1 Tuesday, 3 October 2006

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can you call the

7 case, please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Yes. Good morning, Your Honour.

9 It's case IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd like to greet all the people

11 present in the courtroom, the Prosecution, the Defence counsel, the

12 accused, as well as all those people who are assisting us today.

13 We shall have a 30- to 40-minute testimony of the witness during

14 the examination-in-chief, and the Defence counsel will have as we said

15 yesterday three and a half hours for its cross-examination. If we don't

16 finish today, Colonel, you will have to come back tomorrow morning, but

17 the Defence counsel might not need all this time. Much will depend on the

18 Defence of Mr. Praljak.

19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

20 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I just wanted

21 to ask in view of the examination-in-chief yesterday and the part about

22 the military police that took a long time, that the Defence of Mr. Coric

23 be given more than the half hour envisaged if possible at all, because

24 yesterday's examination-in-chief dedicated more than 50 per cent of the

25 time precisely to the military police.

1 [Trial Chamber confers]

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. You are quite right. The

3 question of the military police and the meeting with Mr. Praljak perhaps,

4 but I think the Prosecution is going to address this issue. Of course,

5 the other Defence counsel can give up some of their time, because they are

6 less concerned about this issue than you are.

7 So you have the floor now, the Prosecution, for 30 to 40 minutes.

8 MR. PORYVAEV: Good morning.

9 WITNESS: PETER HAUENSTEIN [Resumed]

10 Examination by Mr. Poryvaev: [Continued]

11 Q. Good morning, General.

12 A. Good morning.

13 Q. It falls from your witness statement that you had a number of

14 meetings with Slobodan Praljak; is that correct?

15 A. Yes, that's correct.

16 Q. When did you see him first? Do you remember -- I'm not talking

17 about the date, at least about the month.

18 A. If I remember correctly, it's in the month of July. End of July,

19 into August.

20 Q. Do you remember the circumstances of your first meeting with Mr.

21 Praljak?

22 A. For the time that I was in -- in my area of responsibility, I had

23 not met him initially for the first couple of months, realising that I was

24 dealing with the OZ commander in that location on -- on a daily basis.

25 Q. But did you have knowledge that Mr. Praljak was already present in

1 the area?

2 A. I had heard that, and the reasons I say that is because on

3 occasion meetings would be cancelled with Siljeg who was the OZ commander,

4 and he would not be available because he was talking or apparently talking

5 to his -- to a higher commander. And I was under the impression at that

6 time that I began to know of his name as time proceeded -- with my time in

7 that mission area.

8 Q. Now, you mentioned Siljeg in your testimony today. What was

9 Siljeg's position?

10 A. As far as I was aware, he was -- his headquarters was in Prozor,

11 and he was the OZ commander, if I remember correctly.

12 Q. Which OZ, do you remember?

13 A. Of the Prozor area, I suspect.

14 Q. Okay. Then let's go down to your first meeting. Was it an

15 official meeting?

16 A. The one thing that stood out for me was that it was not an

17 official meeting. I believe we met for the very first time over coffee in

18 a town square, and I believe it was Prozor, and we were -- I had met him

19 for the very first time, and I remember his -- the deputy or Siljeg

20 himself or -- or whatever had been injured, and what stood out, he had

21 been hit in the foot or shot in the foot, and the comment that was made,

22 we were talking with each other, and the individual came over and we made

23 comments about, you know, what had happened to him, and the story came out

24 that he'd been shot the night before or the day before.

25 Q. What kind of conversation did you have with Mr. Praljak? Who else

1 was present at this unofficial meeting, let's say? If you remember, of

2 course.

3 A. Unfortunately, I do not remember. I just remember my -- my

4 initial contact and that being of a friendly nature. And in fact, if I

5 remember correctly the -- I projected that in a report, that I had met him

6 and at that point in time had made some comment as to his demeanour and

7 what sort of individual he was and, more importantly, how he had, I would

8 say, come forward into the situation and had taken on responsibility for

9 the area.

10 Q. Did you know at the time what position was -- he was holding?

11 A. I don't think there was -- once again, if I was in the mode of

12 information or intelligence gathering I would have paid attention to that

13 sort of detail and would have probably recorded it as such. On the day I

14 probably began to understand that he was in fact the -- the commander

15 above Siljeg in the area. But I can't comment and tell you exactly was he

16 this specific, you know, division, brigade, corps, or whatever.

17 Q. Did you have any official meetings with Mr. Praljak afterwards?

18 A. I'm trying to do once again a memory check here, and I would

19 suggest that there was one other -- one other time that I can remember,

20 and I believe Siljeg and himself were present, and we met in the warehouse

21 and one of the offices, and we were talking about some -- once again,

22 unfortunately I'd only be trying to search my memory without direct

23 reference to reports on a specific day that would indicate that I was

24 there and certain information was discussed.

25 Q. To the best of your recollection, how Mr. Praljak introduced

1 himself to you.

2 A. I think what stood -- stood out in my initial contact was his

3 demeanour being the individual that was in charge. His presence was --

4 was well known, and I got the impression that there was no doubt as to who

5 was in charge and that he was there for a purpose.

6 Q. Did you introduce yourself as one of the representatives of ECMM

7 mission?

8 A. Absolutely. And that's the only way I would introduce myself as

9 an individual, because I wore a specific identification which was the 12

10 stars in those days, with -- 12 gold stars with a blue background, as well

11 as wearing an identification badge and wearing all white. So it was very

12 easy to see who I was and what I represented in those days.

13 Q. Did you take part in any official negotiations with Mr. Praljak

14 participation in which some other people were involved?

15 A. I think the answer has to be yes, there was. Now, from -- once

16 again, for me to recollect the exact circumstances and to what reasons, I

17 would find it difficult to recollect without direct reference to date and

18 time that are once again indicated in my reports. I have no doubt that

19 there are meetings and that these meetings are conducted in the presence

20 of himself and other commanders, and in my opinion there was no doubt who

21 was in charge.

22 Q. When you're talking about different commanders, was Mr. Siljeg

23 also present --

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. -- at the negotiations? And who was chairing the negotiations? I

1 mean on the side of HVO and on your side.

2 A. I would be chairing if I was there by myself. If UNPROFOR was

3 there, then it would be a joint and it would be the two of us.

4 Q. And who was there from UNPROFOR?

5 A. It would be Major Graham Binns again.

6 Q. Okay.

7 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour, now we should move into private

8 session because we'll have to deal with a document under seal.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

10 [Private session]

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 7649-7651 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are currently in open session.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] In open session, the Prosecution

10 has informed the Trial Chamber that it has finished its

11 examination-in-chief. I shall therefore give the floor to Mr. Kovacic,

12 who will start his cross-examination, and then Mr. Praljak will put

13 questions to the witness.

14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Cross-examination by Mr. Kovacic:

16 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Colonel. I represent General

17 Praljak here present, and first I will put some questions to you, after

18 which General Praljak will ask you some questions himself.

19 You described your arrival in Bosnia and the preparations you had

20 been through, and we have had approximately the same thing from other

21 witnesses. Let me ask you this: While you were in V2 in Gornji Vakuf,

22 the director of the regional centre Zenica was Jean-Pierre Thebault. That

23 is what you confirmed, didn't you?

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. While Mr. Christopher Beese, in May and June, was his -- was the

1 deputy, wasn't he?

2 A. I cannot recollect that, but if it is in the documents, then that

3 is correct.

4 Q. Very well. The Trial Chamber has seen enough evidence about when

5 exactly Christopher Beese was there and the rest you confirmed.

6 You said that on the 29th of May, you set out by car from Zenica

7 towards Gornji Vakuf and that was your first journey in the area where you

8 were going to spend another three months, and according to your statement

9 from 9th October, 2001, you were accompanied by Philip Watkins, Major

10 Skat-Rordam, and the driver Jens. Do you remember that?

11 A. 9th of October?

12 Q. No, the 29th of May.

13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note the statement was of the 9th

14 October, 2001.

15 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

16 Q. It was your first day in that area when you set out from Zenica to

17 Gornji Vakuf?

18 A. I am confused. The dates that are coming across here are --

19 indicate the 9th of October, 2001. I was nowhere near this. Maybe I'm

20 confused.

21 Q. I'm sorry, it's an error on the record. I am constantly talking

22 about the 29th of May, 1993, but that's an error in the transcript. [In

23 English] 29 May, 1993, it is your first day on the site. You're

24 travelling from Zenica to Gornji Vakuf with the mentioned colleagues;

25 correct?

1 A. 29th of May, 1993, yes, I travelled from the area of Split up

2 into -- past Gornji Vakuf into Zenica.

3 Q. [Interpretation] Very well. And in the course of that journey

4 your colleagues, whom you mentioned, started briefing you on the current

5 situation on the ground. It was your first day, and you were starting to

6 learn about the events; is that correct?

7 A. That was my first day in that specific area. I had been with the

8 mission already three months in another area. This -- this was very

9 specific briefings, and once again, remember, I did not go to Gornji Vakuf

10 directly and stay there. I went back up first to Zenica, got background

11 information there, and then moved forward or back into Gornji Vakuf and

12 which I then undertook the responsibility for Gornji Vakuf. And of course

13 Philip Watkins then moved on and Skat-Rordam who had been there already,

14 if I remember correctly, at least one month, we teamed up together from

15 that point on.

16 Q. Very well. Colonel, I will appreciate it if you give me brief

17 answers to my questions, and I will try to phrase them in a way that you

18 are able to answer with yes, no, or I don't know, and -- because our time

19 is limited, and if you give me extensive answers, I will not manage.

20 Thank you for this information. You told my about your

21 preparations. And you also had preparations in Zagreb on the 1st of

22 March, 1993, in the headquarters of ECMM, and you spent five days there;

23 is that correct?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. In Zagreb, you also underwent training, if I'm not mistaken.

1 According to my information, training to handle Capsat equipment, also

2 first aid refreshment training and some other skills, and, most

3 importantly, you had a general briefing about the situation in the area

4 where you were headed; is that correct?

5 A. I correct the last statement. In general briefing, it is -- it

6 was an operational briefing which basically told you the whole situation

7 of the whole area, realising that as we arrived individuals were placed in

8 different locations and then got into more specific briefings on their

9 exact location which were being put to or placed.

10 Q. Witness, I will show you one document to refresh your memory,

11 because I don't think your recollection is correct. In -- it was in

12 Zenica that you received training about personalities and details. In

13 Zagreb you had a general kind of training. But let me put a document to

14 you to refresh your memory. [Previous translation continues] [In

15 English] ... put document on ELMO.

16 Your Honour, I apologise, I don't have the document in e-court

17 because I found it yesterday.

18 [Interpretation] This document, to inform others in the courtroom,

19 was Exhibit D76/1 from the case Prosecution versus Kordic and Cerkez. It

20 was originally received from ECMM back then, and it was exhibited in that

21 case.

22 Witness -- in fact, I don't think it is under seal, but we should

23 check to avoid all possible mistakes. I don't think it's under seal, but

24 I'm never sure with these things. Let us assume it is not.

25 Witness, if you've had time to leaf through it, especially pages

1 2, 3. The document has 7 pages. It has an introductory part, and it is

2 divided into sections according to republics. The first part is about

3 Croatia and the situation in Croatia, pages 1 to 4. And then on page 4 --

4 would the usher please turn to page 4. On page 4 begins the part about

5 Bosnia and Herzegovina, which actually covers three important sections.

6 We see above paragraph 21 the sub-heading "Bosnia-Herzegovina." There are

7 three subheadings. We see the first one, "The Bosnian Serb army," VRS or

8 BSA as we call it. Then on the following page we see the section about

9 HVO and another one about the BH army.

10 Now, having seen this, do you agree that this was the general

11 briefing about the situation you received in Zagreb before going to Bosnia

12 and Herzegovina, or even before going to your post that preceded Bosnia

13 and Herzegovina? Bulgaria, I think it was. Can you confirm that? Was

14 that the briefing you received?

15 A. I cannot confirm that. I -- if I remember correctly, I did arrive

16 in the ECMM in the March time frame. It was the 1st or 3rd of March. The

17 document I see is in fact dated the 25th of February. I mean, once again

18 to tell you that this was the briefing, I can't say that. I mean,

19 realising the situation changed daily, and as individuals came into --

20 into the mission area, yes, they were brought up to speed on -- on the

21 overall situation, but to say specifically this is the document or the

22 briefing, I can't give you that right now. And by the time that I moved

23 from Bulgaria to Macedonia and then back into Gornji Vakuf, obviously the

24 situation would have changed drastically from this initial briefing.

25 Q. Very well. Thank you. You can remove this document. And can I

1 have document P 09603 in e-court.

2 Colonel, this was made by your colleague, Christopher Beese, this

3 schematic. It indicates your groups, coordination centres and regional

4 centres and the axes along which you moved. Is this schematic consistent

5 with your perception of the events?

6 A. No, it is not.

7 Q. Where is the discrepancy, please?

8 A. It's where you have Victor 2 and Mike 3 actually represented.

9 Mike 3 was not responsible for the Gornji Vakuf area. Once again, I'm not

10 sure at what point in time this was -- this map represents. Once again,

11 times changed and incidents changed and borders may have in fact changed.

12 Realising that CC Travnik was in Travnik and my area of responsibility

13 during the time I was there was the Bugojno, Gornji Vakuf, and the Prozor

14 area. Excuse me. And so therefore obviously Mike 3 was not in that

15 location as indicated on the map.

16 Q. Very well. It's possible that the organisation changed in the

17 meantime, but Mr. Beese had arrived there slightly earlier than you and

18 was there most of the time that you were there. Anyway, it gives us an

19 overview of the area.

20 Let me ask you two more things. You told us yesterday something

21 about the organisation of your work, communications. I believe that part

22 is clear. But, Colonel, you personally and your colleagues moved as a

23 rule only along major roads, and the only exceptions was when you were

24 escorted by one of the factions. On those occasions you could go to use

25 byroads; is that correct?

1 A. That is correct based on the type of vehicle that we were

2 initially issued with and that we were one team. We were also escorted

3 by -- by UNPROFOR in a lot of these cases, and in some case we took a

4 risk --

5 Q. Colonel, I'm sorry to interrupt. I really don't have time for

6 that. You have just -- you have already explained that. I'm only

7 interested in one fact, namely, that you moved only along major roads for

8 the most part, and you never moved by night. I believe you said that as

9 well. Is that correct?

10 A. I never said anything we did not move at night. We in fact had

11 occasion to move at night. There were escorts but of varying types, and

12 there were times that we did move without an escort or in an area we had

13 not been to previously for other reasons, which if you wish we can

14 explore.

15 Q. Can we agree that for the most part you moved in daytime?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Thank you. Colonel, when we look at this schematic, and if we

18 project it on the geographic map of the area, I will put it to you that

19 simple arithmetics show that you, the monitors, covered more -- less than

20 1.5 per cent of the territories where you were active, and I mean by that

21 all the three regional centres. So your movement and your direct

22 knowledge were derived from 1 to 1.5 per cent of the territory. Would you

23 accept that?

24 A. I would have to accept that, yes.

25 Q. Thank you. Let us move on. In your statement, you dealt in

1 greater detail -- I mean, the statement you gave to OTP investigators, if

2 I may remind you. You said that your main task, and you repeated that in

3 your testimony here, was to gather information, to report to ECMM

4 headquarters in Zagreb and, subsequently, the ministers of the EU

5 countries, but you also had other tasks. You played the role of

6 negotiators or mediators in negotiations. You participated in the

7 distribution of humanitarian aid, because whether you liked it or not, you

8 had to get involved in that job, and you had to get involved in some

9 rescue missions.

10 Is it correct that you were engaged in all of these activities to

11 a greater or smaller extent?

12 A. Absolutely.

13 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could the registrar please show us

14 document P 01221. That's an exhibit we've seen before.

15 Q. While the document is being placed on the screen, it follows from

16 the document that ECMM Regional Centre Split had 17 teams of monitors for

17 the Republic of Croatia, Montenegro, and south-west Bosnia and

18 Herzegovina. Can we please turn to page 2 of the document.

19 Does this figure sound realistic to you? Is that how you remember

20 the situation?

21 A. What specifically do you want me to comment on?

22 Q. The number of teams of monitors. Do you remember that Regional

23 Centre Split had only 17 teams of monitors that operated in Croatia,

24 Montenegro, and south-western Bosnia-Herzegovina. That's on page 3,

25 because the first one is the facsimile. You will see there Regional

1 Centre Split and in brackets there's a description. Somewhere in the

2 middle. The first sub-heading on the page. "17 monitor teams ..." It's

3 dated 19th of January, that's true, but I put it to you that this

4 situation did not change by May when you arrived. Is that correct? You

5 don't remember, you don't know, yes or no?

6 A. Once again, I cannot comment based on the fact that only what you

7 displayed here. If that was in an official report, then I would have to

8 say yes, it was there. I was responsible and in one location. I was not

9 responsible or had the -- the purview of those around me other than those

10 immediately to my left and right flank and my higher headquarters.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just one follow-up question.

12 The Defence is showing you a document dating back to the month of January.

13 You arrived on the 29th of May. That is several months later. So the

14 Judges would like to know if the situation that you found when you arrived

15 was the same as in the month of January, because in this description of

16 the month of January, it -- in the description it says: Because of

17 artillery fire, whether from the Croat side or the Muslim side, the

18 movements around Prozor were limited. When you arrived because I looked

19 at the map between Gornji Vakuf and Prozor there are 12 to 15 kilometres.

20 They are connected by a road with this checkpoint at Makljen. But when

21 you circulated between Gornji Vakuf and Prozor in the period you spent

22 there, was there artillery fire that prevented your movement?

23 THE WITNESS: Not on my arrival. The situation in Gornji Vakuf

24 was -- had relatively stabilised itself to allow us to move in,

25 remembering the main road in was through Prozor, Gornji Vakuf, and then

1 over to Zenica.

2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Your Honour, I would like to return to an answer

3 you have given before or agreed to before, namely that you covered roughly

4 or at best 1.5 per cent of the territory. I am not quite sure what this

5 is supposed to signify. Does it mean that you actually -- you set foot or

6 wheel on that part of the territory or that your information was limited

7 to that? Because I can imagine that first when driving you saw large

8 area, so that must have been a relatively considerable part of the

9 territory, and you must have talked to people and the talk was perhaps,

10 it's for you to tell me, not limited to the locality where you were so

11 that maybe one could say intellectually you covered more than 1.5 per cent

12 of the territory.

