexed away, to break apart?
5 A. That would be the ideal solution from most of the founders, yes.
6 Q. That's what you're claiming their aim is. I'm trying to pin you
7 down. I'm using very precise English language, that's your mother tongue,
8 you're a Ph.D., kindly answer the question.
9 A. Well, I think speaking broadly about it -- broadly about
10 everybody who was involved, I think yes the --
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. -- Ideal solution would have been to have those territories join
13 Croatia. I think everybody understood that couldn't be done immediately.
14 Q. Okay. In light of the stated aim that you've come to conclude
15 you did not look at the establishment of the HZ HB in the context in which
16 it was founded; right? I'm talking about the circumstances the background,
17 the --
18 A. That's --
19 Q. -- what's happening on the ground?
20 A. That's not strictly true. That's something I didn't go into a
21 great deal of detail about in this particular report --
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. -- because I didn't think --
24 Q. To what extent did you explain in your report at the state level,
25 how the state was protecting the Croat people or even the Muslims, for that
1 matter, during this period of time? Is that in your report; yes or no?
2 A. No, it is not.
3 Q. Nothing in your report to the extent the state was able to
4 provide Civil Defence or payments for schools, for hospitals or anything to
5 be operating at the local level?
6 A. Yes, its correct, I didn't mention anything about that.
7 Q. In fact in your report you do nothing, nothing whatsoever, to
8 look at what is happening at the state -- at the government in Sarajevo and
9 what they're doing and how they're reacting in trying to ensure that the
10 Croats who are coming under attack by the Serbs can be protected. You
11 don't address that, do you?
12 A. No, I do not because it wasn't my intention to discuss whether or
13 not the foundation of Herceg-Bosna was justified.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. Or what their motivations were.
16 Q. Okay. Well, was the HVO, the military aspect of it, was that
17 formed legitimately under the circumstances? Yes, no, I don't know.
18 A. Well, that's more than just one question there. First of all,
19 the HVO --
20 Q. No, no.
21 A. -- the do you mean the HZ HB?
22 Q. The military -- hold on hold on. English. I'm talking about the
23 military. Kindly listen to my question. The military aspect, when was it
24 formed, the HVO?
25 A. The HVO was founded 8th of April, 1992.
1 Q. Okay. Now, what was happening in Bosnia-Herzegovina at that
2 point in time?
3 A. That was right after the recognition of independence and that was
4 towards the beginning of the fighting. The fighting actually started late
5 March in some places.
6 Q. Now, you say fighting who is fighting whom who is being attacked,
8 A. Both --
9 Q. Who is being attacked?
10 A. The forces such as they exist, the Croat forces --
11 Q. What about people, man? Who is being attacked and where? You're
12 a historian for God's sake. Tell us. Seven and a half years. Who is
13 being attacked at that point in time that requires the HVO to be
15 A. See, I wouldn't say what happened would require the HVO
16 necessarily to be established although to get back to your earlier question
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. -- I'll tell you who is being attacked.
20 Q. Well, who is being attacked?
21 A. Civilian authorities are being attacked in north-eastern Bosnia,
22 the authorities such as they existed in north-western Bosnia are being
24 Q. Let me stop you here. Were the Croats be attacked the Croats of
25 Bosnia-Herzegovina; yes or no?
1 A. Yes, in many places they were.
2 Q. Okay. Now --
3 A. Particularly Kupres at that stage.
4 Q. Did -- did the army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina come to
5 their aid?
6 A. There wasn't an army of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
7 Q. Ah, exactly. That's exactly my point. There wasn't one. Now,
8 what about -- what about the Patriotic League? When was that established?
9 Gee, let me think. Go on tell us, and who do you know?
10 MR. SCOTT: I object, Your Honour, these characterisations,
11 again, I know I'm trying the President's patience. This is improper. I'm
12 going to have to keep saying it's beyond the scope and the tone and the way
13 he's treating the witness is objectionable.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm treating the witness this way, Your Honour,
15 because he refuses to answer questions directly.
16 MR. SCOTT: That's not true. Mr. Tomljanovich has answered every
17 question when a proper question is put to him. That's completely improper
18 and his report has nothing to do with the creation of the Patriotic League.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The witness has answered the
21 questions perfectly well, but at line 15, sir, stated that there was no
22 army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is sort of a general statement. Can
23 you put that sort of in a temporal context? What period does it relate to?
24 Because then the Patriotic League was set up but is this a general
25 statement or can you put this back in the time period the relevant time
1 period and if there was an army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, from when did it
2 exist, from what point of time?
3 THE WITNESS: Yes. Actually, first of all, I was making the
4 distinction between the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina called the army of
5 Bosnia and Herzegovina and any military or paramilitary or Interior
6 Ministry groups that may have been fighting on behalf of the government of
7 Bosnia and Herzegovina.
8 The Patriotic League as far as I know and this is something I
9 sure haven't looked at recently was being organised before fighting
10 started. One of the leading figures was General Halilovic. I'm not sure
11 when they were officially established although I know that the army of
12 Bosnia and Herzegovina was not officially established until later, until I
13 believe the summer of 1992, as such. Now, in the intervening time, various
14 local Territorial Defence units were active all over Bosnia and Herzegovina
15 on behalf of the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
16 MR. KARNAVAS:
17 Q. When did President Izetbegovic declare a state of war, sir?
18 A. I cite this in the report and off the top of my head I think that
19 would have been sometime in June of 1992.
20 Q. Okay. So we have fighting starting as early as April, April 8,
21 1992, and I think we can agree that there was no state armed forces at the
22 time. You're shaking your head?
23 A. No, no. It depends what you call the state armed forces.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. The army of Bosnia-Herzegovina as such did not exist.
1 Q. Hold on the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, first of all, did that
2 not grow out of the Patriotic League?
3 A. Well, partially. The Patriotic League as well as Territorial
4 Defence units and the other.
5 Q. And they were Muslim, were they not?
6 A. Not -- well, if you look at the Territorial Defence units --
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. -- and these other units no, not necessarily they were not
9 exclusively Muslim. I believe the organising core of the Patriotic League
10 was, however.
