1 Tuesday, 10 October 2006
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, could you call
6 the case number, please.
7 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. President. Case
8 number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'd like to greet everyone in
10 the courtroom, members of the Prosecution, Defence counsel, the accused,
11 and everyone else in the courtroom.
12 First there are four oral decisions I have to render concerning
13 the admissibility of documents. The first one concerns a document that
14 relates to Witness BP. The Trial Chamber will declare its position
15 concerning the admission into evidence of a document relating to
16 Witness BP who appeared on the 4th and 5th of October, 2006. The Trial
17 Chamber decides to admit into evidence the following exhibits presented by
18 the Prosecution because they have probative value and relevance: P 09715
19 under seal, P 04161 under seal.
20 In addition, the Trial Chamber notes that the Defence hasn't
21 requested that any documents be admitted into evidence. On the other
22 hand, the Trial Chamber would like to point out that it has decided not to
23 admit the following documents presented by the Prosecution since they
24 don't appear authentic, relevant, and they don't seem to have sufficient
25 probative value: P 03855 is concerned.
1 And now for my second -- for our second oral decision, the
2 corrigendum. On the 5th of October, 2006, the Chamber rendered an oral
3 decision concerning the admission into evidence of documents that related
4 to Witness BQ. As far as document P 04588 is concerned, the Trial Chamber
5 would like to note that only the photographs shown to the witness will be
6 admitted. This concerns the four photographs with the following numbers:
7 0361/7095 -- 7095. And could we have a slash between the 1 and 7. The
8 second photograph is 0361-7106. There's a hyphen, not a slash. Next
9 photograph is 0361-7111. That's correct. And finally 0361-7152.
10 And now for the third oral decision that concerns the admission
11 into evidence of documents relating to Witness BO. The Trial Chamber will
12 rule on the admission into evidence today on documents that concern
13 Witness BO, who appeared on the 4th of October, 2006. The Trial Chamber
14 admits into evidence the following documents presented by the Prosecution,
15 given that they have a certain probative value and relevance. I will now
16 list the documents: P 09717 under seal, P 09309, P 03480, P 03498,
17 P 04161, P 04177, P 09265, P 04432, P 04605, P 04836.
18 In addition, the Chamber will admit the following documents
19 presented by the Defence, since they have a certain probative value and a
20 certain relevance: 3D 00829 -- 429.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. 3D 00429.
22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] IC 00044. There are three 0's.
23 IC 00044.
24 On the other hand, the Trial Chamber won't admit the following
25 documents into evidence presented by the Prosecution because Witness BO
1 could not shed light on the authenticity, relevance, or probative value on
2 these documents. These documents are P 04203, P 04203 and P 07134.
3 And now for the fourth oral decision and the last one, an oral
4 decision concerning the admission into evidence of the documents relating
5 to the testimony of Witness Ibrahim Sahic. P 08534 is the document
7 On the 27th of September, 2006, the Prosecution submitted a
8 written motion to the Chamber requesting the admission into evidence of a
9 new copy of the document with the provisional number P 08534. In this
10 case a death certificate was concerned concerning Adem Adibovic [as
11 interpreted], who -- which was presented to the witness Ibrahim Sahic when
12 he appeared on the 17th of October -- on the 17th of August, 2006.
13 The Prosecution stated that following the objections made by
14 Mr. Kovacic that concerned the illegibility of the names and dates in the
15 copy of the document it had requested and obtained a new copy of this
16 document which was legible, entirely legible. The Chamber would like to
17 point out that on the 24th of August, 2006, it orally decided to mark
18 P 08534 for identification while waiting for the Prosecution to provide a
19 better copy.
20 On the 28th of September, 2006, Mr. Kovacic filed a reply to the
21 Prosecution's motion opposing the admission into evidence of this
22 document, claiming that pursuant to Rule 89(D), the probative value of
23 this document was significantly inferior to the need for a fair trial,
24 given that the date of death on the death certificate was two days earlier
25 than the date of death mentioned by the witness. On the other hand, the
1 witness only identified the surname of the person who died and said that
2 this was a very common surname.