13 THE WITNESS: My -- my immediate response is -- was given in

14 trying to understand what the question was. The unfortunate thing, I

15 think this is a question of how long is a piece of string. I'm not sure

16 how much territory I was supposed to cover based on the overall 100 per

17 cent. I know that my area of responsibility during that time frame

18 consisted of the Prozor area, Gornji Vakuf and Bugojno. I did travel

19 between Split and Prozor and of course Gornji Vakuf up to Zenica on

20 occasion and observed other areas or other territories, but once again, in

21 the three months that I was in that particular region my responsibility

22 was those three communities. Is that 1.5 per cent of the overall? I

23 can't answer you, yeah.

24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I -- I don't know whether that was really what --

25 what counsel meant with this question. I -- I understood counsel as

1 implying that in Gornji Vakuf, Prozor, and Bugojno, which was your area,

2 you only covered 1.5 per cent of that, but maybe that I misunderstood, and

3 then I'm sure Mr. Kovacic will kindly set me right.

4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this example that I

5 put to the witness and that was accepted by the witness is based solely on

6 the description of roads along which ECMM monitors moved. We have enough

7 evidence about that from earlier testimony and from Colonel's testimony.

8 So it is pure arithmetics. If we project these roads on which they moved

9 on the geographic map in the around Bugojno, Gornji Vakuf, Prozor or on

10 the entire map of Bosnia, it doesn't matter, we get the figure of 1 to 1.5

11 per cent. I --

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Previous translation continues] ... this. How do

13 you come up with this figure? Do you make a string of all the roads that

14 are manageable and then you take the portion on which the witness has

15 travelled or -- it's not clear to me as a concept.

16 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I took statistical data about the

17 territory, the area of those municipalities, and I calculated the portion

18 of these municipalities covered by main roads because the witness

19 testified that they only used main roads and, very exceptionally, along

20 byroads. And the witness confirmed it. In fact he said he never used

21 byroads.

22 So it is my assertion, and we can check this with experts, that is

23 the case. This map was prepared by ECMM and it has not been contested.

24 Now, would I like to ask the witness another follow-up question on

25 that.

1 Q. Colonel, you told us yesterday that you were the eyes and ears as

2 far as these events were concerned, but let me remind you that in another

3 case in which you testified as well, Prosecution versus Hadzihasanovic, on

4 page 7594, and I will quote you, you put it in stronger terms, in greater

5 detail: "[In English] We could not be the eyes and the ears everywhere."

6 I emphasise this "everywhere." "But we, and we were only one team in that

7 location, and that responsibility of those three communities."

8 [Interpretation] So in the context of the questions I put to you

9 before, and you said something similar at the beginning of yesterday's

10 testimony, I will ask you the following: Do you agree that your objective

11 possibilities of observation were not good, bearing in mind the territory

12 or the limitations you mentioned, all the jobs you had to do, the number

13 of teams and so on and so forth. Would you agree that objectively you

14 were unable to carry out a thorough monitoring?

15 A. I disagree.

16 Q. Well, let me ask you this in another one, Colonel. You're a

17 professional soldier. Had you been in a military operation in

18 Bosnia-Herzegovina with your troops, would you have agreed to draw up

19 military plans based on the type of information you had as an ECMM

20 monitor, superficial and unverified information? Would you have embarked

21 on any serious kind of activity?

22 A. I would make the statement that I would use the resources and the

23 sensors that I had at my disposal as a commander. And even though as a

24 commander I don't see the whole battlefield, I have to use those resources

25 and make my best judgement based on the information I do receive. Where

1 I'm trying to -- to lead you here is the fact that I was, yes, one team,

2 but available to me were many different organisations that gave me that

3 capability to then digest information and then distribute it.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The question of the Defence is

5 very subtle, and you are not exactly answering the point. Counsel is

6 asking you in view of the information at your disposal as a representative

7 of the ECMM, in a military situation, would you have used as a basis the

8 same information you had for a military mission? That is the question.

9 All this is in order to test the reliability of your information.

10 So as a military operative, would you have embarked on a military

11 mission with the information that you had at the time, rather than a civic

12 or civil mission?

13 THE WITNESS: I'm not trying to avoid answering specifically the

14 question, but once again I draw your attention to the real reason I was

15 there. I was not there in a military capacity of trying to do military

16 operations. I would probably approach it in a much different manner. The

17 point being is that information was gathered from a variety of places. I

18 was one monitor. I had UNPROFOR nearby. I had NGO. I had other

19 humanitarian organisations. I had each of the sides. I worked with the

20 politicians. I worked with the civil authorities. I worked with the

21 military. And that whole picture enabled me to make appropriate

22 judgements.

23 If you ask that if I was to do a military operation in that

24 particular area with those resources, I would say, no, for obvious

25 reasons. I would have my own sensors out there to gather that

1 information.

2 Once again, it's what I was there to do and what I was there to --

3 what information I was required to take up.

4 This -- this statement that I only travelled the main roads I

5 would disagree with. I did not just travel main roads. I travelled many

6 roads in that location, and I saw many people. So it was an overall

7 assessment. Now, it has got to be obvious that one team in that area

8 would have been insufficient in any operation, but I mean we did the best

9 we could with the resources that we had, and more is always better even in

10 military context.

11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.

12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Just one more question on this

13 topic, Your Honours.

14 Q. Witness, I understand your standpoint, and in any case, I'm not

15 saying that you, meaning all the ECMM monitors, not you personally, I'm

16 not saying that you did not carry out your role there to the best of your

17 ability and in the best way that you could. There is no doubt about that.

18 We can see what efforts you invested, and we can see what the results are.

19 What I am putting to you is that objectively, and I won't list all

20 the reasons, but objectively, you simply did not have the room to verify

21 each and every piece of information, to check it out, to accept the first

22 piece of information as initial information and then to proceed further.

23 You did try to verify some information, but evidently you were unable to

24 check things to the extent that you would have wished for objective

25 reasons. Would you agree with that?

1 A. I would agree with that.

2 MR. KOVACIC: Thank you very much, sir.

3 Your Honour, I would give over to my client, Mr. Praljak.

4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Mr. Praljak.

5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.

6 Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:

7 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Colonel. My name is Slobodan

8 Praljak. We have already met, or at least I remember your face very well.

9 I don't know whether you've forgotten mine.

10 Would the usher please put on the ELMO this document. Would you

11 put these and give the witness these markers.

12 Colonel, there's just one thing I would like to ask you. My

13 questions will be very brief, and in order to save time, as we are always

14 short of time, in order to receive as many responses from you as possible,

15 please be brief as you would in a military context.

16 Now, you see this aerial photograph here. You can see Bugojno

17 there. That's Bugojno, yes.

18 Sir, would you please take a marker and indicate if you know where

19 the 15.000 refugees you mentioned moved after the army of

20 Bosnia-Herzegovina in an offensive operation captured Bugojno in a

21 traditional-type war between two armies. Would you take a red felt tipped

22 pen and mark the route taken by the 15.000 refugees and say how many

23 soldiers there were among them. Would you indicate where the Serb forces

24 were, where the BH army forces were, and where the HVO forces were, and to

25 assist, the south is down from Bugojno. You can see on the left-hand side

1 north, south, east, west and Gornji Vakuf is where the clouds are. And if

2 you don't know, say so.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] If you know, as Mr. Praljak has

4 asked you to do, could you give us the locations where the Serbs were

5 positioned, the ABiH was positioned and the Croats were positioned on this

6 map.

7 THE WITNESS: Unfortunately the map that has been presented to me

8 doesn't represent the whole area. To the north, in fact, were the Serb

9 locations of Bugojno which is not indicated on this map. And the area of

10 Gornji Vakuf is clouded. I can't tell you specifically, you know, where

11 they were situated. And I would obviously need a much larger map in my

12 opinion in order to try to draw out something.

13 Once again, I was not in the intelligence-gathering mode. I could

14 not tell you specifically as per the land exactly where boundaries between

15 brigades and front lines, et cetera. I can give you general impression

16 where I saw on -- what I saw on the ground. I at no time ever marked a

17 map or even had any intention to mark a map because that was not within

18 our responsibility.

19 The -- I can only indicate general arrows of where we believe --

20 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

21 Q. Thank you very much. Yes, please go ahead.

22 A. And -- and the exact route of -- of the Croat forces that left

23 between the area of Bugojno and Gornji Vakuf, all I can comment on is that

24 it was hearsay that they went east, and I was told -- sorry, correction.

25 They went west into Serb-controlled territory, and they eventually were

1 met up down below.

2 There were -- I was at the location between Bugojno and Gornji

3 Vakuf in which they had come together, and it was a mixture of civilian --

4 Q. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. We heard that yesterday.

5 Colonel, please, Their Honours have to reach a decision as to the guilt or

6 innocence of these men. That is why I only wish to discuss the extent to

7 which your information is precise and exact. If you do not know where the

8 Serb positions were on this map, that is sufficient for my purposes.

9 So please tell me, do you know what the route taken by the

10 refugees was and where the Serb positions were? If you need to use the

11 large map, you have a large map next to you and you may use that.

12 I would like you to understand that my time is very limited, and

13 therefore I have to put precise questions and get precise answers from you

14 to find out what precisely you know. I don't need explanations of why you

15 don't know something. So can you indicate this either on the little map

16 or on the big map next to you, please.

17 A. I can't indicate the exact route. All I can indicate to you is

18 the direction that they went, which was to the west and then to the south

19 to the Prozor area.

20 Q. Thank you very much.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] This is a Google map. Can't you

22 with a pencil just show us approximately? We have Bugojno here. Gornji

23 Vakuf is in the clouds. Can't you approximately indicate the route they

24 took?

25 THE WITNESS: There is a small community between the area of

1 Bugojno and Gornji Vakuf which I say I can't tell you because I haven't

2 seen the scale on this map and the exact distances. As I remember

3 correctly, the area between Bugojno and Gornji Vakuf is about 35

4 kilometres and if we take somewhere halfway in between there -- they were

5 located initially -- and what I'm referring to is the Croats. And then

6 from that location I would suggest the Serbs were up north here around

7 Bugojno and kind of come down like this. Once again, I'm not familiar

8 with the scale. I can't tell you the exact locations and would suggest

9 that they went in this direction here and then south down into Bugojno. A

10 different coloured map here. This direction and then south. Once again,

11 I cannot verify this line here being the exact line other than trying to

12 visualise or see it on -- on a scaled map.

13 And as I -- and from down here, obviously down south here was --

14 in those days, this was Muslim controlled and this is what I referred to

15 yesterday that was also Croat controlled. Is that what you're looking

16 for?

17 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Could the witness just please mark

18 these lines with S for the Serb line and R for the route taken by the

19 refugees.

20 THE WITNESS: Unfortunately, this diagram does not --

21 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation].

22 Q. Well, red or black is more easily visible. Thank you.

23 Colonel, thank you very much. This is more or less the exact

24 route taken by the refugees, and this is the cooperation mentioned by the

25 Prosecutor between the Croats and the Serbs. After losing a town and

1 after there being 15.000 refugees, the only way they could find to move

2 along was through Serb territories while all the convoys were moving

3 towards the very army that was causing all this.

4 And you will please look at the next map. It's also a Google map

5 and it shows Gornji Vakuf and Prozor. And while this map is being placed

6 on the ELMO, I wish to ask you the following: Yesterday, you said, and we

7 need not repeat it today, that at that time, which was late July, 1993,

8 15.000 people arrived in Prozor where at that time there were about 1.900

9 or one and a half thousand inhabitants. Would that be 10 times more

10 refugees, women, children, men, elderly, than that place had inhabitants?

11 Is the number of people who arrived 10 times larger than the number of

12 people actually living in that place?

13 A. I'm not sure what the infrastructure or population base was prior

14 to the war, in fact, how many total people were living there. But at the

15 time there was only, as you stated, about 1.500 people who lived there

16 when I was there and with the additional 15.000 that did arrive. That is

17 correct.

18 Q. Well, we have the census from 1981, and this did not change a lot.

19 This is from 1981. In the town there were 610 Croats and 1.448 Muslims.

20 So about 2.000 people in total.

21 In view of the war and some people moving out or fleeing, I stand

22 by my question as to whether this was 1.500 people, whereas the number of

23 people who arrived were 15.000.

24 In Paris with the surrounding areas there are 10 million

25 inhabitants, so what would the job of a commander look like? And I was

1 then a commander. If 100 million people were to arrive in Paris, who had

2 been expelled from their homes, who were there with everything with their

3 wives and children, as a soldier can you even imagine such a situation,

4 and then I will move on. Just tell me, can you imagine it?

5 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour, I object. It's a hypothetical

6 question.

7 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I'll agree. I'll move on.

8 Q. Sir, can you tell me whether in the areas where you were moving

9 you ever saw five buses in a single place, five buses of Croatian army or

10 whatever parked on the road? Or five trucks in one place?

11 A. Yes, I had. You must -- I would ask you to give me a time and

12 place as to where I saw those five buses. I saw many buses.

13 Q. My question is: If you can fit 60 people into a bus, how many

14 buses would there have to be to move 15.000 people from that area across

15 Mount Vran, taking the Diamond road as you call it. We called it

16 the "Road of salvation." Would you need 300 buses to move these people

17 out? It's easy to calculate mathematically.

18 A. Are you referring to the amount of buses that would be required to

19 move individuals from the area between Gornji Vakuf and Prozor out or from

20 Prozor somewhere else? I'm sorry, I'm not getting what -- what

21 calculation you want me to make and for what reason.

22 Q. Colonel, you side quite clearly that these people arrived in

23 Prozor, and you indicated on the map what route they took, and you said

24 there were 15.000 of them. We also said there were 1.500 people in

25 Prozor.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, Mr. Praljak. The

2 Bench has a problem. We don't quite understand what you are getting at.

3 We know that there were 15.000 refugees that arrived in Prozor. What are

4 you trying to establish, that these 15.000 refugees were transported on

5 300 buses or trucks, and you want the witness to confirm this?

6 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the witness

7 said here and the reports show that in late July Bugojno fell in the

8 offensive. We saw what the consequences were. The witness said that the

9 offensive of the BH army continued. We know that 15.000 people arrived in

10 a place where there were 1.500 people.

11 The question that arises is: What is the military commander

12 doing? What are the civilian authorities doing? And this witness, who

13 was monitoring and collecting intelligence, did he ever see in one spot

14 five buses?

15 MR. PORYVAEV: I object, Your Honour.

16 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Because if 300 buses had to

17 be found --

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. He hasn't

19 finished yet.

20 MR. PORYVAEV: The witness was not collecting intelligence. Mr.

21 Praljak is misleading the Trial Chamber.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Moreover, Mr. Praljak, we have before us not an

23 expert, but a witness. An expert might be able to say what the commander

24 should do or should not do. The witness can only say what he has seen,

25 heard, smelled, and so forth. So I think your question is not a proper

1 question for a witness.

2 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'm trying to

3 put the question in the correct way. If the witness says in his reports

4 how many tanks he saw, if he asks what my military speciality is and so

5 on, and it is not his mandate to ask me that, if he establishes there are

6 offensives and so on, then the witness is talking about facts and

7 gathering information.

8 Secondly, I asked the witness clearly whether he ever saw five

9 buses in a single spot, and the answer can be yes, no, or I don't

10 remember. Five empty buses.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Have you seen buses?

12 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ...

13 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

14 Q. My question was not whether you saw them - please assist me - but

15 whether you saw five empty buses parked together in a single place and, if

16 so, where and when you saw that?

17 A. There was also -- I mean, there is a specific time that I can

18 refer to in which it was evacuation of the area of Rat, which was down the

19 "road to salvation" between Gornji Vakuf and Zenica in which I know that

20 the Croats were evacuating. We in fact escorted those full, initially

21 empty buses, and then full buses of people from that area to an area to

22 the east -- sorry, correction, to the west of -- the direction we went was

23 to the west back to Gornji Vakuf, south from Gornji Vakuf and then between

24 Gornji Vakuf and Prozor we went south or west again to another small town

25 up in the hills at which pointed in time -- Podgradje is in that area or

1 just south of that -- of which we then let the convoy released -- released

2 them into Croat territory. And, yes, definitely more than five buses, and

3 they were loaded.

4 Q. Colonel, I simply think we went left, right. There was a village

5 there. That this does not contribute to Their Honours' understanding.

6 But anyway, please look at this map of Bugojno, Gornji Vakuf, and Prozor.

7 Yesterday, you said on two occasions, I don't have time to put documents

8 to you now, but you said that on that route you saw HVO soldiers with

9 rifles in their hands overseeing the digging of trenches and that it was

10 Muslims who were digging the trenches to the right and left of the road.

11 I will show you a military map of that area, and please tell me

12 where is that field to the left and right of the road that you were

13 talking about. And I will tell you that Their Honours have also travelled

14 along that road, and both you and I have travelled along it dozens of

15 times. So I will help you see both on this map and a more detailed one

16 that there is not so much as a square metre of field on either side, that

17 this road runs through a valley and that there is a forest on both sides

18 of the road.

19 So please look at the military map, the smaller one. Not this

20 one, the smaller one. Leave the previous map, please. Leave the previous

21 Google map. So the witness can say where going from Gornji Vakuf toward

22 Makljen -- well, first of all, can you tell me where the HVO positions

23 were and where the army of BH positions were so that we know where

24 trenches would have to be dug.

25 Show the witness the military map. Could you put the part between

1 Gornji Vakuf and Makljen on the ELMO so that Their Honours can see too.

2 Please explain to the Judges where the field is, and look at the

3 contour lines and show us where the lines between the HVO and the BH army,

4 which was on the offensive as you say, were.

5 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have this map in

6 e-court. It might be easier for everyone to follow. It's 3D 00381. It

7 may be easier for the witness, but it will be easier for everybody else if

8 we look at it in e-court.

9 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Gornji Vakuf, Rama, please. Could you pull it down a little bit.

11 Raise it, please.

12 Can you see Prozor? It's less visible here. Can you show us,

13 using the marker, where -- where the demarcation lines with the BH army so

14 that trenches could be dug at all, especially since you say you saw it

15 from a road and that it was in a field. Where do you see a square metre

16 of field between Gornji Vakuf and Prozor?

17 A. If you go to the north of Prozor toward Gornji Vakuf, you can move

18 down the map slightly. The other way. Good. You can see that in the low

19 ground there is in fact a creek that runs through that area or a river, a

20 small river. That area was completely surrounded by --

21 Q. Please, where to the north? Could you indicate it? You said

22 between Gornji Vakuf and Rama. Just show us where you had seen it. Time,

23 place.

24 So where do you see a field here, and where are the lines? Where

25 was the BH army in Zdrinci, and where was the HVO? Would you draw in the

1 positions?