11 Q. What was happening in Bosnia-Herzegovina between April and, say,
12 the time that Izetbegovic gets around to declare a state of war? What's
13 going on? There's fighting, is there not?
14 A. There's fighting all over Bosnia-Herzegovina.
15 Q. And who is being attacked? General question.
16 A. Well, everybody's being attacked by the -- what's -- remnants of
17 what had been the JNA and the Serb forces they're attacking.
18 Q. The Croats are being attacked, are they?
19 A. Croats and Muslims. The Serbs are attacking the other two.
20 Q. Now, in the various municipalities that ultimately became the
21 Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna, could you please tell us what troops
22 Izetbegovic, from the Sarajevo government, okay, what troops he sent to
23 defend those areas if you can recall?
24 A. No, that I can't recall.
25 Q. In fact, it never happened?
1 A. Well, I can't say that with any certainty either.
2 Q. Okay. Do you think it might have been important for you to look
3 at because you make the distinctions of what -- of what happened when HVO
4 was first established and the HZ HB, the first document, and then later on
5 where you say they take on a Presidency. We're going to get to that.
6 That's the whole point of this whole discussion. What happened during
7 those intervening months? Why wasn't it necessary for you, in looking at
8 that, especially being an historian and if and it's a big if but if you
9 wanted to put it in context to make sure that the honourable members of our
10 Trial Chamber would know what was happening and perhaps may wish to know
11 the motivations behind certain actions?
12 A. Well, there's a number of questions in that statement there.
13 First of all, I'm not intending to do a general history of the conflict.
14 Had I been doing that I would have looked at a lot of things, a much
15 broader scope and that wasn't my intention.
16 Now, with the rest of the questions, all I can say at the risk
17 of being accused of being like the Nazis, I was only trying to talk about
18 the structures and processes and not about the motivations --
19 Q. We've heard --
20 A. -- of the individuals.
21 Q. We've heard that defence, thank you. That's enough on that one
22 please. Okay. Now --
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a moment. Line 25 of page
24 102 and page 1 of -- line 1 of page 103 you said you were trying to talk
25 about the structures and processes and not about the motivations. You've
1 said that twice before. I'd like you to specify that you have not looked
2 into the motivations, because that's the question Mr. Karnavas is putting
3 to you at the moment. Could you confirm that?
4 THE WITNESS: Well, I should state it more precisely since you
5 framed this this way and that's a good idea. I only report their
6 intentions insofar as it's recorded in the documents by the persons doing
7 things. I don't mean to infer from other evidence what their motivations
8 were although if in the founding documents they say this is why we're doing
9 this, I've reported that. But I've tried very much to keep myself sticking
10 as closely as possible to what's in the documents themselves.
11 MR. KARNAVAS:
12 Q. Thank you. Now, was it not the HDZ BiH after the establishment
13 of the HZ HB who called on the Croat people in BiH to vote for the
14 independent BiH at the referendum?
15 A. Yes, although that's a fairly complicated matter as well, but,
16 yes, they did call on them to do so.
17 Q. Okay. And is it not a fact that -- that the referendum would
18 have failed without mass Croat participation?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. And is it not a fact that the HZ HB unconditionally
21 accepted all peace plans for the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina or the
22 Socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina offered by the international
23 community --
24 MR. SCOTT: This calls for pure speculation by this witness, it's
25 outside the scope of his report.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may finish the question, Your Honour, we're
2 not in front of the jury where we're going to taint the jury. I'm trying -
3 - I'm learning something, Your Honour, I'm learning.
4 MR. SCOTT: Mr. Karnavas I'll object to your question at the end
5 of it. Go ahead.
6 MR. KARNAVAS:
7 Q. Is it not a fact that the HZ HB unconditionally accepted all
8 peace plans for the SRBiH offered by the international community which
9 included for various plans for internal organisations of the country but
10 always within the internationally recognised borders of BiH?
11 MR. SCOTT: Objection. It calls for pure speculation by this
12 witness. It's outside of any preparatory work he has done to answer such a
13 questions, so calls for pure speculation.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll lay a foundation, Your Honour. I'll lay a
15 foundation. I'll lay a foundation.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But this question can very well
17 be put to an historian.
18 Witness --
19 MR. SCOTT: [Previous translation continues] ...
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- you are an expert. You are
21 an historian. This question, does it come within your area of expertise or
22 beyond it as Mr. Scott says? Can an historian - is a historian able to
23 answer that type of question?
24 THE WITNESS: Well, a historian would be if he had the proper
25 documentation at hand. Now, in that question -- I can answer --
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you're saying that these
2 documents were not available to you and that therefore you cannot answer.
3 THE WITNESS: No. I'm saying that I didn't take a close look at
4 the diplomatic documentation because that's not what I'd intended to do.
5 There are things I know in sort of a broad sense and in a rough sense in
6 order to understand what else I'm doing, but it's nothing I've looked at
7 very closely. I could make certain -- yeah.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Therefore, Mr. Karnavas, the
9 witness cannot answer the question, because all these diplomatic documents
10 were not available to him.
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, I'm afraid he cannot, regrettably.
12 Q. Okay. Now, you were shown some documents or you commented on
13 some documents with respect to the establishment of the HZ HB, and as I
14 understand it, you looked at the initial preamble -- preamble, and that was
15 P 00077, and that was accompanied by to -- based, I believe, on your
16 testimony and -- to P 00081. That was a decision on the establishment of
17 the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna. Do you recall that?
18 A. Yes, I recall the documents, not the specific exhibit numbers
19 being which version.
20 Q. Okay. And in the preamble, would it not be -- and this was back
21 on 18 November, 1991; right?
22 A. Yes, the original decision was.
23 Q. Okay. And we talked about -- so just to recap, around 8 of April
24 attacks begin, and Izetbegovic waits until June or July, June I think it
25 is, to declare a state of war. I think we've agreed that to a large extent
1 the state was incapable of providing military assistance at the very local
2 level. The state bank wasn't functioning. Other institutions weren't
3 functioning. Okay. Can we agree on that or do you disagree?
4 A. Well, if I could take them -- all of these assertions one by one
5 I can tell you if I agree or disagree.
6 MR. SCOTT: I'm going to object to the witness speculating. I'm
7 objecting to Mr. Tomljanovich speculating on things he hasn't researched.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll move on. I'll move on. It's obvious that
9 the Prosecution doesn't wish this witness to testify.