3 The Trial Chamber would like to remind you that pursuant to the
4 decision of the 13th of July, 2006, that concerns the admission into
5 evidence of documents and in conformity with the jurisprudence of this
6 Tribunal evidence must have a certain amount of relevance and a certain
7 probative value if it is to be admitted. The Chamber reserves the right
8 to render a definitive decision about the weight to be attached to a
9 document at the end of the presentation of evidence, of all evidence.
10 In this case, the Chamber notes that the new copy of the death
11 certificate provided by the Prosecution has sufficient indicia of
12 reliability given that the death certificate -- to the extent that the
13 death certificate of Adem Adibovic -- Hebibovic, H-e-b-o-v-i-c. I'll
14 repeat the name because there's a mistake again. Hebibovic,
15 H-e-b-i-b-o-v-i-c. This was shown to the witness Ibrahim Saric and also
16 has sufficient indicia of probative value and reliability. The Chamber
17 decides to admit into evidence document P 08534.
18 The Trial Chamber, however, takes into account the objections
19 raised by Mr. Kovacic, and when determining the weight to be attached to
20 this document in the light of all the evidence presented to the Chamber.
21 That's the fourth decision.
22 I thought that Mr. Murphy had something to say, wanted to take the
23 floor. If you want to take up a few minutes, you may take the floor,
24 Mr. Murphy. Otherwise, you should do so later.
25 MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Good morning,
1 Your Honours. I hope that my voice will last. I'm suffering from a cold,
2 but I will do my best to be understood.
3 Your Honour, my purpose in taking the floor is essentially to
4 advise the Trial Chamber on behalf of all the accused and their counsel of
5 a motion that we will be filing later today and also to make an oral
6 application for leave to exceed the word limit in respect of this motion.
7 The only reason that I mention it today is that it's a motion
8 which is somewhat unusual, indeed, we believe may be unparalleled in the
9 history of this Tribunal, and I want to give the Trial Chamber in just
10 about two minutes an overview of the motion and why we regard it as a very
11 serious matter.
12 Your Honours know that there have been two -- at least two
13 subsidiary proceedings in this case of that have been the subject of some
14 litigation. The first was --
15 Are we in private session, Your Honour? I'm sorry. May we go
16 into private session for a short time.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.
18 [Private session]
11 Pages 8068-8077 redacted. Private session.
23 [Open session]
24 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,
25 Mr. President.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The testimony of
2 Witness BR is commencing in open session.
3 MS. EGELS:
4 Q. You just told us that in 1992 you were living in Prozor. Until
5 when did you live in Prozor?
6 A. Until the end of August 1993.
7 Q. I would like to take you back to September of 1992. Could you
8 describe to the Court the situation between the Bosnian Muslims and the
9 Bosnian Croats in the town of Prozor at that time?
10 A. Relations at that time between the Bosnian Croats and Muslims were
11 tense. Incidents erupted. In the Bosniak houses, they were destroyed.
12 But anyway, the situation was tense.
13 Q. When you talk about incidents that erupted could you be more
14 specific and give one example of an incident that you are aware of?
15 A. For instance, here is an example: When the HVO soldiers bashed on
16 the windows and -- of Muslim houses, for example.
17 Q. How did the situation evolve in the next month; that is, October
18 of 1992?
19 A. In October 1992, relations came to a head. They worsened so that
20 on the 23rd of October, an armed conflict broke out between the BH army
21 and the Croatian Defence Council.
22 Q. Before going into more details about the 23rd of October, would I
23 like to show you document number 00680 [sic]. There is a bundle just next
24 to you, and you will see that there is a tab marked 608. That is the
25 document I am referring to.
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, if I may make a general objection at
2 this point in time. Yesterday Mr. Scott stood up with respect to
3 yesterday's witness and said that the gentleman should not be commenting
4 on any documents which he was unaware of at the time, and so I took a
5 special note of that, because I see that all of the documents virtually
6 are from sources which obviously this witness would not have been aware
8 So I would like to know now is the Prosecution reversing that
9 position? Are they maintaining that position? Because what's good for
10 the goose is also good for -- as we know what.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Scott.