2 A. Once again, and I don't mean to avoid this, I had no direct

3 military knowledge of any of the positions. That was not my

4 responsibility and I was not in a position to gather that information or

5 keep record of where everybody was on the ground. I can give you a

6 general location --

7 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. We have heard that several

8 times already. Thank you. If you can't draw it --

9 JUDGE PRANDLER: Mr. Praljak, you have asked the witness to show

10 where in his view the locations of the -- of the two armies were. Now, he

11 just explained that he had no specific knowledge, but he would like to

12 show to you according to his knowledge where those front lines went. So

13 please allow him to do so what you have asked in the first place. Thank

14 you.

15 THE WITNESS: If I -- if I may, I'm trying to look as well for

16 time and place as to exactly what you want me to draw. The issue at hand

17 obviously is that the lines changed in that three-month period. We

18 initially saw the line north of Gornji Vakuf and eventually it ended up by

19 the time I left to the south of Gornji Vakuf, and -- and in fact, right

20 beside our headquarters, beside our warehouse, which was the UNPROFOR

21 warehouse, was Zrinko's headquarters. So for obvious reasons at a given

22 point in time, there was occupation within Gornji Vakuf, and I want to

23 draw a line something like this up the valley here, which is the valley we

24 looked at and kind of came down like this. I can't comment -- and at a

25 point in time the "road to salvation" which I believe was -- unfortunately

1 the pen is getting away on me here. Is there a way to erase this, erase

2 some of the lines?

3 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] While you draw, I would like

4 to say this to the Chamber: I'm not rushing the witness for the sake of

5 rushing, but we have heard so much evidence and so many facts, and I have

6 so little time to clarify facts as precisely as necessary for the Trial

7 Chamber to be able to make a valid judgement on this situation at the time

8 when I was there and when the gentleman was there. If we are going to

9 skip over such things and if I am to have 40 minutes to clarify 15 points

10 that have been explicitly made here, then of course I have to resort to

11 attempts to get "I know" or "I don't know" from the witness.

12 Q. Can you tell us, where was the demarcation line between HVO and

13 the BH army in the end of July, early August, 1993? The demarcation line

14 between HVO and BH army.

15 A. Can you move the map to the north slightly more.

16 Q. Could you roll -- scroll the map down, please?

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, the registrar is

18 telling me that if you move the map upwards, you will lose part of the map

19 at the bottom of the map. So this is a technical problem.

20 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] [Previous translation

21 continues] ... possible. Since it is clear that the Colonel does not have

22 precise data about lines, then in fact --

23 Q. What is this, Colonel?

24 A. What I'm trying to do is come to grips with the time frame in

25 which you're talking about. The line to the north of Gornji Vakuf, which

1 extended up - excuse me - the "road to salvation", was in fact -- one side

2 was controlled by Croats in the south, and to the north was -- was the

3 Muslims. At a given point in time, as I understood -- as time progressed,

4 slowly but surely the BiH eventually controlled the whole of Gornji Vakuf

5 and shoved -- and moved the Croats to the south.

6 Just prior to this time actually occurring, the other circle that

7 I put on the map and which I've now hashed is the flat area that I was

8 referring to which is around the creek bed. And if I'm getting this

9 correctly, this is a 1:100000 map. So each grid square here is about 1

10 kilometer long. You can see very easily that the flat ground does occur

11 in the area as you approach down into Gornji Vakuf. And it was in this

12 area on the left and right around the creek bed that I observed this. And

13 I fully understand and acknowledge what the General is saying from the

14 perspective all the way up through this area it is restrictive and the

15 contour lines are very, very steep. And you're right, it is forested in

16 that area and it would have been difficult to see except for the high

17 features. So it is this ground here as you approached into Gornji Vakuf

18 that it flattened out and allowed you to see at least 300 to 400 metres in

19 both directions along that creek bed that I recall.

20 Q. All right. Thank you, Colonel. All this -- if I told you that

21 this was under HVO control all the time and has -- had never been lost,

22 that would be a waste of time. We can Google it again and we would find

23 out there was no flat terrain there, but I don't want to spend any more

24 time on that.

25 Could you please pass this map.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. There's a

2 contradiction here. Mr. Praljak is saying that the area which you have

3 hashed, which is a bed of the river where you saw people digging trenches,

4 Mr. Praljak said that this area was controlled by the HVO, and you're

5 saying that because of the ABiH offensive the area was then controlled by

6 the Muslims, and this is why you have plotted this line underneath. Do

7 you confirm this?

8 THE WITNESS: The line to the south I'm only assuming went that

9 far south realising that Gornji Vakuf in its entirety was taken by the

10 Muslims in that time frame in my opinion. I said I'm only assuming and I

11 cannot absolutely verify that it went that far south. All I do know is

12 that it was pushed from out of Gornji Vakuf and the area to the north-east

13 of Gornji Vakuf, that whole area was -- was eventually taken over by the

14 BiH. And once again, I cannot answer precisely that this -- this line is

15 absolutely accurate all the way through. It may in fact, as the general's

16 already indicated, stayed to the north.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You're saying that Gornji Vakuf

18 was taken by the ABiH. In which month was this?

19 THE WITNESS: This was in the month -- I want to say late July,

20 early August and later on in August. And the reason I know this is

21 because they attacked around us.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I had understood

23 that the V2 office was based in Gornji Vakuf. When the ABiH attacked, did

24 you leave your office or did you stay in that location?

25 THE WITNESS: We stayed in location and actually witnessed the

1 battle.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So you saw the

3 battle unfold. When a warring party occupies the territory, do they mark

4 the territory? I assume that the ABiH was controlling the road. Did you

5 ever see any ABiH checkpoints and, if so, could you indicate which ones

6 these are on the map, because when you take up a position, you control

7 that position and you control the roads. Did the ABiH establish any

8 checkpoints?

9 THE WITNESS: Yes, there were check points. Initially there were

10 checkpoints between Gornji Vakuf and Prozor, which -- which moved

11 literally day by day, and you could literally see wherever the new

12 checkpoint was, then it would move further south and further south, and

13 eventually it was absorbed into the Gornji Vakuf area and therefore from

14 the August time frame there was no checkpoints between Gornji Vakuf and

15 Prozor proper. The checkpoints started to appear on the south side of

16 Gornji Vakuf and the road over to Zenica.

17 Once again, I have to see the whole map here to get whatever that

18 road was over to the eastern side to get an understanding that in fact the

19 feature that I may -- I mean, this road up here to the north may be the

20 wrong road and may in fact be this it one here that's the one to Zenica.

21 I'm not sure. But on this side, all up here, I got the appearance it was

22 controlled, and all the way up the valley here. And this was the valley

23 we knew stuff was happening, and the Croats were up in this area.

24 If that clarifies the situation. The road -- the road definitely

25 over to Zenica had -- had eventually BiH checkpoints, but -- and just to

1 put it in perspective, the Makljen was always, in my time, controlled by

2 the HVO.

3 MR. KARNAVAS: Just a quick point, Your Honour, because later on I

4 assume that this is going to be moved into evidence. Perhaps during the

5 break the gentleman could just mark it and then when we go back on record

6 indicate the marks, what all these lines denote, otherwise, months from

7 now we won't be able to remember.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. We shall now have a

9 20-minute break. Time is up. If you could mark this map during the break

10 this would be useful to all of us. We shall resume in 20 minutes.

11 --- Recess taken at 10.34 a.m.

12 --- On resuming at 10.55 a.m.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.

14 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.

15 Q. Colonel, would you please be so kind as to sign this map so that

16 we can ...

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Can you mark today's

18 date, please.

19 THE WITNESS: [Marks]

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could we have an

21 exhibit number, please.

22 THE REGISTRAR: That will be IC 37, Your Honours.

23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Could you now please put on

24 the ELMO the Google map that I have shown before, the Google map of Gornji

25 Vakuf and Prozor.

1 Q. And now, Colonel, please indicate on that map the exact spot where

2 you saw Muslim prisoners digging trenches under HVO. The Google map,

3 please. We can't see it. On the ELMO, please. Here it is.

4 Just indicate the spot, please, where you saw the incident of

5 trench digging. Put a date and sign it, please.

6 A. If I am to assume that this is -- what I'm indicating here is the

7 road down to Prozor -- is that correct?

8 Q. Yes.

9 A. [Marks]

10 Q. Now please sign it and put a date.

11 A. [Marks]

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can we have an

13 exhibit number, please.

14 THE REGISTRAR: That will be IC 38, Your Honours.

15 THE WITNESS: Sorry, I'm trying to come to grips with this here.

16 This does not look right. This is the town of Gornji Vakuf where the dot

17 is indicated on Google, and then this is the road down to Prozor? Is that

18 correct?

19 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Yes, that's the road towards Prozor.

21 A. On this location here. So it's outside Prozor to the south along

22 that road on the left and right, and this is that area that is flat and

23 goes up against the ridge-line on the left that I remember.

24 Q. Very well. The flat area. We can see that, that there is no flat

25 area there, in fact, but we'll deal with it later.

1 Please tell us, you said -- you said at one point that the BH army

2 took over Vakuf. Do you remember on which date, on which day it was? Yes

3 or no.

4 A. No, I cannot remember the date. And if I can recant on my

5 information I provided that I thought that Gornji Vakuf fell. It was

6 probably incorrect. In reflection, all I can remember is that Gornji

7 Vakuf was divided, and it was right down the centre of the town of which,

8 if you look to the south-west area which was controlled by the -- by -- in

9 my opinion the HVO, and of course the north-east and down to the road in

10 the north, and I'm referring to, if I may again, this area down in here.

11 If anybody can see that. Sorry, I've got the wrong finger going here.

12 Thank you.

13 So what I'm referring to is -- is a line something like that, and

14 then eventually it came on and dropped down like this. The -- if the

15 road -- if there is a road over this way towards Zenica, and I think this

16 may have been it over here, and I'll just mark the road like that, if I

17 remember correctly, and this -- this kind of line that got -- and this

18 kind of moved in that direction, if I'm not mistaken. But there is major

19 activity all up there if that's what you're looking for.

20 Q. Colonel, there is no road to Zenica there at all. It's a

21 non-existent track, in fact, towards Pojnica [phoen]. The road to Zenica

22 is in fact straight to the top towards Bugojno, but we don't have time for

23 that now. I have to note simply that you are not aware of the military

24 situation except in very general terms, and you wrote in your statement

25 that the BH army attacked Vakuf in that offensive. And will you please

1 look at that map indicating Neretva 93 that began at your -- in your time,

2 and tell us when you look at that map, do you know anything about that

3 open war between Croats and Muslims, about the activities? Behind you is

4 the map. On that board behind you is the map.

5 A. So what do you want me to indicate on the map?

6 Q. Are you aware, are you familiar with the overall activities, the

7 military activities of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina against the HVO

8 while you were performing your honourable duties there? Just look at the

9 map and tell me if you know anything about it, what you know? And if you

10 don't know anything, you can just tell me, "I don't know," and we'll move

11 on.

12 A. This is the first time I've ever seen this map in this amount of

13 detail. I had a map that indicated front lines on the day from 1993, but

14 that was the extent of it. I'd have to take a very close detail. I

15 understand map symbols and I understand what is being portrayed there but

16 I'd have to take a look at everything to see what you're trying to portray

17 here.

18 Once again, to ask me whether I knew the detail and specifically

19 where every location is, I have to answer no, I did not. Once again, we

20 were not in that business.

21 Q. Sir -- Colonel, would you please be so kind as to assist me. My

22 question is a very precise, a military question, and you are a colonel of

23 the Canadian army. According to this map, were you familiar with the

24 overall conflict, the open war between two armies in end July, in August,

25 and in September when you were there? Do you know about that? And if you

1 don't know anything about it, you can tell me so. Look at the map and

2 tell me in military terms what you knew, how much you knew. If you were

3 not aware of it, just tell me so and we'll move on.

4 A. I know that when I left the area to return home on leave that the

5 situation was relatively stable. When I returned some two weeks later the

6 situation had completely changed, and I knew there was an offensive

7 happening from the ABiH moving south from the north and that it eventually

8 ended up with two opposing sides going at each other, for lack of a better

9 term right now, to -- on the battlefield. One in the south, HVO, and the

10 north being BiH. That I --

11 Q. Thank you. Thank you very much. Could you please indicate on

12 that map you marked the road towards Zenica, put a date and your signature

13 on the map that we see on the ELMO. Just indicate the direction towards

14 Zenica. You drew in the road.

15 A. I understand. Once again, I need to see the complete map here.

16 If I had the indication then I can draw where Zenica is and I can draw you

17 that road back. I need the map to the north of this in order to indicate.

18 Q. So you cannot testify that what you drew in here is actually the

19 road to Zenica. This has nothing to do with the road to Zenica, or does

20 it, what you just drew on the ELMO?

21 A. I would suggest if I may draw this back -- if I were to look at

22 the map and if I remember the map of the day there was in fact another map

23 sheet to the north which we used. And as he indicated on this map here

24 there is Novi Travnik, 25 kilometres. So if we take that, and I'll refer

25 to this -- this road here as that road that made lead up to Zenica and not

1 in fact this one down to the south. Is that correct?

2 Q. All right. Cross out this lower one, draw the one up north

3 towards Zenica, and write Z for Zenica, and erase that.

4 A. [Marks]. Is there anything else you wanted added?

5 Q. No, nothing. Thank you. Just put your date and the signature.

6 What is this thing to the right that you just drew? Would you explain?

7 A. This line here?

8 Q. Yes. You drew something to the right in the red marker. What is

9 it?

10 A. I believe this -- this may have ended up, and I'm just -- sorry.

11 I'll get the eraser going here again. Once again, I'm trying to come to

12 grips with the actual lines at the time that I was now leaving the mission

13 area, and I do believe that once again Gornji Vakuf was still divided, and

14 HVO controlled this area which I'm indicating down to the south. And

15 obviously ABiH was in the north. So that, I believe, may have been the

16 front line.

17 Q. Could you please indicate the area covered by BH army in green.

18 A. I can do that in blue.

19 Q. Blue is fine.

20 A. [Marks]

21 Q. Could you please write "ABH" and "HVO" below that.

22 A. [Marks]

23 Q. That's fine thank you. "ABH".

24 A. [Marks]

25 Q. And "HVO" in red, and put a date and signature, please.

1 A. [Marks]

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, can we have an

3 exhibit number, please.

4 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit IC 39, Your Honours.

5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

6 Q. A short question. Do you know how large were the contact lines on

7 the front line between ABiH and HVO? What was the length of the contact

8 lines? Do you know?

9 A. I have -- I have no knowledge of that.

10 Q. Thank you. Now, another question that will be a complex one. You

11 told me you don't know the exact date when Vakuf fell. It is true that

12 HVO lost all lines on one day. We'll establish later which day. Were

13 those lines lost for -- in one day? How many people fled from the area of

14 Vakuf on that day, 5.000 or 6.000? Did HVO forces blow-up warehouses with

15 food and weapons? Was livestock killed by HVO forces, and did people

16 torch 25 of their own homes when they were fleeing? And is it the case

17 that all those lines were recovered by the evening of the same day, and is

18 it true that I recovered those lines in that famous film with Sylvester

19 Stallone? Have you heard anything about that incident at all?

20 A. The specific date that I believe you're referring to, the loss of

21 Gornji Vakuf, was the date where in fact the ABiH attacked around our

22 warehouse, and that evening I can remember prior to the fall of that

23 particular headquarters in which Zrinko was located, I remember showing up

24 with -- I refer to one of your battle buses which had stretchers on board

25 and it was an armoured bus that could take up to 30 people if I remember

1 correctly. And we got the phone call that something was up, and at that

2 point in time we moved the --

3 Q. Colonel, please. Those are details, and please don't take

4 exception, but those are the details that I'm not interested in right now.

5 The things that I have put to you, are they accurate to the best of your

6 recollection? Do you know or don't you know? Just tell me. Just tell

7 me. Are you aware of whether those things I put to you are true? Do you

8 know about them?

9 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour --

10 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I think I put a very proper

11 question. Mr. Prosecutor, my question was very proper. Is this gentleman

12 aware of those facts?

13 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour, Mr. Praljak put a number of questions

14 to the witness, and he requests one response, yes or not. Maybe yes,

15 maybe not. It's unfair to the witness to conduct in such a way.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, ask one question

17 after another, step-by-step.

18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

19 Q. So you don't know how long the lines were. Do you know that in

20 one day, in the morning, all lines of the HVO fell and were abandoned? Do

21 you know that? Yes or no?

22 A. I knew the area that I was in that event had happened, because the

23 next morning the --

24 Q. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Colonel. Do you know how many

25 people fled together with the army towards Prozor on that day? Do you

1 know how many people fled together with the army on that day towards

2 Prozor? Step-by-step. Yes or no?

3 A. I can only comment on the area which I was in, which was Gornji

4 Vakuf. Yes, I did know that there was a number of people that did move

5 from the Prozor down to do -- or sorry, from Gornji Vakuf down to Prozor,

6 because they were not there the next day.

7 Q. Thank you. Do you know that I, climbing on top of a tank, lead

8 the army back, and that same evening I had recovered all HVO positions and

9 had them under my control? So they were back in that position again the

10 next day. Just give me a yes or no, Colonel. Don't beat about the bush.

11 A. You made me aware of that 13 years ago.

12 Q. Thank you. I'm not going to dwell any more on Vakuf. Could you

13 please put this paper with that large Tuzla convoy on the ELMO. The paper

14 that I drew about the convoy. I just have a couple of questions

15 concerning the convoy.

16 As for this map that the gentleman did not recognise, the big one

17 on the panel behind, could it be exhibited, please?

18 Yesterday, Colonel, you told us about the length of the Tuzla

19 convoy.

20 This one. Yes. Right. Just can we see it all, in its entirety.

21 Thank you.

22 You stated yesterday that 500 trucks set out from Split and that

23 on the move they were 200 metres from each each other and that the whole

24 length was 14 kilometres and something. So according to my calculations,

25 if the distance between trucks is 200 metres, then the whole convoy is 100

1 kilometres. If the -- if the distance between them is 100 metres, then

2 length is 50 kilometres. And if the distance is only 30 metres, then the

3 whole convoy is 15 kilometres long. Can you confirm that? You said

4 yesterday that --

5 A. Yeah, okay. Understood. Now, with the understanding that I gave

6 you an average of 200 metres. If there was 200 metres. Sometimes there

7 may have been 10 or 15 metres. These are not disciplined military drivers

8 that would keep that standard 200 metres between each vehicle for security

9 reasons. I mean, this was a large convoy that moved en masse from one

10 location to another.