10 MR. SCOTT: I don't wish him to testify about things beyond the
11 scope of what he's been asked to testify about, correct.
12 MR. KARNAVAS:
13 Q. In the preamble, this is P 00077, it says here first paragraph
14 middle of it says: "We Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina through our Croatian
15 Democratic Union and through our elected government representatives in this
16 republic have supported a sovereign Bosnia and Herzegovina, but we have
17 always emphasised that we shall do so only until others start dividing
18 Bosnia and Herzegovina."
19 Do you recall that?
20 A. Yes, very well.
21 Q. All right. And we already agreed that earlier without the Croats
22 voting for the referendum this would not have -- right, because this --
23 A. Well.
24 Q. -- this follows does it not? I'm sorry I got it wrong. I
25 apologise. You're wearing me out. You're wearing me out. Okay. But this
1 is pretty much the Croatian attitude, is it not, that they don't want --
2 they want an independent Bosnia-Herzegovina. They don't want to be part of
4 A. Well, that's one aspect although the quotation you cited, what
5 they're referring to there is that we would only support division when
6 someone else begins to do so, which I believe is a reference to what the
7 Serb --
8 Q. Right?
9 A. -- associations and municipalities are doing at that time.
10 Q. Right. They're saying that if the Serbs divide you know because
11 at some point they have to figure out what Bosnia and Herzegovina is going
12 to look like; right?
13 A. Yes, and in essence, that quote you read out should be understood
14 that well, we -- Bosnia and Herzegovina might be a good thing but until
15 such -- if somebody else is starting to break it up, that's another matter.
16 Q. Right. Okay. You know -- now -- then it goes on then it says in
17 the second paragraph the last part it says: "Confronted with the danger
18 that is threatening our people and the integrity of our historic and ethnic
19 territories and aware of our historic responsibilities in the defence of
20 the Croat ethnic and historical -- historic territories and the Croat
21 people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we, the elected government representatives of
22 the Croat people of Bosnia-Herzegovina, are founding the Croatian Community
23 of Herceg-Bosna."
24 Okay? So it would -- you would agree with me that this is --
25 this pretty much states their aim at this point in time, does it not?
1 A. Yes, but there are a lot of terms which they leave undefined
2 which -- such as which ethnic and historical territories, but yes, that's a
3 broad statement of their aims.
4 Q. I take a Croat from Herzegovina and his father, grandfather, his
5 great great-grandfather lived in that village and given that there are a
6 nation, one might say that at least in his or her mind that would be
7 historic Croatian territory, would it not?
8 A. Well, yes if you're -- it's one thing if you're talking -- I
9 think you mentioned.
10 Q. Well --
11 A. I don't think you mentioned Herzegovina or Herceg-Bosna in
13 Q. Herzegovina that's what I --
14 A. Okay, then there is.
15 Q. I'm not --
16 A. -- then you're bringing up a distinction there between Western
17 Herzegovina which is --
18 Q. Okay?
19 A. -- solidly Croat.
20 Q. Okay. What about the Posavina? The Croats in Posavina, did they
21 not see that -- parts of the Posavina being part of the historical, their
22 historical heritage?
23 A. Well, it may have been part of their historical heritage, but
24 there they're not a majority.
25 Q. I didn't ask you that, sir. I understand you're trying to help
1 the Prosecutor. Just answer the questions.
2 A. I'm just trying to be precise.
3 Q. Okay. I know. Now, there was a decision that followed that
4 preamble; right?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. And we looked at Article 7 and I want to read this it's
7 short and gun I want to point out 18 November, 1991, Article 7: "The
8 supreme authority of the community shall be the Presidency comprising the
9 most senior representatives of the Croatian people in the municipal
10 authority or presidents of the Croatian Democratic Union municipal boards."
11 Then it goes on to say: "The Presidency shall elect the
12 president, two deputy presidents and the secretary."
13 Now, my question is at this point in time 18 November, 1991, at
14 least when -- when it's being established, this Presidency is not a
15 legislative body, is it?
16 A. Well, that's --
17 Q. I'm asking you based on this document, sir. It's in English.
18 You told us you're able to read certain documents?
19 A. Well.
20 Q. Is there -- does this -- does this state, Article 7, what the
21 functions are of the Presidency, what it will do?
22 A. Not having it in front of me, I can't say.
23 Q. Okay. It's P -- it's -- if I could have the usher's assistance
24 we can get this on the ELMO and this is a document that you made reference,
25 a document that the Prosecution questioned you on, a document that I assume
1 you have read and are familiar with.
2 Article 7. This is the initial one. Okay?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. At that point in time. Now, is there any dilemma as to what
5 functions concretely the Presidency, which is the supreme authority, will
7 A. Well, according to this Article it's just very vague. It just
8 says supreme authority without specifying exactly what that means.
9 Q. Exactly. That's my point. So at this point in time, the
10 Presidency is not a legislative body, is it? Or is it?
11 A. Well, that depends on how you look at it. If you look at the
12 founding of the HVO in April as an act of legislation, then it would be.
13 Q. Hold on. Hold on. The HVO was what?
14 A. The HVO?
15 Q. Yeah.
16 A. Well --
17 Q. When it was founded in April and we already talked about what was
18 happening; right?
19 A. Yes, yes.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. The HVO was the -- I believe it's the supreme body -- I forget
22 the exact wording, but it's -- the wording was in the 8th of April
23 decision. Now --
24 Q. Was it a civilian authority, sir the HVO back in April? Is that
25 what we're talking about, a civilian authority?
1 A. I believe if you look at the -- if you look at the decision, it
2 would say that it's both for the defence and executive organ as well.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. Although the details of that aren't spelled out until May 15th.
5 Q. All right. Getting back to this Article 7, can you tell us with
6 any degree of certainty, legal or otherwise, whether at this point in time
7 the Presidency is a legislative body?
8 A. Well, as it did create and act on the 8th of April and did create
9 another body, in that sense, you can say that's legislative. You can say
10 the founding of the HVO was a legislative, and that body only exists
11 because of this decision. Now, if you don't think that's legislation, then
12 maybe not, but I'd say yes based on that.