12 MR. SCOTT: It's not the same at all in fact.
13 What the Prosecution has understood from the Chamber's prior
14 rulings and the distinction is the difference between a witness that talk
15 about either the authenticity of the document or the content of the
16 document. On a number of occasions yesterday Mr. Kljuic was shown
17 documents in which he could do neither. He knew nothing about the
18 document. It wasn't his document, nor did he know anything about the
19 substance of the document. But nonetheless, we spent a great deal of the
20 afternoon reading documents and then having the question, Did I read that
21 correctly; yes, you read it correctly. Those are the words on the written
22 page. But have no knowledge of either the content or the authenticity.
23 This witness and granted absolutely transparent on our case may
24 not -- may not be her documents but they are the documents, the content of
25 which she can address. If she can't, then we'll be corrected and the
1 Chamber will not admit the exhibits. There's not -- it's not the same
2 thing at all.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. So we're talking about the
4 contents of a document. Now, with respect to content, Ms. Egels.
5 MS. EGELS:
6 Q. Witness BR, can I ask you to read the content of the document
7 numbered 608. It's a very short content.
8 MS. EGELS: And if Your Honour wishes, she might read it out loud,
9 if it might be easier.
10 MR. KARNAVAS: Again -- excuse me, madam.
11 If we look at this document, and I certainly don't want to be, you
12 know, obstreperous, but if we look at the document and we look and see
13 what the document contains, I don't see how, keeping with the Prosecutor's
14 last comment or their response to my objection, how we can conduct a
15 hearing in this fashion. I mean, it's one thing to take a narrative from
16 the witness what happened in Prozor, please describe to us. Now we're
17 going into documents asking her to speculate as to whether something in
18 the document may be accurate. I don't see how this is -- I've never
19 experienced, you know, this sort of an examination.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That is not where the problem
21 lies, Mr. Karnavas. The witness said that the situation had deteriorated
22 as time went by, and we're talking about the 23rd of October, 1992. She
23 said that the situation had deteriorated, and here we have a document
24 where the first sentence states precisely that. "The situation in town
25 deteriorated," or, "is deteriorating."
1 So to ask whether this document coincides with what she thinks and
2 what she saw, that's another matter, but the second paragraph relates to
3 an incident.
4 Now, in order to gain time we're going to the heart of the matter
5 straight away; otherwise, we're going to lose a lot of time. Perhaps the
6 Defence wishes to waste time. But instead of saying -- we said -- the
7 Prosecutor could have asked, "Could you give us some incidents," and she
8 might have mentioned the incident of the flag. But let's try not to waste
9 time and without prejudicing your client.
10 So we have wasted quite a number of minutes now, and it doesn't
11 serve any purpose, Mr. Karnavas. As Judge Trechsel said, you are not
12 before an American Tribunal. You're in an international Tribunal which
13 uses the mixed system. And I'd like to remind you of focusing, for
14 example on the Nuremberg trial, and you will have seen that the Nuremberg
15 trial, which was the first time that international justice held a case of
16 that kind, there were thousands of documents that were admitted in written
18 Now, here we have a document relating to an incident concerning a
19 flag, which appeared on the police building. So that's the heart of the
20 matter, the basic premise.
21 Now, if the Prosecution wishes to raise this type of issue and if
22 you keep objecting, we'll be here for years and years.
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I don't mean to be objecting, but
24 let's -- let's look at it objectively speaking. And I'm very familiar
25 with the Nuremberg approach and I have no objections to that.
1 After the hoisting of the Croatian flag. Have we heard any time
2 from this particular witness about the hoisting of a flag? The answer is
3 no. That is a fact not in evidence from this particular witness. It's
4 called leading.
5 Secondly, it goes on to say, there is a possibility that a
6 large-scale clash will occur in the town. Again, how can this witness
7 comment? She can be asked what happened in Prozor on these days, and she
8 can tell us a flag was hoisted and what happened next? Well, there were
9 clashes. That's the way to approach it. But now to bring in these
10 documents through the back door, I don't see the purpose. I'll sit down.