11 Q. Thank you. Colonel, we know that the convoy moves from --

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, I think there is an

13 error in B. It should be 100, not 200.

14 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Can we have that corrected,

15 please?

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Trial Chamber misses

17 nothing.

18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. So,

19 Colonel, convoys move from one place to another. I can also ask a

20 question, what if the stars rise and then set. Hamlet gives speeches and

21 then blah, blah. We are now dealing with exact data.

22 The convoy set out from Split, 500 trucks, with three escorting

23 vehicles. Where is the army on earth that would allow one convoy to set

24 out at the moment when the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina took over

25 Travnik and when that number of refugees was moving away from Travnik?

1 How many refugees were moving from Travnik southwards, and why were there

2 only three UNPROFOR escorting vehicles with the convoy consisting of 500

3 trucks.

4 A. Once again, there are specific instructions from our higher

5 headquarters, and I'm referring to UNPROFOR as well as our own, that this

6 convoy was made up of locals of Tuzla from all sides and we were not to

7 become involved. Once again, it was a situation where we inherited this

8 large number of vehicles coming into our area.

9 We -- we were, in fact, the ones that stopped -- may I continue

10 or -- or is --

11 Q. Thank you. Thank you. We've heard all that yesterday. There's

12 no need. I would allow you, but there's no need.

13 Do you know that Travnik fell at that moment, looking from the

14 Croatian side? Did you know that at that precise moment the HVO lost

15 Travnik and do you know how many refugees and troops were moving from --

16 fleeing from Travnik south?

17 A. I knew of that because we had been informed that things had

18 gone -- there was now a battle between us and where they needed to get to,

19 and that is one reason we stopped the convoy.

20 Q. Thank you very much. Would you please be so kind as to correct

21 the number 2 into a number 1 under B, please. Thank you very much. Thank

22 you.

23 You worked with UNPROFOR. Would you tell us whether UNPROFOR had

24 a mandate, 500 metres to the left of the road and 500 metres to the right

25 of the road prescribed for the passage of a convoy, and I will put it on

1 the ELMO. They had the right to use weapons to defend the convoy. Was

2 this defined in the UNPROFOR mandate, that it had the right to use

3 firearms to protect the convoy moving along that road?

4 A. I cannot remember specifically the mandate of UNPROFOR in those

5 days. I know, however, that convoys were being directly threatened coming

6 up that road and eventually it came to the point in time where return fire

7 could be used if convoys, and I'm referring to UNHCR convoys, were

8 threatened. And their responsibility were UNHCR, not other humanitarian

9 organisations. And they eventually ended up taking on responsibility for

10 the escort of those UNHCR once there entered our region, and hence that's

11 why many of the resources of Graham Binns's company were spread thin

12 throughout that area and during that time frame.

13 Q. Thank you very much. I will now move on to talk about the

14 Croatian army and some other matters you raised here. So could we please

15 have 3D 0047. That's a CD. And could you show those two documents to the

16 gentleman. Could you please put those two documents, the "Road to

17 salvation did --" no. We'll do it after the CD. Very well.

18 [Videotape played]

19 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

20 Q. Sir, you'll see me in Capljina. Stop here, please. And you will

21 see that I have a German flag on my pullover. Stop. You see? It's the

22 German flag. And -- well, it can easily be seen.

23 From the fact that you saw a German flag on my pull over, would

24 you conclude that I was a German soldier in Bosnia-Herzegovina?

25 A. If I had not met you before, ever, once again, I would not

1 consider you a German because I have not seen your full uniform or I had

2 not spoken to you. I mean, just by having a German pullover with a flag I

3 could not assume you were a German. I would have to see the pants you

4 were wearing or if you had any beret or headdress. But I cannot jump to

5 the conclusion that you're a German.

6 Q. Correct. So the fact that whether an army is present on a certain

7 territory or not can be ascertained in principle by the mission of that

8 army, its task, its orders, the route it is to take, the tasks it is to

9 perform. So would you then agree with me that when you come across a

10 soldier in Gornji Vakuf and you see an HV insignia on him, it does not

11 necessarily mean he is a Croatian soldier from Croatia. What it means is

12 purely that he's wearing a jacket with HV on it. Would you agree with me

13 that one would need more information than that to ascertain that the

14 Croatian army was present on a certain territory?

15 A. I would agree with your statement, but realising once again you'd

16 have to look at in its entirety. If you take an isolated patch and say he

17 is a Croat soldier or he's a German soldier, I would probably say that

18 would be impossible without seeing the first picture.

19 It is my opinion that I saw many soldiers with HV. They showed up

20 at a time and place where you would probably expect them because of the

21 offence that -- the offensive that was taking place at that particular

22 time on the ground, and uniforms were relatively new and they were

23 relatively in a lot better shape than the HV uniforms I had traditionally

24 seen on the ground during that time frame.

25 Q. So you say that when you see a new uniform the soldier is a

1 Croatian soldier, and when you see someone in an old shabby uniform he's

2 an HVO soldier. I won't go into this any further.

3 On page 9 of your report, I'll read out what you say. It's page

4 9. Of your statement, sorry. The statement you made, in the middle and

5 I'm quoting: "On that day in Prozor, I saw one soldier with a HOS patch

6 on his soldier, two soldiers with HVO patches on their shoulders, and four

7 soldiers with an HZ on a red and white chequerboard on their shoulder. In

8 my belief, these soldiers were part of the Croatian army which was

9 incorporated into the HVO forces."

10 Colonel --

11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreters note they do not have the exact

12 wording.

13 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

14 Q. One HOS soldier, two soldiers with HV patches, and four soldiers

15 with an HZ patch, which I'm not familiar with, are sufficient for you to

16 conclude and sign this piece of information that you believe that the

17 Croatian army had been incorporated into the HVO forces. Would you just

18 say whether this is the statement you made? Is what I have read out

19 correct?

20 A. If you can give me a time and date as to that statement. I also

21 do not have it here in front of me. I cannot verify whether I made it or

22 did not.

23 Q. On the 17th of June, I don't know when you gave the statement --

24 oh, yes. Here it is. The 9th and 10th of October, 2001. And the day

25 when you saw this was on the 17th of June, 1993.

1 A. Once between, that would be directly related to a piece -- or a

2 documentation I would have written or made reference to. If this is a

3 statement that you have that I made and it is in fact confirmed I made

4 that statement, then I cannot deny and say, yes, that is correct.

5 May I also make the observation that military officers in wrong

6 uniforms are in violation, I believe, of a convention. I'm not sure, and

7 I would have to go and -- I would have to ask that. This is why

8 militaries tend to wear their own uniform and their own patches because

9 they are identifiable from that perspective, and you can assume that that

10 is in effect worldwide. I made that comment.

11 I would not be wearing --

12 Q. Thank you very much.

13 JUDGE PRANDLER: General Praljak, I'm sorry to interrupt you. I

14 am a bit worried about the time frame of our hearings this morning. Let

15 me remind you that the Defence was given altogether three and a half hours

16 for -- for doing its job. Now I recall that you, General Praljak, you had

17 taken one hour this morning, and -- and I also would like to refer to the

18 fact that Mr. Poryvaev has finished his examination-in-chief in 20 minutes

19 this morning, which all in all would give to the Defence around four or a

20 bit more than four hours for doing the cross-examination. And of course

21 it would be only in a way welcome if we could finish the -- listening to

22 this witness -- Colonel -- witness here today because we are having other

23 witnesses scheduled for tomorrow and for Thursday.

24 So therefore I would like to ask the Defence really to see to it

25 that the time remaining would be -- would be in a way usefully used, and

1 since also we heard this morning that actually Mr. Coric would like to

2 have more time than originally envisaged. So I would really ask all of

3 you to take care of this -- to take care of those remaining hours and to

4 divide among yourselves as discussed and as agreed upon. Thank you.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. In addition, you used one

6 hour, 32 minutes.

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

8 have been given time by the other gentlemen, and I'm adhering to the

9 amount of time I have been given. However, I stand by my opinion that

10 what matters is not that we hear 500 witnesses but that we learn the

11 truth, and the conclusions -- examine the conclusions of the witnesses on

12 which my fate depends.

13 I repeat that I wish to know what I have been found guilty of in

14 the end. And when a Colonel of the Canadian army comes here, who is an

15 expert and who has put forth an incredible number of facts in the

16 documents he has presented, I need to check this. If he has seen a total

17 of four soldiers, one many whom was a HOS soldier who was under the

18 command of Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time and he concludes on this basis

19 that the Croatian army was there, we are on very slippery ground. That is

20 why I wish to check the standpoints and conclusions presented.

21 I will go on.

22 Q. On page 13 of the same statement, on I quote, you say --

23 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour. Mr. Praljak --

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak, the Chamber has

25 given you one hour. You have already had 1 hour, 32. We understand very

1 well what you're saying. The issue of HV, since the witness has explained

2 that according to him there was an HV presence there, you are certainly

3 not going to change his mind, or maybe you are, but try to ask him

4 synthesised questions, and please indicate how much more time you need,

5 because we have another Defence team to intervene on the very important

6 question of the military police, and there are other Defence teams as

7 well, and we have 3 hours 45 in total.

8 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'll conclude

9 very quickly. I cannot change the Colonel's opinion, nor is that my

10 intention. I just want to point out on the basis of what information he

11 arrived at what piece of information. He says "after our return we saw HV

12 soldiers in Gornji Vakuf where we had never seen them before. I don't

13 know how many of them there were, but they were wearing HV uniforms."

14 Q. Colonel, is it possible for a colonel in a professional army not

15 to note down the basic information of how many there were? So how is it

16 you don't know how many soldiers of the Croatian army, as you say you saw?

17 Please be brief so we can conclude this quickly.

18 A. Once again, I would suggest that it was my -- my limited and

19 restricted movement within that area that did not allow me to count every

20 trench with every soldier with every officer to add up to companies,

21 battalions, et cetera. I observed soldiers with certain patches. Those

22 numbers I'm -- on that day I have no understanding as to why I did not

23 indicate the numbers. I would normally indicate those numbers.

24 Q. Let's move on. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's not that I

25 don't think you wish to assist.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So, Mr. Praljak, the Chamber is

2 minded to stop you now because you have already exceeded your time. What

3 is the last useful question for your case, if you have one.

4 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Yes, I do have one, Your

5 Honour.

6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour. Your Honours, the

7 Defence of General Petkovic will give most of its time to General Praljak,

8 so that General Praljak can use 20 minutes of our time. Thank you.

9 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I won't need so much, Your

10 Honours.

11 Q. Witness, I'll ask you the following: Document P 09658 and P

12 09665, the first is of the 23rd of August, 1993, and the next one is of

13 the 6th of August, 1993. And P 09620 of the 30th of August, 1993. At the

14 time of the fiercest attacks by the BH army on Vakuf, in all three

15 documents you include the following sentence: "UNPROFOR convoys are

16 passing through Gornji Vakuf." And in the second document of the 6th of

17 August you say the convoys are passing through Gornji Vakuf and on -- in

18 the third document, the 30th of August, 1993, the convoys are passing

19 through Gornji Vakuf and in another document you say it was between 50 and

20 100 trucks per day. I won't waste time showing you all those documents

21 but it's in there very clearly in all three documents so we'll only be

22 wasting time.

23 So who do you think under such circumstances made it possible for

24 the convoys to pass through, and what was the role of Slobodan Praljak,

25 HVO commander, in all that, if you know?

1 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour, I would object.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a minute, Colonel.

3 Yes, the Prosecution.

4 MR. PORYVAEV: I think the witness should be shown at least a

5 single document Mr. Praljak means now to contest.

6 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

7 Q. Very well. Document P 09658, please. The first

8 paragraph, "General situation," line 3: "UNPROFOR convoys passed through

9 Gornji Vakuf without any problems."

10 A. Are you asking me who insured their security, General?

11 Q. I'm asking you whether it's usual in such a military conflict for

12 convoys to be passing through the place where the conflict is taking

13 place, and they are taking everything that is needed by the army, which is

14 carrying out an aggression against me. So what kind of strength do you

15 need to let such convoys pass through in such a situation. And can you

16 give me an example of any war, between France and Germany, between Germany

17 and England, the war in the Baltic, along the Pacific, where such things

18 happened? The next document is P 079665. Can it be put on the ELMO while

19 we are hearing the witness's reply?

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The document which

21 you've just used, the other documents show the same thing.

22 You've heard the question. Can you answer the question?

23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] They all say the same, Your

24 Honour, yes.

25 THE WITNESS: Initially I would like to make a statement based on

1 my -- on your last comment on history. I'm sure there are many examples

2 in many wars where humanitarian aid was moved back and forth between the

3 front lines uninterupted but negotiated. The thing I would like to

4 indicate at that time is that by that time all convoys that were coming up

5 from Split were in fact under the escort of -- of Graham Binns's company

6 which he had to dedicate resources to. In fact, from the point in time

7 that they entered our area, platoons would be assigned to them to run them

8 through our area and then take them on to -- and pass them off further

9 north.

10 The indication was is that prior to that happening, convoys were

11 threatened daily. So with the presence of UNPROFOR with armoured vehicles

12 that would return fire against anybody that actually fired on the convoys,

13 I think that was incentive enough why convoys were left alone as they

14 passed through, realising and understanding that the battle of the day was

15 not conducted on that route.

16 Q. Colonel, I only wish to say that I arrived there on the 26th, and

17 for the most part after that there were no problems with the passage of

18 convoys as you testified to in all your reports. These convoys, let it be

19 said, could have been stopped when entering Bosnia-Herzegovina, because

20 the territory up to Gornji Vakuf was controlled by the HVO all the way

21 from the border. So they demonstrate the attitude of the HVO --

22 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour, here is a statement by Mr. Praljak.

23 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

24 Q. My last question, sir.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Mr. Praljak has

1 concluded. Do you agree with what he said or not? He said that when he

2 arrived on that location there was no problem with the passing through of

3 convoys. Do you agree with this or not, or do you have a different view?

4 THE WITNESS: I'm starting to recollect that in fact I may even

5 have talked to the general about this on -- on a meeting that we may have

6 had about, you know, unrestricting the convoys, allowing them through. I

7 may have. It's starting to come back to me based on what he is saying.

8 And I would suggest that that may be one of the reasons the convoys were

9 allowed to get through. But I must re-emphasise they were under the

10 escort of UNPROFOR, and I would suggest that that also ensured -- UNPROFOR

11 did not make a habit of running checkpoints. If they had been stopped,

12 they would stop and wait until it was negotiated. And by that time, by

13 indication on my reports, we were moving convoys through unobstructed but

14 they were still being escorted.

15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation]

16 Q. Very well. Their Honours know about the order of the 31st of

17 July. Of course it's easy to write an order. It has to be carried out,

18 but we'll deal with that in a different way.

19 Colonel, I wish to thank you. I would have more questions about

20 multiple rocket launchers, the tanks you spoke about. You said there were

21 three tanks there. I would like to discuss fuel, because we can agree

22 that tanks can be fuelled where they are. They're not taken 10 or 15

23 kilometres into the rear to refuel. But, Colonel, we had an excellent

24 cooperation up there. We had very nice meetings where we talked about

25 things that were not purely military, and not for a single moment had I

1 doubted your best intentions. I only wanted to establish here the

2 precision of what you saw and then the precision of what can be concluded

3 from what you saw, so that all of us and primarily Their Honours can

4 arrive at the truth of these events. Thank you very much.

5 And thank you very much, Your Honours. Please accept my apologies

6 and gratitude.

7 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:

8 Q. [Interpretation] Colonel, good morning. My name is Vesna

9 Alaburic. I'm an attorney-at-law from Zagreb. In these proceedings I

10 appear for the Defence of General Milivoj Petkovic.

11 I have reduced my cross-examination to several topics which I feel

12 are important for a good understanding of the context. I believe that

13 based on the documents shown by the Office of the Prosecutor yesterday,

14 which I will show you again if it should prove necessary, we can clarify

15 some important circumstances.

16 To begin with, could my learned friends give to the witness the

17 set of documents that were shown to the witness yesterday to avoid wasting

18 time. Oh, the witness has them. Thank you very much.

19 First of all, I'm interested in the mood of the Muslim population

20 and individual commanders of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina with respect

21 to the peace processes under way at the time of your mandate in

22 Bosnia-Herzegovina. For this reason, I would ask you to look at P 04440.

23 This is a report, a daily report shown to you yesterday.

24 MR. PORYVAEV: It's under seal.

25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I do apologise.

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Move into private session.

2 [Private session]

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 7704-7705 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session, Your

5 Honour.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Defence counsel, you

7 have the floor. We are in open session.

8 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

9 Q. I am attorney-at-law from Zagreb, and I appear for Mr. Valentin

10 Coric in these proceedings. Sir, we heard in your testimony yesterday,

11 and I believe you will remember that, that you believe there was a direct

12 military connection between the military police in Prozor and the OZ

13 commander. Do you remember that?

14 A. Yes, I do.

15 Q. When we are talking about the military connection, would that

16 connection be a chain of command like we have military police, the

17 commander of that military police, and after that we have the operative

18 zone and the commander of the operative zone? Is my understanding

19 correct?

20 A. If it was set up in a traditional military structure, the -- and

21 if it was the size of a platoon, which is what I am assume -- assuming,

22 then the structure would naturally lead that the MP police commander would

23 be indirectly responsible directly to the OZ commander being a brigade

24 commander. There maybe several platoons of military police throughout his

25 area, but it would be directly within the chain of command in my opinion.

1 Q. Thank you very much. Can we have in e-court a Defence exhibit, 5D

2 00538. There it is.

3 Could you please tell us, sir, we see here in the

4 heading "Operative zone, North-west Herzegovina." Is it from what you

5 know the operation zone where Prozor was?

6 A. If you tell me that, then that is correct.

7 Q. Could we move, please, to the last page of the document to see the

8 signature. We see that it is signed "Commander Colonel Zeljko Siljeg."

9 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry to interrupt you. Would you be so kind

10 to tell us precisely on which page and which paragraph we can find what

11 you are referring to. Thank you.

12 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] The first thing I referred

13 to, "Operation zone," is to be found on the first page, just after the

14 description of the stamp on the left-hand side. And the signature is on

15 the last page, on the right-hand side. Just before the words "To," and

16 the indication of addressees.

17 Q. Have you seen the signature, sir?

18 A. Yes, I have.

19 Q. Is that the same gentleman that was referred to already today as

20 the commander of the operation zone? I believe it was in -- in the

21 examination-in-chief that he was mentioned again.