13 Q. Did you consult anybody, sir, in order to give this upon or are
14 you just rattling off whatever comes to the top of your head?
15 A. Well, this particular question hadn't been posed to me until just
17 Q. Well, they do have lawyers at the Office of the Prosecution, do
18 they not, that speak B/C/S and could assist you in actually interpreting
19 documents such as this, such as the constitution, such as the All People's
20 Defence, such as the law on the -- the state law on administration and all
21 those sorts of things they have she is sorts of expert services at your
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. SCOTT: I'm sure if we'd done that, Your Honour, Mr. Karnavas
25 would be objecting to interfering with the witness.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: I think at this point in time any interference
2 with this witness would be a welcome relief. Let me move or not to the
3 next document.
4 Q. Now -- now, after -- after this date, did you by any chance
5 consult the statement of principles of the 18th of March of 1992? You we
6 brought this up when Mr. Kljuic was here 1D 00389. Okay. Did you look at
7 this? This is part of the negotiating documents that the international
8 community was proposing. And if we were to accept the editor's note, it
9 says, "The following statements of principles were agreed upon by the
10 leadership of the three sides of the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina in
11 March 1992. However, it was subsequently repudiated by the Bosnian
12 Presidency." Okay. Did you look at that document by any chance?
13 A. Well, I'm not exactly sure what the document is but I believe
14 that this is something which I did not look at specifically for this report
15 because I wasn't intending on dealing with the diplomatic events in that
17 Q. Okay. I see. And just -- just as an aside since you -- there
18 was this dilemma earlier about nationalities versus ethnicities, just to
19 put it right, had you read this document even if you had disagreed with
20 your mentor Ivo Banac, which seems you may have some disagreement with, it
21 says here that: "Sovereignty reside in the citizens of Muslims Serbs and
22 Croat nations, in other nations and nationalities who realise it through
23 their civic participation in the constituent units in the central organs of
24 the republic."
25 So at least if we are to accept this document, it appears that
1 there is no dilemma among the parties that we're dealing with constituent
2 nations and not ethnicities; right?Well, actually, they're making a
3 distinction here and they're using a term of art in the B/C/S that's worth
4 mentioning, because they're talking about nations and nationalities, and
5 nations in that sense would be -- Q. Yes.
6 A. -- the Croats, the Muslims, the --
7 Q. The Serbs?
8 A. -- the Serbs --
9 Q. Right.
10 A. -- who are enfranchised in the former Yugoslavia. Now,
11 nationalities would be those groups like Hungarians, Italians.
12 Q. Roma whatever?
13 A. And people who don't.
14 Q. Just to make sure we get it absolutely right, in Croatia a large
15 number of Serbs; right?
16 A. Yes, with 12, 13 per cent of the population at the time.
17 Q. Okay just help me out here were they a nation or were an
19 A. They were a nation --
20 Q. Under the then constitution?
21 A. As a constitutional concept, they were a nation.
22 Q. That would --
23 A. If you're use the terms in the sense that the former Yugoslav
24 constitutional law did.
25 Q. So hold on I want to make sure I got this right. Heart be still.
1 Are you suggesting that in the former Yugoslavia, okay, when it was
2 altogether under that constitution the Serbs that lived in Croatia were
3 recognised as a nation of that republic as opposed to an ethnic group? Yes
4 or no?
5 A. Yes, I believe they did and I think that the removal of their
6 constitutive status is what they were upset about in the 1990s or one of
7 the things they were upset about.
8 Q. Okay. Were they not considered a national minority?
9 A. No, not in you're using the terms they way they did in communist
11 Q. There is a difference between a national minority and a nation
12 because -- well, let me ask you this: In Bosnia-Herzegovina you only had
13 17.5 per cent who were Croat. Where I come from, which is the United
14 States, that might be a minority. Okay? Maybe a national minority. Okay?
15 Versus -- now are you suggesting that there is no difference between the
16 way the Croats were in -- in Bosnia-Herzegovina as a nation and the Serbs
17 as they were in -- in Croatia? In other words, are you -- do you not see
18 the -- do you not make a distinction between --
19 A. Well, they were both.
20 Q. Between --
21 A. I'm sorry, go ahead.
22 Q. Between nation and minority, national minority? Do you not make
23 the distinction?
24 A. Well, whether or not I make the distinction you could define
25 these terms any way you like, except --
1 Q. Is there a distinction in the legal instruments which you have
2 indicated you have read?
3 A. Yes, in the former Yugoslav system and constitution, the
4 constitutive nations of the then Yugoslavia were those countries who were
5 primarily based within that country and those were nations.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. They're given.
8 Q. Sir, that's enough. That's enough. I asked you a concrete
9 question let me move on. Okay. Now -- now after this -- this -- this date
10 we talked about, this document was March 1992. Now, in April 26, 1992, let
11 me show you what has been marked as 1D 005 -- 525. 1D 00525 dated April
12 26, 1992. It has Herceg-Bosna on top of it. You did indicate that you
13 looked at relevant documents. Have you seen this document, sir? Yes, no,
14 I don't recall.
15 A. I do not recall seeing this particular document.
16 Q. Would you -- do you think, just by looking at it, given that it's
17 generated by Herceg-Bosna signed by Mate Boban and the relevant date that
18 it might be within the scope of your limited mandate?
19 A. Well, not necessarily. I'd have to give it a good look to see,
20 but in general I didn't look at every document. I made a point of not
21 looking at every document concerning the peace negotiations because that
22 would be a large task in and of itself.
23 Q. Okay. Well, don't you think it might have been important here in
24 light of the relevant date to see what Mate Boban's intent was, what he was
25 -- since he was the president of the community of Herceg-Bosna? Did you
1 not think that might be relevant?
2 A. Well, first of all, I think you mean his stated intent. And
3 secondly it may be relevant but then again probably not because I didn't --
4 there's a lot of documents concerning the peace negotiations and as I said,
5 that would be taking me too far afield.