11 I won't make any objection. But frankly, I don't think this is way to
12 take evidence. That's my professional opinion.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Egels.
14 MS. EGELS:
15 Q. Going back to the first sentence of this document,
16 Witness BR: "The situation in town is deteriorating," just as you told us
17 a few minutes ago. This is a document dated the 20th of October of 1992.
18 Do you remember the incident of the flag on this police building?
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Leading.
20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I remember this document well.
21 MS. EGELS:
22 Q. You remember this document or you remember the incident?
23 A. I remember the incident.
24 Q. Could you explain what you saw concerning this incident?
25 A. I saw a flag flying on the police station, and immediately after
1 that the people working in the MUP, the Muslims working in MUP, were
3 Q. When you say you remember a flag flying on the police station,
4 could you be more specific? What flag was it?
5 A. It was the Croatian flag with the chequer-board emblem.
6 Q. You just told us that the situation erupted on the 23rd of October
7 of 1992. Could you tell the Court what happened on the 23rd of October,
9 A. On that day there were negotiations between the Croatian Defence
10 Council and the Territorial Defence on the security situation in the
11 municipality. However, at those negotiations it was agreed that there
12 would be no conflict. But the army, the soldiers who were already in
13 town, many soldiers came into town and they were told to go to Jajce, to
14 defend Jajce because Jajce was in danger. However, at about 3.00 p.m.
15 or 3.30 p.m. shooting started in town.
16 Q. You just said that there were negotiations between the Croatian
17 Defence Council and the Territorial Defence. How are you aware of these
19 A. Since I worked in the municipality at the time, the president who
20 sat in the municipality together with us left to attend the negotiations,
21 and they said there were negotiations being conducted between the
22 Territorial Defence and the HVO.
23 Q. Could you give us the name of the president of the municipality?
24 A. The president of the municipality was named Misko Jusic.
25 Q. Do you know any other person attending these negotiations?
1 A. Yes. I knew Nikola Ivic. He attended the negotiations too.
2 Q. And who was Nikola Ivic?
3 A. He was of the president of the Executive Board.
4 Q. The president of the Executive Board of what?
5 A. Of the municipality.
6 Q. Did you see any other persons present at these negotiations?
7 A. Yes, I did. On the Bosniak side there was Muharem Sabic, the
8 commander of the Territorial Defence; and then there was Esad Bektas,
9 secretary of the municipality.
10 Q. You then told us that around 3.00 p.m. the shooting started. Do
11 you know why the shooting started? Are you aware of the reasons or what
12 started this fighting, this shooting? Were you still present?
13 A. Yes, I was. I was there.
14 Q. So do you know why the violence erupted, why the shooting started?
15 A. [No Interpretation].
16 Q. At 3.00 -- in the afternoon of the 23rd, Witness BR, where were
18 A. I was at home in my house.
19 Q. And where did the shooting start? Did you hear it? Did you see
21 A. It started in town and in the surrounding villages.
22 Q. Was there any shooting in your neighbourhood?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What did happen to your neighbourhood on the 23rd of October of
1 A. On the 23rd of October, 1992, well, the armed conflict broke out.
2 Q. But what about your neighbourhood? What happened to you? What
3 did you do?
4 A. Ah, to me. I was at home with my mother, and we heard the
5 shooting. The shooting lasted throughout the night. However, on
6 the 24th, in the morning hours, the house was burnt. Our house was burnt.
7 The HVO burnt my house, the house I was in with my mother.
8 Q. Could you give us some more details and walk us through the events
9 of the 24th when your house was burnt. How did it start?
10 A. This is how it was: The HVO soldiers came up to the front door.
11 They bashed in the door, stormed into the house and set fire to the house,
12 and we were still in the house on the ground floor, and they did all this
13 on the upper floor.
14 Q. How do you know these were HVO soldiers?
15 A. Well, I know because they wore chequer-board insignia. And I
16 personally recognised one of my neighbours who was there.