22 A. I am to assume that. Once again, not seeing his picture or a

23 direct comparison, I only can state what I see in front of me is accurate.

24 Q. Can we please go back to page 1 again. Both versions, Croat and

25 English. Can we just raise the English version a little to see the second

1 paragraph that begins with the words "The meeting -- the following matters

2 were reviewed at the meeting." And point 1 is "Organisation and tasks of

3 the military police."

4 For the benefit of the Trial Chamber, I will just put some points

5 from this document to the witness and ask him a couple of questions.

6 Now, in the English version can we move to -- let me find the

7 page. Page 2, last paragraph. And in the Croatian version it's also page

8 2, paragraph 1, or point 1. I will start reading.

9 "The operations zone commander presented the main problems

10 regarding the formation, control and command of the Military Police.

11 According to the plan of the OZ S/ZH organisation and establishment

12 structure, the 2nd Military Police Battalion is also under it's command in

13 this operation zone, and supply, formation and training is carried out by

14 the Military Police Administration. In their areas of responsibility,

15 brigades can use military police units that have been formed in their

16 areas of responsibility. Military police platoons in brigades are formed

17 by each brigade that supplies and trains them and according to the chain

18 of control and command they are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the

19 brigades."

20 And just one more bit from the next paragraph on the next page.

21 Somewhere in the middle of that paragraph, line three or four. So

22 paragraph 1 in English, it says: "Military Police Platoon commanders --"

23 it goes like this: "In the implementation of military police tasks, a

24 military police battalion commander is directly subordinate to the

25 operations zone commander, and military police platoons in brigades carry

1 out the orders of the brigade commander within their jurisdiction."

2 I'm through with this document, and I would like to ask --

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute, please. This

4 document -- the Defence counsel of the accused has just shown you a

5 document which you did not know anything about. She explained to you that

6 there were the 2nd Battalion of the military police and that each brigade

7 is responsible for its own military police units. Do you agree with

8 which -- with everything that was read out to you by Defence counsel? And

9 then your perception of the situation given the job you had and given the

10 fact that you were there as an observer.

11 THE WITNESS: What is described in this letter is for all intents

12 and purposes what I tried to make an initial stab at, what I thought the

13 organisation of -- any standard military organisation would be. There is

14 a technical chain of command, i.e., the military police talking to one

15 another as well as an operational chain of command, which would allow

16 commanders to command their MP platoons. In this case a brigade had an MP

17 platoon. In other cases it may be as big as a company. And in turn would

18 answer to a higher technical chain being the military police battalion.

19 This is -- I'm very familiar with this sort of a structure, and I would

20 have -- and once again, I would have assumed what I really started to talk

21 about, and this is confirmed by this piece of paper, that I am correct.

22 It was set up in a standard military fashion and the control of military

23 police.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. On page 7 of the

25 document in English, in point 4, we're going to give the floor to all

1 people in charge of the brigades. The commander of the Rama Brigade,

2 there are two of them. We can see there. Marinko Beljo will describe the

3 lines facing the Serbs. I think everything is calm and peaceful. A

4 number of problems have arisen due to the Muslims in some villages. And

5 in one settlement there's -- there are five Croatian families that had to

6 move out. The conclusion of this commander was to say that there are no

7 further problems.

8 This document is a document that's dated in the month of March.

9 You arrived after that, and you could see what was happening in Prozor

10 after that.

11 According to you, the Rama Brigade commander, would he have

12 reached the same conclusion in May, June, and July? Would he have

13 mentioned this to anyone?

14 THE WITNESS: Sorry, Your Honour, I've lost your train of thought

15 here. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to ask me here.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I shall sum up. The commander

17 of the Rama Brigade intervenes, and he takes stock of the situation, and

18 he says there are no problems. But this meeting is held in March, on the

19 9th of March. And you arrived after that, a few months later.

20 According to you, if this type of meeting had been held in May,

21 June, or July of 1993, would the person in charge of the military police

22 or the Rama Brigade, would he have said the same thing and said that there

23 were no problems whatsoever.

24 THE WITNESS: No, he would not. He would probably have painted a

25 very different sort of picture in that time frame.

1 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. [No interpretation]. I will repeat because I see there's no

3 interpretation. Let me go back to your testimony of yesterday where you

4 described your contacts with the imam of Prozor.

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. Yesterday in your testimony you described one event saying that

7 you tried to visit the imam but you were prevented from doing so by the

8 military police.

9 A. That is correct.

10 Q. Could we please go into private session now, because I would like

11 to produce one Prosecution exhibit that was shown yesterday.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session.

13 [Private session]

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Page 7712 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 [Open session]

9 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session, Your

10 Honour.

11 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Should I repeat my question? Would you agree with me about the

13 Tuzla convoy, that it was privately arranged? It was not organised by any

14 of the humanitarian organisations.

15 A. Privately arranged from the point of view that, as I understood

16 it, it was made up of -- of those of the population of the Tuzla area,

17 because, and I think I already made this statement yesterday, because they

18 had been running out of supplies. No formal aid agency or organisation

19 was bringing stuff in, so they took it upon themselves to run trucks out

20 to the coast, to the area of Split, and to purchase what supplies they

21 could, which included fuel. And I'll just add that this movement took

22 place over almost a one-month period actually before they got loaded and

23 came back in. There was not a large influx of -- of trucks in our -- in

24 our area on the way down. They either moved down in small packages or

25 acquired additional trucks down in Split, but when they were all filled,

1 there was the mass move of one complete convoy from the -- from the west

2 into the east up toward Tuzla as a complete entity.

3 Q. From that one might conclude that it was a spontaneously organised

4 convoy arranged by private persons who needed aid.

5 A. I'm trying to come to an understanding what's private and what's

6 public in reference to aid convoys. It was organised by those of -- of

7 that area to get help, in my opinion.

8 Q. It was not organised by any of the organisations that normally

9 handle the gathering and distribution of humanitarian aid?

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. Tell me this, please: Do you know if this convoy was announced

12 and, if so, to whom and when? Was it notified to any of the authorities

13 on the ground?

14 A. We got word of the convoy via our own means and UNPROFOR means,

15 that they were gathering in Split and heading in our direction, and -- and

16 that's why we almost were in a situation of -- of literally hearing on a

17 daily basis were they coming, were they not coming. Once again, we had

18 not taken on responsibility for the convoy whatsoever, either in the Split

19 region or all the way through. It was through our communications that we

20 kept -- we were kept abreast as this large convoy moved in our direction,

21 because it was my opinion that the convoy was being actually formed once

22 things were ready. And I'll put also on the plate that we had the

23 situation to the north of us that had deteriorated. In fact, a battle was

24 now going on. In the meantime this thing was forming up and starting to

25 move in our direction.

1 If I remember, the group down south to us were actually feeding

2 this other 100 trucks or 200 trucks, now 300, now 400, and it kind of went

3 up in chunks of a hundred to eventually give us that 500 plus number of

4 vehicles moving in our direction. So this thing built over a long period

5 of time.

6 To say that it was ad hoc, well, you know, ad hoc over a long

7 period of time, which was, you know, finally became this very large

8 convoy.

9 Q. From what you just said, should I conclude that the organiser of

10 the convoy did not notify the number of vehicles, the personnel of the

11 convoy, the contents of the convoy, or the destination to you or anyone

12 else?

13 A. Well, it became known as the Tuzla convoy, so we obviously knew

14 where it was coming from.

15 Q. No, that's not what I'm asking you. I'm sorry, that's not what

16 I'm asking. I'm asking whether before it became known that a heap of

17 trucks was headed your way whether anybody, monitors, the authority,

18 UNPROFOR or anybody else notified that you that a huge convoy was coming

19 from Split headed there and there, with so many people, with shipment

20 documents, bills of lading, et cetera. Did you know any of these things

21 in advance, or did you find out when the convoy was already on the way?

22 A. We did not get any shipment documents. We did not have the time

23 nor the wherewithal to worry about shipping documents and lading bills.

24 This was in the middle of the war. That we had heard through our chain

25 that these trucks were moving in our direction. Once again I'm reminded

1 of our situation that the responsibility of UNPROFOR was the security of

2 UNHCR convoys, and after a while we became responsible and UNPROFOR, the

3 company, Graham Binns's company, we became responsible for a portion of

4 the route to salvation to conduct escort. Now, that included anything

5 that was moving on that road, and then that was from NGOs to other

6 humanitarian organisations.

7 Once again, it was an issue of inheriting this very large convoy

8 in our area of responsibility.

9 Q. Thank you very much. Tell me, please, when you reached that

10 convoy or, rather, it arrived in your zone of responsibility, you are

11 around the convoy, you and UNPROFOR, I'm not going to insist on dates, did

12 you and UNPROFOR check the shipment, what exactly was on the trucks, and

13 which persons were on the convoy?

14 A. I'll describe that -- or I'll very briefly refer to the very first

15 day that we came upon them, realising that we had been waiting out on the

16 road for them for quite some time, and our first real contact with them

17 was at that Prozor road junction in which vehicles were being hived off,

18 and from that point forward we were with the convoy I think for almost up

19 to a week, of which we began to talk to the drivers and realise what sort

20 of cargo they were carrying. This is one of reasons why we made a direct

21 or one of the reasons why our superiors made the direct observation that

22 we should not get ourselves involved because we could not verify what was

23 the content of every vehicle, especially 500 of them. I have no idea, I

24 cannot categorically state right now what was in every truck. What I can

25 state, it appeared to be all foodstuffs, supplies, fuel, that were moving

1 into that direction. And I will not verify one way or the other whether

2 or not there was in fact ammunition, weapons, or whatever. I personally

3 did not see any driver, any co-driver, any family member of that convoy

4 carry anything. No weapons were on that convoy that were visible, and

5 they were totally unarmed. There was, and I believe it may have been a

6 local official that was the individual that we had direct contact with who

7 also was the kind of guy in charge of the convoy from their perspective.

8 There was no armed guards present on the convoy. They were a

9 bunch of civilians trying to make out in a very unfavourable situation to

10 get home, in my opinion.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We need to have a break now. We

12 shall have a 15-minute break and resume at a quarter to 1.00 and then we

13 will have one hour left. I hope that we will have finished in the

14 remaining hour. Thank you.

15 --- Recess taken at 12.30 p.m.

16 --- On resuming at 12.45 p.m.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We can resume.

18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. Sir, I think we established before the last break that you did not

20 inspect the convoys but that you learned information about what the

21 convoys contained and what persons were in it from the drivers and other

22 persons in the convoy. Continuing on from this, I will ask you the

23 following: Would I be right in saying that at the time the convoy was

24 passing through the area there was fighting going on around Travnik?

25 A. That is correct, and that's why we stopped the convoy in our area.

1 Q. When you say that you stopped the convoy, yesterday you said that

2 at Makljen you could not pass through that. Passage was denied to you.

3 So did you stop the convoy at Makljen because of the fighting around

4 Travnik, or was it somebody else who stopped it?

5 A. I think it was a situation that we began to understand what it was

6 up against. I can remember personally talking to the lead vehicle, which

7 I believed contained the leader of the convoy, if you want to call it

8 that. I remember explaining him the situation that unfortunately a battle

9 had broken out between him and Tuzla, and that my recommendation would be,

10 you know, to hold tough until "we could release the convoy," and we would

11 be receiving that information from our higher headquarters through a

12 cease-fire or whatever. We explained the dangers that that may be ahead

13 for this convoy if they were to proceed. So we gave them advice, and from

14 that point actually made the recommendation to them. Once again, it was

15 left up to them to decide whether to proceed or not proceed. All we did

16 was presented what we knew as the fact, which was there was a battle up

17 front. "You're going to run into trouble. Are you sure this is where you

18 want to be or take these people?" And slowly but surely we began to

19 take --

20 Q. Excuse me, sir, for interrupting you. We are very short of time.

21 Could we conclude, then, that this convoy was stopped pursuant to an

22 agreement between you and the people in the convoy? I believe the answer

23 to be yes, so could you please just confirm and we can proceed?

24 A. Yes.

25 Q. Very well. Thank you. Now, please tell me, it was from your

1 conversations with these persons that you learned that the cargo was

2 intended for Tuzla and for the civilian population of Tuzla.

3 A. We knew that beforehand as this thing started to build out of

4 Split and come in our direction. It was obviously confirmed when we

5 started talking.

6 Q. Who did you learn it from? Excuse me for interrupting you. Who

7 did you learn that from? Did you see the documents?

8 A. No, from my chain of command. Either -- and what I'm referring to

9 is, you know, through the daily report procedures that this convoy was

10 down there, conversations with the -- likely the team down toward

11 Tomislavgrad, through UNPROFOR. Of course they were getting word of it up

12 their chain that this thing was building, with the realisation that their

13 responsibility in those days was that piece of route was within their

14 sector. So it was from a variety of locations that we did receive this

15 information.

16 Q. But you do not know for sure from what source, from whom, and

17 when?

18 A. When we first heard about it?

19 Q. Yes, when you first heard about it, who told you, and whoever told

20 you, did they tell you how they had ascertained that, that is where the

21 convoy was going and for whom it was intended? And if they learned that

22 from the participants in the convoy, was that information checked and

23 verified and in what way?

24 A. I -- I would suggest that what needed to -- what we need to

25 understand is probably somewhere in one of my daily reports would be an

1 indication of when I first heard about it, realising that we were going to

2 inherit this convoy or was going to come into our area.

3 Q. But you can't recall right now?

4 A. To name a specific time and place, no, I cannot.

5 Q. Well, you're a soldier, so -- and a very well-educated and

6 well-trained soldier. So please tell us, a convoy of 500 vehicles arrived

7 in a war theatre. There was fighting nearby. Had you been the commander

8 of that area - and this is a hypothetical question - would you have wanted

9 to check what was in the convoy, check the contents of those trucks, in

10 view of the fact that the convoy was passing through your area and then

11 would be passing through enemy-held territory, which would mean that there

12 was a possibility it would bring supplies to those enemy forces? Would

13 you wish to see what the convoy contained? Would that be normal for you

14 to check that?

15 A. Yes, it would be normal, and I -- and I would -- if I may. I

16 would be checking, and I did check. My statement was initially made that

17 I did not check every single vehicle. This convoy was made up of all

18 three ethnic groups, Serb, Muslim, and Croat, that were in this convoy,

19 including children and wives or females of the drivers that was moving in

20 that direction. I -- over a one-week period that this convoy was in my

21 location, I began to understand and to know what this convoy was made up

22 of.

23 I inadvertently would check back the vehicles by -- and I remind

24 you I spent time with them, by sitting in the middle of the convoy on one

25 night as I explained, and during the day I would be sitting with them and

1 I would be talking through my translator and get a feel for the -- for the

2 people and who they were and, more importantly, you know, basically get

3 the knowledge that they were peaceful and just a bunch of civilians that

4 were really trying to move in stuff for their -- for the Tuzla area.

5 Q. Very well. So again we can conclude that you were informed about

6 this from your conversations with those people.

7 Could we now move into private session, please. Maybe we can

8 check whether the following document is under seal. It's Prosecution

9 document 02688. Could the registrar please check. If it's not under

10 seal, we can remain in open session.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session, please.

12 [Private session]

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11 Pages 7722-7726 redacted. Private session.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 [Open session]

16 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session, Your

17 Honour.

18 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]

19 Q. By you do not know what unit the Kinder platoon belonged to? When

20 I say the Kinder platoon, I'm not talking about people whom you assume

21 might be the Kinder platoon, but yesterday if you had not been told what

22 those people were doing, you would never have arrived at that conclusion

23 because you don't really know who or what the Kinder platoon was. You can

24 only assume, conclude. But you don't have any first-hand information, and

25 until yesterday you had not heard of the Kinder platoon. Am I right?

1 A. That is correct, but the Military Police Platoon is the one I have

2 been referring to throughout my testimony, that I knew was active in

3 Prozor.

4 Q. Yes, we know that. You explained that yesterday. I just wanted

5 to see what it was you did not know. You did not know what the Kinder

6 platoon was.

7 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I have concluded my

8 examination, Your Honours.

9 Cross-examination by the Accused Coric:

10 Q. [Interpretation] Can you remember, my name is Valentin Coric. I

11 am an accused here in these proceedings.

12 I will now use a document which we cannot show on the screen now,

13 but I wish to tell you that you are not correct when yesterday you said,

14 and this was suggested by the OTP, that the military police in Rama was in

15 absolute control of the situation. Therefore, I ask you to be patient and

16 answer my questions. But before that, I would like to read a report of

17 the security and information service of the Rama Brigade. Have you heard

18 of the SIS, the security and information service?

19 A. I have not.

20 Q. In Rama did you ever ever come across Mr. Luka Markesic? Do you

21 remember that name?

22 A. I do not remember that name. If you showed me a picture I might

23 be able to identify him.

24 Q. Thank you very much. I would now like to read this report. It's

25 the only report I will use, and therefore I ask for the Court's

1 indulgence. The heading is "Rama Prozor brigade, security and information

2 service." The date is the 1st of June, 1993. The report is on events in

3 the villages of Klek and Donji Krancici.

4 "On the 27th of May, 1993, on the occasion of a conversation with

5 ECMM monitors in the headquarters of the Rama Brigade, it transpired

6 (information received from the imam from Prozor) that on the 26th of May,

7 1993, in the village of Klek an elderly man was murdered."

8 I have now been told by my Defence team - I will interrupt reading

9 this text - that this is P 02597. Could we please have it placed on the

10 screen. I see that there's poor coordination in my team.

11 So I'll continue to read and now you can follow. Do we have it on

12 our screens?

13 So: "On the 26th of May, 1993, in Klek one elderly man and two

14 elderly women were killed and one girl was raped. After this information

15 was received, the CIS of the Rama Brigade --" have you heard of CIS? I

16 didn't hear that.

17 A. No, I did not, or have not.

18 Q. SIS, rather, "security and information service came to conduct

19 investigation. The officer of the SIS, Franjo, officer of the Rama

20 Brigade SIS, who was sent there, and the doctor on duty, Dr. Sefik

21 Hadzic," do you agree with me that this is a Muslim name, the name of the

22 doctor?

23 A. I cannot comment on that because I'm not familiar with the -- what

24 is a Muslim name and what is not.

25 Q. Thank you. I thought you might have learned in that time. "And

1 established the following:

2 "On the 26th of June, 1993, six soldiers in camouflage uniforms

3 came to the village of Klek with the intention of looting.

4 "These persons arrived in red-coloured vehicles and a grey Lada

5 station-wagon, and on this occasion they killed," and now we can see the

6 names that I'm not going to read, the names of the Muslims who were

7 killed, and the person who was raped, to speed things up.