6 Q. All right. Well paragraph -- let's look at paragraph 3 for
7 instance and maybe you can tell me if this is relevant or not. It says,
8 "Still convinced that the principles of the negotiations under the
9 patronage of the European Community are the only possible way for the
10 establishing -- for the establishing of the government of the state of
11 Bosnia and Herzegovina, that the war still can be stopped, it is necessary
12 to apply at once some of the agreed principles of the future constitutional
13 arrangements of Bosnia and Herzegovina."
14 Now, in reading that, at least does -- can we not glean from this
15 his stated position, that is Mate Boban's position, to work within the
16 negotiated process of the European Community? Doesn't that say that?
17 A. That's what he says.
18 Q. Okay. And he's writing, by the way, to Mr. Cutileiro; right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. All right. Serious individual?
21 A. As far as I know, yes.
22 Q. Part of the negotiating process at the time?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Trying to find a solution in all this madness to try and stop the
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. Alija Izetbegovic; right?
3 A. Yes, he's there and he's here as the president of his own
4 political party.
5 Q. Okay. Are you doubting that he was not the president of that
6 political party which was for the most part you know representing most of
7 the Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
8 A. No, I am not.
9 Q. Okay. And of course he's sending it also to Karadzic who was the
10 head of the Serb party, the SDS; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. And then it goes on to say: "Therefore we suggest that
13 instead of disintegrated and I am legal authorities, immediately a ministry
14 council of Bosnia and Herzegovina should be mandated consisting of nine
15 members (a party of the three people) as the European Community has
16 proposed, being the only authority of temporary governing Bosnia and
18 So here do we not see -- help me out here, sir. Do we not see
19 the president of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna proposing this
20 nine-person committee under the auspices of the European Community to be
21 the only legal authority, including authority over the Croatian Community?
22 Is he not proposing that? Here, April 26, 1992.
23 A. Well, that appears to be what he's proposing with one minor
24 difference. You read in the parenthetical phrase a party, and it's a
25 parity of the three, meaning that each nation would get a third of the
2 Q. Yes. The print is rather small I appreciate that correction.
3 The gist of it is April 26 again I hate to go back on this chronology maybe
4 many' stuck in context and background, no knows, but we've got April 8. We
5 talked about the attacks begin, and here we are and then we have the
6 statement of principles, March 18, okay. Talking about three peoples
7 organised. Here April 26, right, and you have Boban suggesting that there
8 be an authority for the entire country, is he not?
9 A. That's what he's saying here, yes.
10 Q. And in your report, and I hate to go back to it again. In your
11 report, you don't show us anything, anything of the events anything
12 historical we can grab latch on to that would give us some indication of
13 what is happening in Bosnia and Herzegovina during this very critical
14 period of time that would lead someone like Mate Boban to suggest that the
15 European Community in essence run the country. Can I ask a question: Why
16 is that?
17 A. Because this is getting into the day-to-day diplomatic
18 manoeuvring at that time which is something I thought was outside of the
19 scope of what I should be doing.
20 Q. Okay. But then -- but then I notice that you did not hesitate,
21 you did not flinch, in fact, in commenting about the decision that
22 followed, which was I think 3 July, 1992, on the establishment of the
23 Croatian Community; right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. So in other words, in your report and in your testimony
1 when you gave evidence for the Prosecution, you want to show this
2 transition as to what they establish first and so on, and then you go on to
3 3 July, and we can see that it's -- that the HZ HB is taking on a
4 different, you know, form, all right? But you see no reason to see whether
5 there is a cause and effect, a ying and a yang. You see no reason as if
6 nothing was happening; right?
7 A. No. I think this is a good case of explaining what I did cite
8 and what I didn't. Now, everything that's enacted on the 3rd July 1992
9 falls very directly within what it was I was trying to do. This is the
10 people involved in Herceg-Bosna themselves setting up their own
11 institutions. Going into the diplomatic background of what all else is
12 going on is something which I thought other witnesses would deal with; in
13 particular, live witnesses who were there.
14 Q. Being an historian, sir, having spent seven and a half years,
15 almost as much as you did spending on your Ph.D. dissertation, would it be
16 fair to say that at this point in time you would be able to tell us what
17 exactly occurred during this period of time in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
18 A. Only in broad sense, not exactly what happened throughout that
19 entire period of time.
20 Q. Would it be fair to say in a general sense, then, that the events
21 deteriorated -- in Bosnia-Herzegovina, deteriorated, say, from 8 April till
22 later on? Did they deteriorate?
23 A. Well, things were clearly very bad all through the spring and
24 summer of 1992.
25 Q. Okay. And so -- and would it be fair to say when I say
1 deteriorate, I'm not just saying militarily, but when Sarajevo came under
2 siege would it be fair to say and I don't think you need to be an economist
3 or a military or constitutional expert, but would it be fair to say that
4 the state organs, the state government was providing fewer and fewer
5 services for the entire country?
6 A. I'm not sure I would say fewer and fewer but not as much as
7 anyone would like at the time but fewer our fewer I'm not sure of.
8 Q. Was Sarajevo under siege?
9 A. In this period, yes.
10 Q. Okay. And is it your opinion that Sarajevo was able to provide
11 water, electricity outside of Sarajevo to the various municipalities?
12 A. You mean the Sarajevo authorities?
13 Q. Yeah, the Sarajevo authorities, the government. You know --
14 A. Yeah. In same place.
15 Q. I'm not saying --
16 A. In some places, they had water and history, and in others they
17 did not.
18 Q. To what extent was the Sarajevo government functioning?
19 A. That's a hard thing to quantify.
20 Q. Okay. We?
21 A. We can talk about what they did and did not do.
22 Q. All right.
23 A. But that's gets a long way out of what I was planning to talk.
24 Q. Fair to say, though because I don't want to leave the point
25 unsaid, fair to say that throughout this period when we just looked at
1 these documents starting with April -- April 8th, the situation,
2 particularly with respect to civil governance and the ability of the state
3 to provide for its citizens at the very local level had deteriorated
5 A. That depends on what you're talking about --
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. -- and from what period you're talking about.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. And I can tell you what I mean about that.
10 Q. Tell me what parts the Sarajevo government was able to provide
11 all of its services to, including starts be with Sarajevo.
12 A. All services that's different. Now I don't know --
13 Q. Tuzla, pick Tuzla which was a multi-ethnic community. Pick
14 Tuzla. How much -- you know and -- because you must have looked at those
15 documents. What was the state government able to provide for Tuzla? If
16 you don't know say you don't know. We have an objection now.
17 MR. SCOTT: I object to speculation.
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay.
19 MR. SCOTT: There is over and over again.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. Bihac.
21 MR. SCOTT: The Court doesn't understand apparently the issue of
22 the scope, so I'm trying not to get on my feet again but all this is
23 speculation all this is beyond the scope and --
24 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers not speak at the same time,
1 MR. SCOTT: It's of course up to the Judges.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: The gentleman said, Your Honour, that it all
3 depends. I gave him two examples one is Tuzla; the other one is Bihac.
4 Now, he either knows or he don't know. If he don't know I'll move on.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Without going into speculation,
6 the Defence is talking about Tuzla and Bihac. Are you in a position to
7 answer the question without any speculation? Give us an answer if you're
8 certain of your answer.
9 THE WITNESS: All I can say about Tuzla and Bihac is that they
10 were well organised enough to maintain the defence of those areas and hang
11 on to them.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection. That's not the question. Please do
13 not eat up my time.
14 Q. I asked you specifically: What services was the state able to
15 provide to them? So just answer that very narrow scope.
16 A. Yes. First of all, and this was part of the answer: Defence.
17 They did provide defence and that defence was successful ultimately. Now,
18 as far as utility-type services that, you know, when the water was on, when
19 the electricity was on how well the municipal governments were functioning
20 that I do not know.
21 Q. Okay, very well. We'll cover that with others. I want -- I
22 don't have enough time so I'm going to have to skip around a little bit.
23 Dealing with the ultimatum of January 15, 1993.
24 Now, as I understand your testimony on direct, I just want to
25 make sure that I -- I caught it right. You were not aware of any events
1 occurring in Gornji Vakuf prior to this particular incident, January 15 --
2 this particular ultimatum of January 15, 1993. Am I correct on that?
3 A. Immediately prior, yes.
4 Q. Okay. So are you suggesting here, sir, that you don't know
5 whether something happened or is it your expert opinion, being a historian
6 and having read and spent all this time in the archives, that nothing in
7 fact did occur in Gornji Vakuf prior to the 15th? And I state this because
8 the Prosecution is alleging that it was that ultimatum that precipitated
9 all of this fighting. So there's a point to this question. And --
10 A. Well.
11 Q. So do you know or you don't know? If you don't know --
12 A. I'm aware in a very general sense that there was fighting I
13 believe going as far as Gornji Vakuf municipality after the events in
14 Prozor in October.
15 Q. Okay. What about in January, sir, in January?
16 A. Now, that specifically Gornji Vakuf I couldn't tell you about the
17 first half of January.
18 Q. Okay. And would it surprise you if I were to tell you that
19 incidents were occurring and as a historian, one cannot look at this
20 ultimatum as precipitating something if something is already happening;
22 A. Well, not necessarily because what you're doing there is you're
23 reducing everything that happens because of the ultimatum of the 15th of
24 January simply to Gornji Vakuf municipality. And things happened elsewhere
25 as well.
1 Q. Okay. That was decision that was issued, was there not, in
2 January 15th?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay. That decision -- now, that's the one we're talking about
5 this ultimatum; right?
6 A. If you're also talking about the decision which Mr. Prlic signed,
8 Q. Okay. Now, incidentally, did you ever as a -- you know, as a
9 historian or as an expert for the Prosecution or just out of curiosity, did
10 you ever look at to see how many troops and which brigades would have been
11 subordinated -- HVO, HVO brigades or troops would have been subordinated to
12 the ABiH? Because I think this was an issue that Judge Trechsel had asked
13 at one point in time. So did you ever bother to say -- to look at it or
14 was this sort of a Trojan horse?
15 A. No, I know which areas it is they're talking about where there
16 are concentrations of HVO troops in those areas. Now, with actual numbers,
17 I couldn't do that.
18 Q. Okay. Don't you think it might have been relevant to see what
19 exactly -- because we're talking about this ultimatum. The Prosecution is
20 alleging that this caused all these events and what have you. You have
21 written about the ultimatum of the 15th and now us it's clear that your he
22 not aware that immediately before the 15th, days and weeks, there was --
23 there was ongoing fighting and what have you. Now, is there a particular
24 reason why you did not look to see and try to make some kind of comparison
25 because after all, troops are being -- Croatian troops are being asked to
1 subordinate themselves under the ABiH. This is very critical.
2 A. Oh, no. Well, two things. First of all that is a question I
3 asked myself and I can give you an answer.
4 Q. Did you ever answer it?
5 A. Well, I did.
6 Q. Okay.
7 A. The areas in which you're talking about mainly where there's
8 still a fair number of HVO troops there's a small HVO contingent in Tuzla.
9 There's Zepce. There's --
10 Q. Zenica?
11 A. Some in Zenica.
12 Q. Well.
13 A. It's not -- Kakanj and Vares -- Kakanj and Vares which are large
14 numbers of HVO troops at that time.
15 Q. Sarajevo?
16 A. Yes, one unit in western Sarajevo.
17 Q. Would it your surprise you, sir, we're talking about my
18 calculations and we hope to establish this but at my calculation we're
19 talking approximately 18.000 troops? Would that surprise you?
20 A. That's -- I'd be surprised if it was that high.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. I would say it was in the thousands but not 18.000 because that's
23 just off the top of my head.
24 Q. All right. Now -- and I take it this didn't come up -- we
25 produced this document so I don't expect you to have -- maybe you did see
1 it but there was one document that we were able to show a handwritten
2 document, it's 1D 00820. It's a handwritten document or letter or note
3 that was sent by Mr. Boban where he's ordering, he's ordering the HVO, the
4 civilian authority, to convene a special meeting and to change item 5 of
5 this decision. Did you by any chance see this document?
6 A. I'm not sure which document you're talking about not being able
7 to look at it or even knowing the date.