8 "After that, the SIS of the Rama Brigade embarked upon a detailed

9 investigation and took into custody the suspects." I underline this.

10 A. Sir, I'm confused again. In referring to page 1, we're talking

11 about a date of 26 June, 1993, and now we jump to -- back and forth to

12 another date of 27 May. Was this event even related, or is this two

13 separate events? In the English translation I have June and then May, and

14 then back to May. Sorry, it starts with May, goes to June, and then to

15 May.

16 Q. I'm being told that this is an error in dates. The 25th of May --

17 I think these are two incidents. In one incident two persons were

18 involved. In other incident six were involved. But if we read through,

19 it will become clear.

20 A. But on the 26th of June, that date is incorrect because the memo

21 is written on the 1st of June; is that correct?

22 Q. That's what the document says. I'm using a SIS document. This is

23 not a police document. I am using what I have, but we'll see later where

24 the problem lies.

25 If you will bear with me, I would like to continue and then we'll

1 deal with those issues.

2 So when we are talking about this service that you never heard of,

3 it seems to have taken these suspects into custody. Do you believe that

4 the service did take these persons into custody, that their offices --

5 A. What I believe and know are two different things. Unfortunately I

6 cannot comment on whether they were or were not. I didn't see it happen.

7 Q. Fair enough. Let's move on. "After initial interviews of the

8 suspects, it was established that all three of them were involved in the

9 crime together with another three members of the 1st Guard Brigade of the

10 HVO who are on the run."

11 So three were in custody, three on the run.

12 "Then it was established that they were participants in another

13 incident in Donji Krancici on the 27th of May, 1993, while the

14 investigation for the previous incident was still under way.

15 "These people came to Donji Krancici on the 27th of May, 1993, at

16 around 2000 hours and began mistreating old men and children, looking for

17 money and jewellery. They started confiscating motor vehicles and

18 destroying the property of the rest accidents of the village, which is

19 located in the liberated part of the municipality.

20 "We emphasise that Muslims from that village go to the first front

21 line facing the Chetniks.

22 "The detained Jozo Glibo and Zoran Petkovic are being questioned

23 by the Rama Brigade SIS, while the three so far unknown, unidentified

24 members of the 1st Guards Brigade are on the run, while Pero Vidovic has

25 been expelled to Croatia."

1 Signed "SIS officer Franjo Krizanac." And this document was sent

2 to the SIS of the operation zone north-west Herzegovina and the command of

3 the Rama brigade.

4 Therefore, can we conclude on the basis of this document that some

5 other services to in Rama municipality and Rama town around Prozor were

6 active? And I'm asking you whether you had any contacts with the Ministry

7 of the Interior, MUP, and the police station in Rama.

8 Okay. I understand you didn't have any contact with the SIS, but

9 did you have any contact with the civilian military police in Rama?

10 A. I would have had contact with the civilian police, because if I

11 remember correctly, it would have been collocated with the mayor of

12 Prozor. I'm -- but to say, you know, that there was direct interaction

13 about -- about these particular activities, first off I've got to openly

14 admit that I don't even know where this place you're referring to in this

15 document is in comparison to Prozor and whether it was even in my -- the

16 area in which I resided. Gornji -- I'm sorry, I can't see the name, the

17 second part of the down.

18 Q. Klek.

19 A. Where is it located?

20 Q. Yes. This is Prozor municipality, if I can be of assistance. So

21 we're talking about villages in Prozor municipality.

22 A. But obviously to the south of Prozor it became very vague as to

23 our -- where -- where our line was drawn. To say that it was further

24 south than where I was able to get access would tell you that I would

25 probably have limited or no knowledge of this occurring.

1 Q. But I should like to come back to this report that I'm dealing

2 with today, the only one, to read to you the first sentence. "On the 27th

3 of May, 1993, in talking with ECM monitors." So I'm asking you how is it

4 possible? Those were your men. On the 1st of June you were on duty, as

5 far as I recall.

6 A. But once again, I must emphasise that it could have been any

7 number of ECM monitors in that location that they may have talked to.

8 Whether it was specifically me, I cannot answer that unless I had my

9 report to refer to on that day. Remembering that, you know, 1st of June

10 is kind of my first sort of getting my feet wet in that area, and to say

11 that I had actual contact with the SIS, I cannot give you that. It may be

12 my partner. It may have been the -- another team from another location,

13 and I can give you no more than that. Unless you specifically identify

14 where this occurred, how it occurred, I can't further comment on it.

15 Q. Well, Colonel, you mean to say that in your area, Bugojno, Gornji

16 Vakuf and Rama, other teams were able to come and do your job? Were they

17 coming with your approval, or did they come without any notification or

18 announcement?

19 A. Nobody else did my job. The situation is that I remind you that

20 the "road to salvation" moved through Bugojno and Gornji Vakuf. ECMM

21 monitors moved up and down through our area quite often, and we in fact

22 would inter -- we would interact with these -- with these individuals as

23 they moved through and did their work. Our AOR, area of responsibility,

24 included three communities.

25 Q. Excuse me. Excuse me, Colonel. A moment ago, in your previous

1 answer, you said that maybe another team talked to SIS officers, officers

2 of the service you never heard of. That's what you said. Could any

3 passerby, just anybody from the European monitoring team just walk up to

4 any member of the brigade and talk to them. Does that sound logical to

5 you? Could you comment?

6 A. The activity -- it would -- okay.

7 Q. I would appreciate a brief answer. I don't have time. The Judges

8 are already looking askance at me.

9 You can't have it both ways. It's -- you have to give up one of

10 these possibilities. Let me just remind you that the day before you went

11 to Rama to have a meeting and now you are testifying in The Hague about

12 killings, about rapes that are really documented, that really did happen,

13 that people are being tried for or have been tried for. So where are we?

14 What is the position? The day after that meeting you have no

15 information --

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Coric, you are here to ask questions, and

17 maybe it would be a good idea if you let the witness answer. He started

18 to answer, you interrupt him. He starts again, you interrupt him. We are

19 interested in what the witness has to say.

20 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.

21 Q. I'm sorry, Colonel. Could you please answer.

22 A. There is to doubt about my area of responsibility and who played

23 in my area. In fact, I used to -- in fact, I got very upset when

24 individuals, and I'm referring to other agencies, would come into my area

25 and play without me knowing about it.

1 The ECMM, the way it was set up, allowed us to operate

2 independently within our areas of responsibility. The issue was that

3 teams would move through our area, through our area, as a stop point on

4 its way into Zenica. Now, if you're asking me is the possibility that an

5 individual would be -- an ECM monitor would be stopped and talked to by an

6 individual of the SIS, then it is possible. Whether to say it was me I

7 cannot answer that, because first of all, I do not know or understand

8 where this town is you're referring to. If I had that, then I can give

9 you a sort of general answer to say, yes, it probably was me. If it is in

10 an area very much south of Prozor, then you're running into Mike 2, which

11 is a different ECMM responsibility, and they may have had contact with the

12 SIS. That's what I'm trying to refer to. There is no doubt what was

13 happening in my area. I knew what was going on. And nobody played in it.

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Colonel, when you speak south of Prozor, do you

15 have the limits of the municipality in mind for the location of the town?

16 THE WITNESS: No, I have the defined location between Mike 2 and

17 ourself. I have no idea what the limit -- sitting here right now, what

18 the limit of the Prozor municipality is. All I know is the distance is

19 halfway between Mostar and ourselves in Prozor, that major road was

20 divided, and everything to the north was mine and everything to the south

21 happened to belong to Mike 2, if I remember correctly.

22 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you. It would be possible to show you a

23 map where the town is indicated.

24 THE WITNESS: That would be helpful. Then I could help --

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could the usher do that?

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Place it on the ELMO.

2 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, this isn't helping me much either.

3 You're going to have to orient me.

4 I see Prozor in the centre here, and the town that you're

5 referring to is located where?

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think it is Klek, and it is located 4.00, the

7 direction 4.00. There is a square around it. It's marked.

8 THE WITNESS: It's the top of my pen right now; correct?

9 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation] And Donji Krancici is just a

10 little way above. May I continue? I have only two more brief questions

11 and we'll be done.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, please go ahead.

13 THE ACCUSED CORIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. So you met up with General Praljak in some sort of restaurant

15 didn't you. But this meeting on the 27th of May was held in the command

16 headquarters of the Rama Brigade, not just anyplace. That's what this

17 document says, if we go back to page 1. Is that what's written?

18 So, Colonel, my last question: Does this document demonstrate,

19 and not only this one but a series of other documents, that your

20 information as representatives and monitors of the European Monitors was

21 indeed reacted to by the HVO? They went to the scene, took the suspects

22 and the perpetrators into custody and started questioning them. The

23 offences involved were very serious. And I'm not questioning your

24 contribution. It is indeed very valuable that you provided the

25 information but would you agree that this is the case?

1 A. This is one incident which occured on the 27th of May, 1993. It

2 does not address the situation which happened in July and August.

3 Q. That's not what I asked you, Colonel.

4 A. This is one incident which was dealt with. It appeared to have

5 been dealt with by -- by the -- by the HVO. Of which I may not even have

6 knowledge of.

7 Q. Colonel, as you formed your opinions that you presented yesterday,

8 I could say by the same token, if the Trial Chamber allows me, that I can

9 produce another 40 documents that were developed during your mandate, and

10 I could tender them. But most of these documents have already been

11 exhibited, and they will be dealt with when we come to the last stages of

12 the Defence case.

13 I have no further questions. Thank you, Colonel.

14 Thank you, Your Honours.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We have 10 minutes left. I can

16 see that three Defence counsel have not taken the floor. Mr. Ibrisimovic,

17 Ms. Nozica, Mr. Karnavas. So what is it to be?

18 Mr. Ibrisimovic.

19 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. We have

20 already given up our time in favour of other Defence teams and we have no

21 questions of this witness.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. President, Your Honours, I'll try to be brief.

24 I don't know if I'll be able to finish within the allotted time.

25 Cross-examination by Mr. Karnavas:

1 Q. Good morning, sir -- Colonel.

2 A. Good morning.

3 Q. First I just want to -- some housekeeping matters. Going back to

4 your testimony, the first time that you were here testifying --

5 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Karnavas, could you please speak into the

6 microphone.

7 MR. KARNAVAS:

8 Q. When you testified the first time in the previous case on 18 May,

9 2004, there was a question posed to you and you were asked about some

10 specific names and you said that you could not provide these names unless

11 you referred to notes. That would be on page 7598 of the -- of the

12 transcript in the previous case, which would be the Hadzihasanovic on 18

13 May, 2004.

14 My question is: When you testified in that case, did you have

15 notes or were you referring to the reports that -- that you had generated?

16 A. I was referring to the reports, and I continue to refer back to

17 the reports because they are the concrete written record of what happened.

18 Q. And now, Colonel, when you were prepared for that case by the

19 Office of the Prosecution, did they actually show you your reports? Were

20 they available for you to look at and refer to in order to refresh your

21 memory? If you recall.

22 A. Not to the detail that we have here today.

23 Q. Okay. And when you came to The Hague, before and prior to

24 giving -- to give your evidence yesterday, I suspect that you met with the

25 Prosecutor, the gentleman who has been questioning you. Were all of your

1 reports made available to you at that point in time or just the report --

2 the reports that you generated and others generated for the purposes of

3 introducing into evidence?

4 A. What was made available to me was my previous statements and these

5 reports here.

6 Q. Okay. And so I take it from your answer that there are other

7 reports that you generated that were not made available to you, and that's

8 what you've been referring to for the last couple days, if you could refer

9 to your reports; correct?

10 A. That is correct.

11 Q. And I take it that you did not make copies of your own reports for

12 your own archive?

13 A. I did not.

14 Q. All right. Now, sir, I have a couple of questions with regard to

15 your statements. You gave two statements, and I find it rather curious.

16 Nothing to do with you, by the way, but just curious in the sense that the

17 first statement that you gave was on 9th and 10th October, 2001. You were

18 interviewed by a gentleman by the name of Brett Pakenham. Now, sir, if I

19 may ask, were you interviewed in Canada at the time?

20 A. I was not.

21 Q. Were you interviewed in The Hague?

22 A. I was not.

23 Q. So you were in theatre someplace?

24 A. I was.

25 Q. And I'm not trying to pry into exactly where you were. So they

1 actually had to come and get you to take your statement?

2 A. That is correct.

3 Q. The second time was a month later and that was on the 28th and

4 29th of November, 2001; correct?

5 A. That is correct.

6 Q. Now, were you in the same location or had you moved back home

7 or --

8 A. I was in the same location.

9 Q. Okay. And I find it rather curious is as follows, and perhaps

10 this is more for the benefit of the Trial Chamber, is that on the first

11 statement that you give, you're asked questions that are exclusively

12 against the Croats, and a month later, when you're questioned by another

13 interview, Tom Parker, it would appear the same period, the same events,

14 you're only asked questions that would be against the Muslims. Would that

15 be a fair assessment, first of all?

16 A. That is a fair assessment.

17 Q. Okay. Now, I take it you were not conducting -- you were not

18 directing the flow of the interview. You were being asked questions and

19 you were answering the questions to the best of your ability; correct?

20 A. No. I was asked to give a statement as to what I felt had

21 transpired between certain dates on which I gave.

22 Q. Okay. Maybe I was inarticulate in that question. All right. You

23 were asked the questions and you provided the answers; right?

24 A. That is correct.

25 Q. All right. Now, I find it rather interesting that if you are in

1 theatre, as you were, working as a monitor, being a soldier and officer

2 and having spent at -- been on five different missions as I understand it,

3 you would -- you would agree with me, would you not, that in order to

4 understand a particular event or set of events one would have to look at

5 these events in context, would they not?

6 A. I would agree with that.

7 Q. Okay. In other words, we just can't take an isolated incident,

8 isolate it to one side and try to make sense of it without looking at all

9 of the events; right?

10 A. I would agree with that, yes.

11 Q. Okay. Now, again getting back to my earlier question, you were

12 not the one that had chosen to conduct these particular interviews in this

13 fashion, in other words, one for the Muslims and one for the Croats. That

14 was something that the Office of the Prosecution decided to do on its own

15 for reasons perhaps that were made available to you or not?

16 A. I'll clarify that a lot of the interviews were conducted based on

17 location and where things had happened rather than a specific ethnic

18 group, and that's what we explored throughout the interview process. So,

19 you know, there were -- in both interviews both sides came up on certain

20 situations.

21 Q. Right. Well, the reason I'm asking is I find it rather curious,

22 because I can tell you that in my jurisdiction, in the United States,

23 anywhere, whether it's state or federal, I expect it's the same in Canada,

24 no investigator would do it in this fashion. They would try to get one

25 complete statement from the individual, perhaps go back for clarification

1 purposes. I'm perhaps wondering why would the Prosecution in this case

2 send investigators on two different occasions to far places to get

3 interviews on matters of context?

4 MR. PORYVAEV: Is it a question to the witness about the actions

5 of the Prosecutor's office?

6 MR. KARNAVAS:

7 Q. Did you question -- did you question the methodology, why would

8 they want to take these events out of context? Because it would seem to

9 me for instance if we wanted to understand what was happening in your zone

10 of operation or area of operation throughout that entire period we would

11 have to take you chronologically and get a chronological narrative, as it

12 were. Would that be correct?

13 A. I would suggest that when I was initially contacted, it wasn't by

14 one side and then the other side. It was -- I was contacted over the

15 events that I had experienced over a period of time which then two

16 individuals came down and interviewed me specifically about areas in the

17 north and areas in the south.

18 Q. Okay.

19 A. And that's how we came about.

20 Q. All right. Were there other matters, because I just to ask this

21 last question, were there other the matters regarding your tenure which

22 you were not asked to give clarification on because I find it rather

23 interesting that one fellow would come in from the north, one from the

24 south. Did anybody come from the center, east, west, north, south? It

25 just doesn't make sense to me. So did they -- were there areas, were

1 there gaps in your statement because they, being the Office of the

2 Prosecution, failed to ask about particular incidents that might perhaps

3 be necessary that information that is in order to put entire events into

4 context and at least well on your watch?

5 A. I tried to project openly, and I have no favour against one side

6 or the other.

7 Q. I understand that. That's very clear. That's very clear.

8 A. And the issue that there were many incidents that had occurred in

9 a very, very short time frame of which I was witness to, and I tried to

10 project and give that information as openly as I could and not, once

11 again, trying to steer it in one way or the other.

12 Q. That's very obvious, sir.

13 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honours, I know we're out of time. I have

14 approximately 10 minutes for tomorrow, 15 at the very maximum, but I think

15 I can keep it under 10 minutes. There are just some minor points I need

16 to touch on. And might I add I guess --

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. You only need 10

18 minutes. Mrs. Nozica, do you wish to put some questions to the witness?

19 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I do have

20 questions, and I would like to use up the time allocated to us in the

21 beginning, 30 minutes. Maybe I will finish sooner but I would like not to

22 promise that now.

23 MR. KARNAVAS: I would add that looking at the following three

24 witnesses, Your Honour, three witnesses for the rest of the week, unless

25 something unusual happens we do not intend to ask any questions, so that

1 would not interfere with --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Colonel, I'm sure

3 you've understood the Defence counsel still has 40 minutes. Can you stay

4 until tomorrow? Is that a problem for you?

5 THE WITNESS: Yes, that is a problem, unfortunately, Your Honour.

6 I have other national obligations in a place far away from here or not too

7 far away from here which I must take part in tomorrow morning, and I have

8 no problem about continuing today for the total amount of time you need

9 me.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, we will have to continue.

11 We will have a 10- to 15-minute break now, and then we shall resume.

12 --- Recess taken at 1.49 p.m.

13 --- On resuming at 2.04 p.m.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The session

15 continues. Before I give the floor to the Defence, I apologise to the

16 interpreters for this extension. We will be working an hour longer.

17 I draw the attention of the Defence to the following: As I have

18 already said, when putting questions, put questions about the most

19 important points, the essential points relating to what is in the

20 indictment. Paragraphs 52, 53, 54, 55, are concerned with Prozor. This

21 morning we spent nearly two hours discussing convoys. Convoys are not

22 mentioned in these counts of the indictment. They are a separate issue.

23 There are fundamental issues which were not raised at all, and yet you

24 should have cross-examined the witness on them.

25 The result of all this is that you are not succeeding in

1 completing your cross-examination in the time set. We therefore have to

2 extend our sessions. Therefore, from now on we will have to be far

3 stricter in the time we grant you. From now on, before every session we

4 have to say that each accused has only so much time, and when that time

5 expires we will take the floor from you.