8 Q. All right. But even from this -- well, the date is January 20th.
9 I don't know if we have it up on the ELMO yet or the -- the e-court. It's
10 1D 00820, and I can provide you with a hard copy if you like to save time
11 but it says here in reference to your decision number 01-1-31/93, "… and
12 after the discussion with the co-chairmen of the Geneva conference on
13 Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Vance, and Lord Owen, I'm ordering you to
14 convene a special meeting during the day and change item 5 in a way to set
15 up a deadline for the implementation of the decision."
16 Now, based on your knowledge, was Boban in a capacity to issue
17 such an order de jure, de facto, de Boban, whatever?
18 A. Well, he certainly was the person present at the peace talks and
19 would have been the one to tell them and also yes, constitutionally, yes.
20 Q. Well, constitutionally -- what constitution are we talking about?
21 A. Well, hold on a second. Now that I think about it --
22 Q. Uh-huh. uh-huh.
23 A. -- I'm not entirely sure if the existing laws or ordinances of
24 Herceg-Bosna would have allowed him to do this.
25 Q. January 20th, 1993 who is the Supreme Commander of the HVO, of the
2 A. Of the armed forces, it would be Boban.
3 Q. And this decision does it not relate to subordination of units?
4 A. It does not, although off the top of my head, I'm not sure what
5 item 5 is.
6 Q. Well, item 5 had to do with -- well, it's -- well, again this is
7 the -- it's your document. It's P 011346 but it has to do with
8 subordination. That's what it has to do and the time frame. That's what
9 it has to do with, the time frame itself.
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Okay. So is Boban -- and let me ask you this by the way before
12 you answer that question perhaps it might help you out would it surprise
13 you thereafter that there is a decision that is rendered by the HVO making
14 some references which in fact changes item 5, and this is 1D 00821. So if
15 we put two and two together -- this would be -- yeah. So if we put two and
16 two together, it would appear that Boban orders the HVO authorities comply
17 and issue a decision to change item 5. Now, let me ask you, sir, did you
18 see this by any chance?
19 A. No. This particular document I've never seen before.
20 Q. Okay. That's 1D 00821, the decision. Have you seen the decision
21 that's signed by Dr. Jadranko Prlic as president of the HVO?
22 A. Well, I'm not sure. I don't think so but not seeing the document
23 I'm not sure if it's familiar or not.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. But I suspect not.
1 Q. You suspect that you hadn't seen it?
2 A. I suspect not but I'm not absolutely positive.
3 Q. And -- now do you want to take a -- do you want to answer the
4 question whether you know for a fact -- don't speculate, don't assume, do
5 you know whether Boban at this particular period in time based on the
6 existing legislation was legally capable of issuing such an order, in other
7 words, was the order legal in the sense, to the HVO, the civilian
9 A. In this particular --
10 Q. Sir --
11 A. – instance, I'm not sure.
12 Q. Okay. That's -- thank you for that frank answer that you don't
13 know. Now -- all right. Now, it begs the question how is it you don't
14 know? Because one the very first questions I asked if not the very -- the
15 first question is what are you an expert in? We know you're an expert on
16 19th century history in relation to Croatia. We also know what you're not:
17 Constitutional expert, you know financing expert, economics, military and
18 so on and so forth, but you said that you spent a lot of time in this area,
19 and you were an expert in a sense on the establishment and the functionings
20 of the HZ HB, HR HB, and I'm asking you now, since you're the expert, how
21 you can stand here in front of our honourable members and say you cannot
22 say to any degree of certainty, legal or otherwise, whether Boban at that
23 point in time, could issue a legal order of such nature?
24 A. Well, when I say that I mean legal within the system of laws and
25 ordinances they created for Herceg-Bosna.
1 Q. Exactly, that's what I'm talking about. So that means that you
2 would have to look at the legal instruments. So are you suggesting at this
3 point in time Boban was acting de facto as the leader and not de jure?
4 A. Well, if this document is indeed genuine, he is acting de facto
5 and de facto giving an order.
6 Q. Okay. But that don't take a genius to figure out because we have
7 a signature so actually he did it. Now the question is de jure. Yes, no,
8 I don't know?
9 A. Depends on how you read the founding documents. I can only point
10 you to the founding documents and you can make arguments that he's allowed
11 to do it and not allowed to do it and -- with an order like this.
12 Q. Okay. By the way did you look at and I don't have time, but did
13 you look at any of the other documents that went back and forth such as
14 meetings of the meeting -- minutes of the meetings that -- that took place
15 between the 15th and the 20th generated by Mr. Prlic in his capacity or at
16 meetings where the HVO civilian authorities met? Did you look at any of
18 A. Well, I looked at everything I could find. Now, there's a lot of
19 records which are missing and the record is --
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. -- incomplete so I probably looked at something from that period
22 but --
23 Q. All right.
24 A. -- I very well may not have seen anything from that period as
1 Q. Okay. I was go to ask you to assume something but I think that
2 would be -- that would be asking too much.
3 Incidentally on the establishment of the HR HB, okay? I think we
4 pretty much established the fact that you didn't look at anything -- didn't
5 put anything into context when the HZ HB was established. Can we assume,
6 can we assume that it was the same thing with the establishment of the HR
7 HB? In other words, you didn't take anything into context? You didn't
8 look at the historical events, the peace proposals such as the Owen-
9 Stoltenberg or Stoltenberg-Owen plan? You didn't look at any of that not
10 to mention what's happening on the ground the events? You didn't -- you
11 didn't -- that's not into your -- in your report is it?
12 A. Well those are two different things.
13 Q. Okay?
14 A. I did look at those things and am familiar with those things but
15 I did not think it was appropriate to put a lot of diplomatic background
16 into the report.
17 Q. So again, if we look at the report we don't know cause and effect
18 if there is such a thing if something caused the effect, something cause
19 the HZ HB to become HR HB such as you know maybe because of the
20 negotiations that were going on?
21 A. Well, I believe I did mention that because that was their -- they
22 state, I believe in the foundation of the HR HB, they state they're doing
23 this and at least what they can be in conjunction with the direction the
24 negotiations are taking.
25 Q. Of the peace proposals?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And what was being proposed at the time, the Stoltenberg-Owen
3 plan, you would have you would have three republics within Bosnia-
4 Herzegovina; right?
5 A. Yes. It was supposed to be a union of three republics.
6 Q. A union of three republics. And so -- and that would -- fine.
7 I'll leave it at that. I'll leave it at that.
8 With -- there was some testimony with respect to Vares and the
9 evacuation of Vares, okay? And perhaps we can go through this real
10 quickly. I'm uncertain here. Was something happening to the Croats up
11 there which caused them to want to leave or have to leave or is it your
12 opinion that it was the Croatian Community or the Croat leaders that were
13 actually trying to ethnically cleanse their own people? Which of the two?
14 A. Well, if I can have a second just to give you a full answer for
15 this. By the sum of 1993 there were several real, very real and pressing
16 reasons for people in Kakanj to be afraid and those are persons who fled to
17 Vares. And then from Vares elsewhere so there are reasons, on the one
18 hand, yes, reasons for people good reasons for people to have wanted to
19 flee those areas at that time. Now on the other hand I never said they
20 were ethnically cleansing their own people in those words. What I did
21 mention was there's a sort of ambiguity about it where the HVO leaders say
22 on the one hand it's a same this is happening but on the other hand this
23 gives us a chance to round off our territories.
24 Q. Okay. That's your -- that's your interpretation.
25 A. Well.
1 Q. Okay. Very well all right. If I can show you a document, I have
2 a series of four documents and I think we with wrap this up. 4D 00022.
3 And this is -- while it's being pulled up this is dated 2 July, 1993. And
4 I'm going to start reading into the record at the bottom of the page it
5 says: "In view of the fact that the population of Vares municipality is in
6 a desperate situation due to the huge influx of displaced persons who are
7 still arriving from Kakanj area day after day, we are forced to appeal to
8 you," and so on and so forth. So that's what you were talking about;
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. And at least if we look at the date, and we look at who is
12 the author and we look at what is being described, it would appear that
13 they do have a humanitarian crisis looming in the air as it were.
14 A. Yes. A large number of refugees who weren't able to go anywhere
15 from Kakanj went into Vares which was already in a very difficult
17 Q. Now, just to put it into historical context, if we look at 4D
18 00023. This document is dated 9 July, 1993, and this is by the commander
19 of the brigade Emil Harah, and it states here: "As you already know, after
20 the area of the Kakanj municipality in the army of BiH side has been
21 occupied and after approximately 15.000 Croats had been expelled in our
22 area of responsibility, the municipality of the HVO Vares found itself in
23 an extremely difficult existential and war conditions, in extremely
24 difficult existential and war conditions," and it goes on. You don't
25 dispute that do you?
1 A. No, I'm sure it was difficult.
2 Q. Now, if we can look at another document. P 02283. And this is
3 from -- this is a Prosecution document dated the 11th of May, and this is
4 from General -- Colonel Blaskic. He was a colonel at the time. He was a
5 commander. You're aware of him; right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And in this letter, if we just -- you know, he talks about
8 the evacuation being carried out and is giving his reasons why it has to be
9 carried out and where.
10 A. Well --
12 Q. Let me just -- let me --
13 A. Okay.
14 Q. -- help you out here, because at the very end, I want to flip to
15 the end because I'm running out of time unless you want me to cross-examine
16 you tomorrow, which I'll be happy to do so for a couple of hours, it says:
17 "Send a political representative to the territories from where the
18 evacuation is to be carried out." And then it goes on and it ends with,
19 "...in ten days, everything might be too late and everything can turn into
20 a huge tragedy of more than 10.000 Croats of Central Bosnia and it started
21 already with the suffering of Croats in Zenica and Konjic."
23 All right, do you see that?
25 A. Yes, I do.
2 Q. Okay I don't want to go through -- there is one last document and
3 this is P 034113, and this is the one from Jadranko Prlic and that's 13
4 July, 1993. I think we looked at it already. I don't want to look at it,
5 but would it be fair to say, sir, that if, if we are interested in trying
6 to determine what is motivating the HVO HZ HB, on 13 July, 1993, in
7 submitting this letter, would we not, at least if we want to be fair and
8 balanced, would we not have to look at all of these other documents which
9 show that as early as May there was a problem in Vares and that problem was
10 not the Croats trying to ethnically cleanse their own people but, rather,
11 get them out of harm's way because of the looming catastrophe?
13 A. Well, yes and no. Actually, this document here from May I don't
14 believe mentions Vares or Kakanj in particular. As a matter of fact, it's
15 unclear exactly what territory I think they're talking about.
17 Q. Sir, none of these documents that I showed you were put into your
18 report, were they?
20 A. No, that's not true.
22 Q. And the context -- well, the context in which I put these
23 documents in, is that in your report?
25 A. The argumentation you made was not.
2 Q. Well, the argumentation is based on if we look at the chronology
3 of the events. That's not in your report, is it?
5 A. This document we're looking at right now I believe was in my
6 report, this last one you've showed me from Colonel Blaskic.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: All right. Very well.
8 With that, Mr. President, in keeping with our pressing time
9 schedule, although I would like to cross-examine for a few more hours
10 tomorrow, I will conclude -- this will conclude my cross-examination. I
11 know it was very trying for the Trial Chamber, and -- but I tried --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You won't [as interpreted] have
14 any more hours tomorrow. We decided that there would be a maximum of two
15 additional hours tomorrow. Therefore, tomorrow you will have two hours max
16 and then we'll stop. And Ms. Nozica will have -- and my fellow Judge tells
17 me that we have to take into account the 20 minutes allocated to Ms.
18 Nozica. Therefore, there will be an additional two hours max for the
19 completion of the testimony of the witness.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. I will take that under
22 advisement and --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sorry, because apparently there
25 was a mistake in the translation. Are you requiring or do you want
1 additional time tomorrow?
3 MR. KARNAVAS: I'm not demanding additional time, Mr. President.
4 If offered, I would take it, but in my opinion I don't think it's necessary
5 for me to continue to cross-examine this particular expert, such as he is.
6 I think my cross-examination can rest at this point in time, though I
7 appreciate the Court -- the Court's willingness to give me additional time.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Very well. Very well.
10 Then tomorrow Ms. Nozica will have 20 minutes. It's five past 7.00. We
11 will reconvene tomorrow at a quarter past 2.00. Thank you very much.
13 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.05 p.m.,
15 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 19th day
17 of September, 2006, at 2.15 p.m.