6 We now have an hour ahead of us. The witness must finish his

7 testimony today. He is unable to return tomorrow morning.

8 I now give the floor to Mr. Karnavas, who needs only a few

9 minutes, if I'm not mistaken. I wish to ask him not to put any questions

10 about convoys.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: As a matter of fact, Your Honour, there was one

12 question only because there's a document that the gentleman refers to, but

13 if you wish for me not to, I won't. But thank you, and of course we can

14 always use guidance from the Bench on asking the most relevant questions.

15 Q. Now, sir, you had indicated that the situation changed quite

16 dramatically while you were there, particularly after -- or while you were

17 on vacation, on leave, correct?

18 A. That is correct.

19 Q. And I guess I want to focus a little bit on that aspect of it,

20 because it was when you returned that obviously there was a push from

21 north to south, correct, by the ABiH army?

22 A. That is correct.

23 Q. And at one point, as I recall your testimony yesterday, in essence

24 there was a large number of -- of Croats that were more or less sandwiched

25 into an area; correct?

1 A. That is correct.

2 Q. And I think the figure is somewhere around 10.000 to 15.000. Now,

3 sir, you indicated that at some point those folks went, I guess it would

4 be east -- no, west, west, and then north -- and then south. I'm sorry.

5 Correct?

6 A. That is correct.

7 Q. So when they went west they would have gone into Serb-held

8 territory in order to go down south where -- where the Croats were still

9 there at that point in time; correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Now, I looked at the transcript last night, but I thought I heard

12 you use the word that they escaped or were escaping. Some -- a word to

13 that effect. Did I hear you correctly, that in essence, given the

14 situation, you could tell us, in light of what was happening with the

15 battle going on, would it be fair to say that in light of where they were,

16 in essence, they had to escape that area in order to get -- to seek

17 sanctuary in a sense?

18 A. I believe that is a correct assumption.

19 Q. In other words, and what I'm trying to drive at is this was not

20 something that they did on their own volition in the sense that, okay,

21 let's leave the area so we can occupy another area. Because of the

22 circumstances, they being civilians in the middle of two warring factions,

23 they had to get out the way; correct?

24 A. You say between two warring factions. One of the warring factions

25 was the one that was sandwiched between the other, and I believe everybody

1 left, including soldiers. It was one of survival, because they knew that

2 things were going to happen. And while I was in that pocket I also was

3 present when -- when action -- actions were taken and they were being

4 fired upon.

5 Q. Okay.

6 A. I was in the middle of it.

7 Q. So we could say this was an act of necessity on their part?

8 A. Both civilian and soldiers, yes, absolutely.

9 Q. Okay. Now, as I understand it, at that point in time the UNHCR

10 had sort of a different policy or --

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Wait a minute, please. The

12 question that Mr. Karnavas is asking you is a very important question, and

13 it's the kind of question the Trial Chamber likes to hear.

14 Those refugees, you say that among them there were civilians and

15 soldiers alike, that they set out together. We on the Bench are

16 interested in the following: Did the civilians set out first followed by

17 the soldiers or did the soldiers leave their positions due to offensive

18 actions of the other side, and did that then result in the movement of the

19 civilian population? What would be your analysis of the situation? Was

20 it a movement of general panic, civilians and troops leaving at the same

21 time, or was it a movement that -- in which we can distinguish various

22 times of departure, first civilians, followed by troops, or the other way

23 round?

24 If you could clarify the situation, please. And that is the type

25 of question that is very useful indeed.

1 THE WITNESS: When we came upon -- we were actually -- got word

2 that it was a mixture of both civilian and military. And when we did come

3 upon the situation, it was -- everybody was mixed in, everybody.

4 Realising that the call was made to rescue, and I use that word wisely, to

5 rescue injured who were trapped, we were given and had use of the battle

6 bus, I refer to the Croat battle bus, of which was armoured, armed as in

7 plating, armoured plating around the outside of the bus, and we were able

8 to use that with my vehicle and Warrior to go into this location to "take

9 out the injured."

10 When we arrived, there was panic, and to the point where men,

11 women, and children were attempting to hijack the bus to get out of there,

12 and my partner was forced to use physical force in order to remove people.

13 At the same time, we are trying to move injured from the casualty

14 collection point in a small house onto the bus, while at the same time we

15 came under mortar fire and the situation worsened.

16 The Brit company, one of its platoons was with me in close

17 protection went hatches down, yellow and myself, hit the dirt along a rock

18 fence and we sat out the situation in a very surreal situation of which

19 complete panic and disarray while we were sitting there having a

20 cigarette, literally.

21 The situation finally simmered down. We loaded who we could and

22 we took off down towards Prozor to drop off the injured. It was that

23 night then when we went back and found that everybody was gone and I'm

24 referring to soldiers, women, children, and men not in uniform. It was at

25 that time that we had discovered that they had moved.

1 I would also like to bring to your attention that buildings were

2 burned on their way out and things were placed on fire. In fact, even the

3 HVO headquarters in Prozor was torched prior to their departure.

4 MR. KARNAVAS:

5 Q. Thank you. And of course if they had to escape on short notice

6 and they had documents that might be secret -- of secret nature, maps and

7 what have you, one would understand why such a thing would occur, would it

8 not? At least the headquarters.

9 A. That particular headquarters was torched the night before.

10 Q. Okay. Well, but the situation, sir, on the ground as it was

11 unfolding was rather rapid, rather panicking, and it was rather evident

12 that they were going to have to evacuate the area or leave the area?

13 A. That is correct.

14 Q. Okay. Now, I guess I want to focus a little bit on the UNHCR. To

15 what extent was the UNHCR providing assistance at this point in time to

16 protect these -- these non-combatants, the non-combatants at least to make

17 sure they didn't have to leave their areas?

18 A. I don't believe that was in the mandate of the UNHCR to protect

19 anybody.

20 Q. I agree with you. I'm just asking if you saw anybody, because the

21 reason I'm asking that question is UNHCR, as I understand, had a

22 particular policy at the time that the displaced persons or refugees

23 should be kept where they are and not be moved or the -- the civilians not

24 be moved. And so if that's the UNHCR position, one would presume that the

25 UNHCR, being a United Nations organisation, coming up with such a policy

1 under these circumstances would obviously be providing comfort and safety

2 to those individuals.

3 A. Unfortunately, I -- I honestly cannot sit here and state that

4 UNHCR was even active in my area. I cannot remember meeting with the

5 UNHCR representative other than later on when things started to get

6 disconnected and we ended up meeting with representation of one-off, one

7 individual showing up and then discussions started to happen up north with

8 Father Janko, who is the priest in Bugojno and so on and so forth, and

9 that's when we started interacting.

10 Q. Were you interacting with the UNHCR Zenica office or UNHCR Mostar

11 office if you recall?

12 A. It would have logically been the Zenica office more than the

13 Mostar office.

14 Q. And do you remember if they strongly recommended not to remove the

15 DPs from the area in order to avoid mass movements of population?

16 A. Whether that was an UNHCR policy or not I'm not sure, but you can

17 understand the dichotomy that one ends up in. If ethnic cleansing is

18 taking place and you are in a position to remove people, are you not

19 achieving what they want to do? In other words, if -- if the population

20 is being pushed by one side to move and then you jump in there to save the

21 day and then move them, is that not what they tried to achieve? Does that

22 make sense?

23 Q. That makes some sense. Of course, the alternative is if you're

24 not trying to assist them in moving out of harm's way, one would expect

25 the folks in Geneva and New York and where have you would provide the

1 necessary wherewithal to make sure that they would protect those people.

2 So either the UNHCR would come up with the military or maybe the UNPROFOR

3 would be there to protect. So you being on the ground it was either UNHCR

4 or UNPROFOR capable, able, willing, and did they in fact provide the

5 necessary assistance in that period of time?

6 MR. PORYVAEV: Your Honour, I'm against this line of

7 cross-examination. What is the point of this cross-examination? Is it

8 emanating from examination-in-chief? It does not. Is Mr. Karnavas

9 contesting the witness's credibility? He is not. What is the relevance

10 of these questions with respect to UNHCR.

11 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may -- well, the gentleman was absent last

12 week. Perhaps if he had been with us in other sessions it might be

13 relevant, but one of the key issues that's in the indictment and that the

14 Prosecution continues to advocate is that this was a form of

15 self-cleansing, that the Croats were cleansing themselves out of certain

16 areas in order to create a homogenous pocket, and here we have a gentleman

17 on the ground and he's telling us exactly that they had to escape, that

18 some had to be rescued. Contrary to -- to certain allegations that the HZ

19 HB was trying to self-cleanse certain areas. That's the purpose.

20 And my line of questioning was if the UNHCR or other UN agencies

21 have such a policy, are promoting a policy not to move populations, and I

22 agree with the gentleman with respect to ethnic cleansing, but if you find

23 yourself in a situation where a civilian population, large numbers,

24 10.000, 15.000, are trapped and you have this very rigid policy, one would

25 expect the UNHCR to step up to the plate with their army or to use the

1 UNPROFOR. So were you able to do that? Did they do that?

2 MR. PORYVAEV: Again, I'm sorry. Is it statement by Mr. Karnavas?

3 MR. KARNAVAS: It's a question. It's a question.

4 MR. PORYVAEV: And a very long one.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you've heard the question.

6 It was a lengthy question. Do you have anything to contribute?

7 THE WITNESS: The only thing that I would make a comment on is

8 reaction time. The situation, of course, was not good in those days, and

9 you had to make the call on the day as to what sort of reaction you had to

10 do and carry on. To call on the cavalry of the UNHCR or a bigger UNPROFOR

11 would not have happened. We had the resources we had. I cannot comment

12 on UNHCR policy or UN policy. I was ECMM at the time and which I carried

13 out my mission to the best of my ability, one team, one place, with many

14 different problems.

15 MR. KARNAVAS:

16 Q. Okay. Thank you. When you say "we", earlier in your answer, was

17 that "we" ECMM or we UNPROFOR or collectively the internationals that were

18 there to make sense of --

19 A. I would -- I would make -- I would stand and state that "we" is

20 the collective here.

21 Q. Okay. I listened to you very carefully and you seem to choose

22 your words very carefully and you seem to be a careful individual, and you

23 made a point of telling us repeatedly that it was not within your

24 responsibility. I take it you were very concerned about what is common

25 referred to as mission creep, taking on more responsibility than your

1 mission calls -- calls for or your mandate; is that correct?

2 A. If you're asking me if I saw situations unfold which I then

3 morally put them up against that sort of criteria, I did something about

4 it, yes, I did, and if you want to call that mission creep, then so be it.

5 Q. Well, I think you misunderstood my -- my question. Repeatedly

6 you've been asked about information. For instance, do you know, you know,

7 how many soldiers were there, who they were and what have you, and

8 occasionally you would tell us that was not within my responsibility. I

9 was not there to count heads. I was not there looking at maps and what

10 have you. I take it you stuck to your, narrow as it was, one primarily

11 because it was rather narrow too. You were walking around in a white

12 uniform, unarmed, and being a professional soldier and having been in

13 theatre before, you know how dangerous it can be if you just start, you

14 know, acting up without the cavalry behind you; correct?

15 A. That is correct. And the resources that we had available.

16 Q. All right. Now, you said yesterday that you were collocated with

17 the BritBats that were there, and I happen to know that the Canadian Armed

18 Forces have a relatively good if not very good relationship with the UK

19 armed forces. They do training together and what have you. And I take

20 it, while you were being collocated and exchanging information, perhaps

21 you became aware of what is commonly referred to as the rules of

22 engagement for UNPROFOR. Would that be correct?

23 A. I can state that I did not read their rules of engagement. I

24 understood what the rules of engagement were, realising that they were

25 armed, had tracked vehicles and had firepower to do things.

1 Q. Okay. Could you tell us a little bit what their rules of

2 engagement were? I mean, what exactly could they do? I know if shot upon

3 they could shoot back.

4 A. That is correct.

5 Q. Barring that, however, they were not supposed to take sides; is

6 that correct?

7 A. That is correct.

8 Q. And we saw that in Srebrenica, in fact. But that was much later.

9 But nonetheless, what about for the protection of civilians? Were they --

10 was it within their mandate, within their rules of engagement, if it comes

11 within their rules of engagement, to, for instance, create a buffer zone

12 between the civilians and a particular warring faction that is on the

13 attack, on the offensive, trying to drive these people out?

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I was quite struck by what you

15 said when you mentioned the refugees. You explained that you were there,

16 that UNPROFOR was there, and that there was mortar fire, and the mortar

17 fire was also firing at the civilian population.

18 In a case like that, if it were a case of legitimate defence,

19 could UNPROFOR hit back and fire back if there was mortar fire, because

20 the mortar fire was landing on the civilians.

21 THE WITNESS: Mortar fire or any sort of indirect fire is

22 indiscriminate as to where it lands. You can get it within a grid square.

23 I overexaggerate. But if it's fired in your general direction it's going

24 to start to impact in and around you.

25 The immediate reaction of UNPROFOR in that particular circumstance

1 was to go to ground, and that is the likelihood of a round actually

2 hitting an armoured vehicle is limited to none but it would experience

3 shrapnel, and therefore as a result of that you tend to take a very

4 defensive mode. Unfortunately, the company was not equipped with any

5 anti-mortar capability, i.e., detection and/or counter battery fire. So

6 it had to make do with the resources that it had, and it was the only

7 Warrior with the 30-millimetre gun. So to say the mortar round came from

8 point X and fired at point X could not be achieved with the resources that

9 were there. So it was just a matter to get people to cover and more

10 importantly UNPROFOR itself to get to cover.

11 That's the indirect role. Obviously in the direct role you're

12 able to determine very quickly where rounds are coming from, and I would

13 suggest that it would -- UNPROFOR would have the wherewithal to return

14 fire in that particular case if it was direct fire.

15 MR. KARNAVAS:

16 Q. Okay. And I guess I just want to make sure that -- that I

17 establish this point. Going back to Bugojno, obviously you have a push or

18 an advancement by the army of BiH. Do you know whether UNPROFOR at that

19 point in time could of sort of got in between as a buffer, a buffer

20 between the army of BiH and say the HVO and the civilians in order to stop

21 the advancement of the army of BiH?

22 A. Realising that when the offensive started to happen, I was in fact

23 not in location. Realising the size of the -- of the -- of the action, a

24 company would not have been sufficient, especially in the area of Gornji

25 Vakuf.

1 Q. Okay. All right. Now, I believe I read somewhere that you

2 mentioned that at one point you saw some Mujahedin; is that correct?

3 A. That is absolutely correct.

4 Q. Okay. Where did you see them if your recollection serves you

5 well?

6 A. Bugojno.

7 Q. And do you recall about what time -- what period would that have

8 been?

9 A. Yes. At the period of time of the action that we're referring to

10 in the August time frame.

11 Q. Okay. And --

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. The Trial Chamber feel

13 that the questions put during the examination-in-chief did not concern the

14 Mujahedin, so there's no particular reason for putting these questions to

15 the witness. Why do you want him to testify and to tell you that he has

16 seen Mujahedins in Bugojno?

17 MR. KARNAVAS: [Previous translation continues] ... it's a very

18 common rule of evidence in trial advocacy, yes, Judge Trechsel, because

19 you seem astonished at what I'm about to say, and that is that simply

20 because a question isn't raised on direct examination, on cross, if it's

21 relevant to the Defence case, I can certainly go into it. It is relevant

22 for a couple of reasons. One, because we have heard testimony even from a

23 previous member of the ECMM that the mere mentioning of the Mujahedin

24 would cause people to run in any particular free direction and that even

25 the Muslims, Bosniaks themselves were afraid of these foreign fighters.

1 It is relevant again going back to why would these people flee the area.

2 So I think it's relevant. Thank you.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. Please go ahead.

4 MR. KARNAVAS:

5 Q. With respect to the Mujahedin, if you could tell us, did you

6 approach them in your capacity to find out who they were, what were they

7 doing, who is their commander?

8 A. No, I did not. I only observed them in the town of Bugojno in

9 groups that would be moving around the town.

10 Q. And I don't want to put you on the spot, but is there a particular

11 reason why you didn't -- I don't want to say confront them but ask them

12 like who are you, what are you doing over here, or was that beyond your

13 mandate?

14 A. I dealt at -- I did not deal at the individual soldier level.

15 Q. Okay.

16 A. Other than those I was confronted with on a particular road

17 crossing or -- or checkpoint.

18 Q. All right. In light of that answer, can I assume that at some

19 point you might have approached the ABiH commander or local commander to

20 find out under whose command these people were or is this something that

21 didn't alarm you at that point in time?

22 A. Whether they were under command, I would suggest that I did ask

23 that question. Are Mujahedin in the area? And the response would have

24 been yes. Now, to what size I cannot comment whether it was battalion or

25 individuals -- individuals fighting alongside particular units.

1 Q. All right. Now, you indicated that before you got into theatre,

2 into this particular area, the Gornji Vakuf area, you had stopped in

3 Zenica for some -- I don't want to say training but some -- to be briefed,

4 being correct?

5 A. Yes, mission specific training or briefings which basically gives

6 you the lay of the land that you're walking into.

7 Q. Right. At that at that point in time did they by any chance

8 inform you about the presence of Mujahedin?

9 A. No, they did not.

10 Q. Okay. So this was your first opportunity to come across and --

11 A. And that was to my surprise that they were there. We had heard

12 indications that they were operating in the southern portion down near

13 Mostar, but we had not seen anything in our area until that August time

14 frame.

15 Q. One last question on that. How did you know that they were

16 Mujahedin?

17 A. By their dress.

18 Q. And their appearance, beards and what have you?

19 A. Beards, tend to be in a karkeet [phoen] coloured clothing

20 consisting -- and there's probably a legitimate name for it, but

21 consisting of a long top shirt, went down to the knees, a hat round,

22 placed upon the head, and bandoliers normally strung across the front with

23 a vest of some sort and that's about it.

24 Q. So they stuck out?

25 A. They sure did.

1 Q. One last issue --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you had asked for

3 10 minutes. We are already up to 30 minutes.

4 MR. KARNAVAS: I have one last question. It's not about convoys.

5 I scrapped that one.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Last question, then.

7 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you.

8 Q. This has to do with the Muslim refugees in Prozor. You told us

9 that at least we saw one particular report that as early as 1992 a large

10 number of refugees, Muslim refugees, had made it to Prozor as they were

11 being pushed out by the Bosnian Serb army. Do you recall that?

12 A. I do recall that report that we referred to yesterday.

13 Q. Okay. And do you recall -- do you know how many of those refugees

14 were still in Prozor or that particular time?

15 A. I have no idea.

16 Q. And do you know whether the folks that you saw that you said they

17 were there at the outskirts of the town and then one day they were sort

18 of -- they left and you caught up with the last truck, I believe, do you

19 know whether they were part of that refugee movement or were they actually

20 residents of Prozor?

21 A. These individuals were -- I would assume were individuals that had

22 been gathered over a long period of time, and it could have been a mixture

23 of people from the Prozor region or from any other region. There was a

24 grouping of about 1.500 people, if I remember correctly, all Muslim

25 background.

1 Q. All right. Okay. Well, I -- thank you, sir. Thank you very,

2 very much for coming here and giving your evidence. No further questions.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Next Defence counsel.

4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

5 Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:

6 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. I will put a few brief

7 questions to you so we can proceed very quickly.

8 Yesterday, in your responses during the examination-in-chief, you

9 mentioned the torching of houses in certain villages. This was when you

10 were shown a document, and I would like to have it on e-court. I don't

11 know if you still have your bundle of documents before you.

12 Could we please see P 02817 in e-court.

13 A. I have it.

14 Q. I can't see e-court. You have it. I don't know whether the

15 others in the courtroom can see it, but I will proceed.

16 First, on page 1, can we establish that this is a report of the

17 17th of June, 1993? Is that correct? And perhaps we can have page 7 in

18 e-court, which was shown to you by the Prosecutor. As I cannot see

19 anything on my screen, could you please look at the part where it

20 says "Gornji Vakuf, Prozor 2." Have you found it?

21 A. Page 7, what paragraph, sorry?

22 Q. "Gornji Vakuf, Prozor, V2." That's what the first few words are.

23 MR. PORYVAEV: We don't have connections, I'm sorry.

24 Ms. NOZICA:

25 Q. In English it's on page 5. It begins with the words "Gornji

1 Vakuf". Now, it seems we all have it, yes. Now we have that part in

2 e-court. If you could please take a look. The third paragraph. It

3 says "V2 attended a joint patrol with UNPROFOR east of route Diamond."

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. In this part yesterday, when responding to a question by the

6 Prosecutor, and this starts on page 83, line 23 and goes on until page 25,

7 line 6, you said that in your opinion the burning of those houses in those

8 villages, Stipici, and you also mentioned the village of Rat, both are

9 mentioned here, you said that in your opinion it was members of the HVO

10 that torched the houses; is that correct?

11 A. That is correct, but -- but may I bring your attention that the

12 houses that were burning at the time were houses that were on the way to

13 these locations, remembering that these three towns are up in the hills.

14 And the burnings that I witnessed on that particular day were on the main

15 route, Route Diamond, towards Gornji Vakuf and up towards Zenica. It was

16 the houses on the left and right of the road that were being torched, not

17 in the exact towns of Srebrenica and -- or sorry, and the three towns that

18 are stated there, which includes Rat.

19 Q. Did you at any time -- well, it doesn't say here who torched the

20 houses, but did you ever go to the villages of Rat and Stipici and see

21 people taking property out of these houses on the Sunday after the 11th of

22 June, and did you see who was taking property out of the houses and

23 possibly torching them?

24 A. There were two separate visits up to this location I remember.

25 The initial one was fairly quiet, and we were just going up into that area

1 to talk to people.

2 The second one was this situation where we started seeing the

3 burning happening.

4 And the third that comes to mind is the extraction or the removing

5 of those people from this area. And they were all brought to the

6 southern-most community, which was a perpendicular road to the -- to the

7 road that led from Gornji Vakuf up to -- up to Zenica, and this was the

8 place that I was talking about where buses were organised by the Croats to

9 evacuate people out of these communities of which I was witness to.

10 Q. In the village of Rat and in the village of Stipici and around

11 these villages, on both of these visits, did you ever see soldiers of the

12 army of Bosnia-Herzegovina taking things out of the houses? And when you

13 looked back, did you see them torching houses, and did you possibly

14 discuss this with members of the army of BH and inform the regional centre

15 in Zenica about it? And we are talking about June, 1993.

16 MR. PORYVAEV: Sorry, what is the foundation for this question?

17 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] The foundation for this question is

18 the Prosecutor's question of yesterday as to who was torching the houses

19 in the period in question.

20 THE WITNESS: If you are asking me whether I had witnessed others

21 doing this particular act, then the answer has to be yes, and not

22 necessarily in that location. There were many burnings of many houses,

23 including blowing them up.

24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Yes. We may proceed. My colleague Mr. Karnavas put a question to

1 you, and you replied that you had indeed made a statement on the 28th of

2 November, 2001, and as I feel that everything that happened in Bugojno and

3 in the area is extremely important for the Defence, since these events

4 spilled over into the events mentioned in the indictment, would the usher

5 please give the witness his statement of the 28th of November, 2001. And

6 for Your Honours, I have put the English version in the file. I am

7 referring to page 4, paragraph 2, and let us see what the witness stated

8 about this on the 28th of November, 2001.

9 Above this the date is the 11th of June, 1993. Let me remind you

10 that in the report when you mentioned the villages the date is the 17th of

11 June. However, I'm referring to the following paragraph: "For the next

12 week, we joined BritBat on patrols of the wider area visiting some of the

13 more remote villages and trying to get a feel for how far the fighting had

14 spread after the trouble in Travnik. We made a couple of trips up to the

15 villages of Rat and Stipici. On the second visit I remember driving past

16 a small group of ABiH soldiers emptying a house in Stipici of furniture.

17 I didn't think anything was particularly untoward - they didn't look

18 especially concerned to see us - and I assumed they were probably just

19 salvaging their own property. However, when we reached Rat and looked

20 back down the road, we saw that all the houses where the soldiers had been

21 working were now on fire. I made a note in my daily report to RC Zenica

22 to the effect that the armija was practising ethnic cleansing in Stipici."

23 Is this what it says? Well, there's no doubt that's what it says,

24 but has this refreshed your memory, and do you now perhaps remember this

25 event, and is it the same event described in the report? And let me

1 stress that the report is dated on the 17th. So this is the same time

2 period. Could you say something about this?

3 A. I think logically if you read through my initial statement, it

4 kind of moves from the 11th of June to the 18th, so I would assume that it

5 is around the same time frame, that is correct.

6 Did you want me to make further comment on this or ...

7 Q. Yes. What you said yesterday, that it was HVO soldiers torching

8 these houses, is not consistent with what it says here, that it was army

9 of Bosnia-Herzegovina soldiers who were doing that. Am I right?

10 A. Considering that the events happened some 13 years ago plus a

11 statement of 2001 and plus my recollection of yesterday, maybe

12 misinterpreted by time. I put that forward and would make the

13 recommendation that on one side of the road one events were happening,

14 other side of the road other events were happening, and we're trying to --

15 in any recollection, trying to make it a clear delineation as to who was

16 doing what to whom.

17 Q. Thank you.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, follow-up question.

19 Yesterday you were very clear, and according to what you said, these were

20 soldiers, HVO soldiers that set fire to the houses. In the written

21 statement, there are ABiH soldiers who are setting fire to the buildings.

22 Perhaps there's some confusion in your mind over this.

23 Do you remember having seen HVO soldiers set fire to these houses?

24 Perhaps this wasn't in Stipici. Perhaps it was elsewhere. Perhaps there

25 is some confusion in your mind.

1 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, there may well be confusion. Over time

2 my mind does get a little bit grey. Unfortunately, I can openly state

3 that I witnessed both sides doing this action. And now whether this -- I

4 confused two different dates, that maybe the case, but I can also give you

5 other specific times where there is no doubt that it was HVO that was

6 doing it, if we want to explore that.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But on the other hand, you can't

8 tell us in which places you saw HVO soldiers setting fire to some of the

9 houses, and you can't give us a date either.

10 THE WITNESS: I can give you a -- I can give you that there --

11 that they were setting fire between the area of Bugojno and Gornji Vakuf.

12 I can also give you the fact that houses were blown up right outside our

13 camp on many -- or during many evenings or during the middle of the night

14 by the HVO rolling mines from the high feature to the south into occupied

15 houses and which would eliminate -- any one mine would eliminate five

16 houses, and we would pick up the pieces the next day.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So you are quite positive, and

18 you give us an example because you were next door you said that the HVO

19 were rolling mines from the top of the hill and that these mines, when

20 they hit the houses, the -- some of the houses were blown up. I think you

21 mentioned five of them.

22 THE WITNESS: That is correct.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: That's correct.

24 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Thank you. May we now take a look at the following. Yesterday,

1 on pages 58 from line 10 to page 59, line 24, you spoke about the

2 exhumation of soldiers of the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina that you happened

3 to come upon. Do you remember this?

4 A. Yes, I do.

5 Q. When the citizens were gathered there said that they had been

6 tortured, and yesterday in the course of your testimony you said that you

7 were unable to establish anything except that they were shot. Do you

8 remember who it was who was exhuming these people, digging them up?

9 A. It was civilians that were digging them up. They were surrounded

10 by civilian police, I believe from the Bugojno area. There was a doctor

11 there, if I remember correctly. There was ambulance service in order to

12 take the bodies away.

13 Once again, we came down the road and looked to our right and

14 there's large gathering of people, and people were trying to summon us

15 over to take a look at what had transpired.

16 Q. Were there Croat prisoners of war there?

17 A. Yes, there were. And I'm glad you reminded me of that one.

18 The -- there were Croats that were actually doing the digging, if I

19 remember correctly. They were the ones that were being tasked to dig up

20 the bodies, if I remember correctly. And you would probably find it in my

21 statement someplace. That was the thing -- kind of thing that stuck out

22 at me, because they were surrounded by people with -- with rifles, and

23 they were down actually doing the digging.

24 Q. I did find it in your report on page -- pages 7 and 8, but since

25 you remember it, we won't dwell on it any longer.

1 In your statement, you said that they dug up three Muslims.

2 Yesterday you said four, but you weren't sure of the exact number. Would

3 it then be logical to conclude that what you stated in your previous

4 statement is correct, because you say explicitly they were digging up the

5 grave of three Muslims? Take a look at your statement if you like.

6 A. Sorry, I'm missing -- was a misinterpretation as to who the

7 soldiers were who were dead or -- I'm not sure what the question is.

8 Q. No. Yesterday, you said that the number of Muslims dug up was

9 four, whereas in this statement you said it was three. So I think it's

10 quite important to establish how many there were.

11 A. Okay. Understood. Once again, things fade with time. What is

12 said in the statement could be put up against the daily report would

13 actually reflect the exact amount. And on going off the top of my head,

14 four is stuck in my mind. If it was three and it's stated in here a such,

15 then it was likely three.

16 Q. Let's now dwell on the situation in Bugojno briefly in the time

17 period we are talking about now. Did you visit any prisons in Bugojno

18 where Croats were detained at the time? Just very briefly what prisons

19 did you visit? How many imprisoned Croats there were in your estimation?

20 A. Over time I had visited three locations. They had been either

21 gathered, moved, and eventually moved on to another location. And the

22 total number, I want to guesstimate, probably just under 500 when you add

23 them all up, and that is a correct statement.

24 Q. Did Father Janko tell you anything about the crimes committed

25 against Croats at that time, and did he give you any documents or lists

1 confirming what he said?

2 A. Yes. And those lists were -- and that's what we were talking

3 about earlier, about our interaction with UNHCR, and we passed those lists

4 accordingly, and I spent almost a full day with Father Janko in order to

5 gather this information. And for the lack of --

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. I don't know

7 whether the name mentioned here should be mentioned. I don't know if this

8 person benefits from any protective measures. I shall ask the registrar

9 to make sure that this is taken off the record.

10 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if it has to be

11 redacted, I can't tell you exactly where, but during Mr. Karnavas's

12 cross-examination the name was also mentioned. That's why I felt I could

13 mention the name.

14 Q. Did you want to add anything, sir? Excuse me. I see that your

15 reply was interrupted, so would you continue, please.

16 A. Just during that time that all formal structure of civilian

17 authority or military had disappeared on -- in the area of Bugojno on

18 behalf of the Croats. So the void was filled by the church and Father

19 Janko. So those that had remained behind tended to be drawn to the church

20 as a mechanism in which to bring forward as much information as they could

21 on particular events, and that's how we ended up interacting with them.

22 Q. And my last topic. Yesterday, you mentioned the imam from Prozor.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. We have to

24 change the tapes round so we have to make a very short break. So we have

25 to count up to 10 and then we can start again.

1 Fine.

2 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Yesterday, you mentioned the imam from Prozor several times. In

4 any conversations in Prozor, did you learn anything about his previous

5 activities in arming the Muslim army? And I'm using this expression on

6 purpose. You will see why.

7 A. As -- when you do follow on there is more to this which is of

8 concern to me in that the imam basically took on the function very similar

9 to that of Father Janko except in opposite communities and opposite

10 situation.

11 Q. Excuse me. I appreciate this, but I have very little time left,

12 so I'm asking you a very specific, particular question. We are talking

13 about holy people, and I'm now referring to the arming of any side. So

14 did you have any information to this effect about the imam? I know what

15 the role of these people was in these communities, especially in times of

16 war, but my question is very specific.

17 A. I had no knowledge whatsoever the imam was involved in any sort of

18 arming of Muslims.

19 Q. Could we have placed on the ELMO, and I do apologise to the Court,

20 I only found these documents last night, I have not translated them, I

21 will read them very briefly, but if we could put document 2D 00185 on the

22 ELMO. They are two brief documents. And then I will ask the usher to

23 stay by the ELMO, and then we shall look at 184, and then we'll put a

24 question to the witness.

25 Would it assist you if I were to tell you that his name was Elkaz

1 Hidajet, the name of the imam?

2 A. It sounds familiar.

3 Q. Could we look at document 2D 00185 on the ELMO. Yes, this is it.

4 Yes. I will read it out slowly. In the heading it says: "The chief imam

5 of the committee of the Islamic Community in Prozor. Elkaz Hidajet Efendi

6 in Prozor the 4th of September, 1992. The title is the Kuwait Igasa,

7 Split office, esteemed brothers and there follows something in Arabic. On

8 Monday, the 31st of August, 1992, I was in your office in Split

9 accompanied by Salih Efendi Colakovic for talks on arming Muslim fighters

10 on the territory of Prozor municipality. We have been promised help by

11 the representative of the Kuwait Igasa in light infantry weapons and we

12 were also asked to deliver a specific list of the necessary weapons and

13 ammunition verified by the stamp of the armed forces of

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina.

15 "Enclosed with this letter please find the requested list

16 properly verified. Please help us as soon as possible and meet our

17 request. We also ask you to explain to the person bringing this letter

18 and this order when and where we can take delivery of the requested

19 weapons and ammunition. We also wish to inform you that I was -- I have

20 been prevented by my regular duties from delivering this order to you in

21 person, and I hope you will take this into account. Finally, I wish to

22 thank you for your assistance, and may Djalla Shannuh reward you with

23 djanet. Chief imam, Elkaz Hidajet," and there follows the stamp of the

24 Islamic Community.

25 Were you aware of the fact that this humanitarian organisation

1 called Igasa was active in Croatia and that this was in fact a

2 humanitarian organisation, a Muslim humanitarian organisation?

3 A. I was not aware. And this is from 1992, well before my time.

4 Q. Yes. I know it's before your time. I was just trying to

5 establish whether this was the same person, because more than once you

6 mentioned that this person's communications were somehow limited. So I'm

7 just trying to check whether this is the same person. And to round this

8 off --

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a minute. Can the Defence

10 counsel tell us where she got the document from in this particular format?

11 Which archives did you turn to?

12 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] It's not from the archives. This is

13 a document found by the Defence. We will not tender it into evidence. We

14 are simply showing it to the witness.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but you can't tell us where

16 this document comes from. This could be a forgery, a forged document.

17 You want to get across the fact that the imam in Prozor played a role in

18 arming the Muslims. So that's your theory. Seemingly, this is what this

19 document demonstrates, but we would like to know where this document comes

20 from.

21 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] This was collected by the

22 investigators of Mr. Stojic. We have here the signature of the gentleman.

23 And this will not be the only document speaking to these activities. If

24 there is any doubt, we shall call an expert to examine the document.

25 However, as I said, I am not tendering it into evidence. I'm only showing

1 it. We will tender it when we have all the elements that will enable us

2 to do so.

3 Could we please have placed on the ELMO 2D 00184, which is the

4 order or the list mentioned by the imam from Prozor, and it's signed by

5 commander captain Muharem Sabic. And it says: "Republic of

6 Bosnia-Herzegovina, army of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Prozor,

7 registration number, date 2nd of September, 1992". It's addressed to the

8 Kuwait Igasa, to the office in Split, and the subject is request for

9 assistance in arming the Muslim fighters of Prozor, and it says: "Please

10 deliver to us the following quantities of weapons and ammunition which

11 will be used for us in the defence and liberation of our home.

12 "200 piece of automatic rifles.

13 "50 pieces of light machine-guns.

14 "80 Zolja rocket launchers, and

15 "250.000 -- 250.000 bullets, 7.62 millimetres in calibre."

16 I wanted to ask the witness in connection with this imam, whether

17 from his communications with the imam, he was aware that he was one of the

18 organisers of the arming and equipping of, as he says, the Muslim army

19 while you would call it the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Are you aware of

20 this?

21 A. I was not aware. My exposure to him was himself, his wife, and

22 his -- his children in the town of Prozor. When I arrived in that

23 location, that's the only exposure that I had to him from the point of

24 view of me visiting him in his home on a daily basis as much as I could

25 based on the situation. But I was unaware of this happening in the

1 background and, more importantly, from the 1991 time frame.

2 Q. 1992. Thank you. That's all. I have no further questions.

3 Thank you.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. If there are no

5 further questions. There's no re-examination. In any case, we would not

6 have any time.

7 Colonel, thank you for coming to The Hague. We have extended the

8 time somewhat so that you could leave today. So on behalf of the Bench, I

9 wish you a safe journey home and to -- I would like the usher now to

10 accompany you out of the courtroom.

11 As far as the exhibits are concerned, we shall deal with that

12 tomorrow. We are not going to draw up a list of the exhibits right now.

13 I shall ask the Prosecution tomorrow to give us their exhibits, and I

14 should also ask the Defence to give us a list of exhibits tomorrow also.

15 It is a quarter past 3.00. The court stands adjourned, and we

16 shall resume the hearing again at 9.00 tomorrow morning.

17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 3.14 p.m.,

18 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 4th day

19 of October, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.

20

21

22

23

24

25