17 MS. EGELS: Maybe if we could go to private session, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into private session.
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 8087-8114 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,
9 Mr. President.
10 MS. EGELS:
11 Q. So do you recognise the place, the location on this picture?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Could you tell the Court what location this is?
14 A. This is Kucani.
15 Q. Are we talking about Exhibit 9704?
16 MS. EGELS: Just for the record, Your Honours, I believe the
17 witness was looking at another exhibit.
18 Q. So are we now looking at Exhibit 9704, Witness BR?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you recognise this location?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you tell us where this is.
23 A. Podgradje.
24 Q. Is this where you stayed during the month of August 1993?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Is the --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Since we have the photo in front
3 of us, madam, to the right we can see there's a space with a construction
4 covered by a plastic sheet, and there are these little blocks on it. What
5 was there? What was that, as far as you can remember?
6 MS. EGELS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, but again I think we are not
7 talking about the same picture. I see that the one that is displayed is
8 9705 and not 04. It seems there is a mix between two pictures.
9 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The photograph we have on the
11 screen is 9704; is that correct?
12 Madam, can you see the photograph?
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We can see to the right there is
15 a construction covered in a plastic sheet with blocks on top of it. What
16 was there before, a house, in 1993? Can you remember what there was
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, I can't remember that.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Egels, please
21 MS. EGELS:
22 Q. Witness BR, how do you know this is Podgradje?
23 A. Well, I know because I stayed there.
24 Q. Do you recognise any -- any feature on this picture that would
25 help you recognise Podgradje and not another part of town?
1 A. I can recognise all these houses and the owners, and I'm certain
2 that this is Podgradje.
3 Q. You told us that you left Podgradje at the end of August 1993,
4 that you were expelled, and that you arrived in Bugojno. I would like you
5 now --
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. -- to turn to a little bit later in time, in 1994. What were you
8 doing? What was your job at that time in the beginning of 1994?
9 A. In 1994, I worked in Bugojno municipality.
10 Q. And at one point in time in 1994 did you work for the state
11 commission for gathering facts on war crimes?
12 A. Yes. That was from March to August 1994.
13 Q. And what was your job at this commission?
14 A. I took statements from women, from the victims of abuse, in the
15 commission. So that's what my job consisted of on the whole.
16 MS. EGELS: Your Honour, maybe if we could return to private
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.
19 [Private session]
11 Pages 8118-8123 redacted. Private session.
1 [Open session]
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
3 Ms. Egels, does that complete your examination-in-chief then?
4 MS. EGELS: Yes, Your Honour, I just would like to ask you to
5 tender into evidence the exhibits that I've shown to the witness. Number
6 P 00608, P 00673 under seal, P 00679, P 02999, P 03234, P 09704, and two
7 other exhibits that have already been admitted, but I would ask the Court
8 to put them under seal, P 00640 and P 09376.
9 Thank you, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you.
11 Could the registrar tell me how much the Prosecution used -- how
12 much time the Prosecution used so that we can give the same amount of time
13 to the Defence.
14 While that is being done, I'm going to -- well, the registrar has
15 just informed me that the Prosecution used 70 minutes, which means one
16 hour and 10 minutes.
17 I turn to the Defence, and who is going to start off? Counsel
19 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I apologise,
21 but can you tell me how much time I have? The Prosecution took 70
22 minutes. So how much time do I have, 10 minutes?
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, if it's 70 divided by 6,
24 that gives you about 10 minutes each.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I was
1 thinking about the cross-examination, so I wasn't doing the calculations.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But in 10 minutes you can ask a
3 lot of questions.
4 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Yes, indeed. Thank you.
5 To start off, can we go back into private session, because I have
6 a personal question to ask?
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, private session.
8 [Private session]
22 [Open session]
23 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're back in open session,
24 Mr. President.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation]
1 Q. At the beginning of your testimony, you said that you worked in
2 the municipality. You gave us quite a lot of details. You knew a lot of
3 things. Can you remember or do you have any knowledge of where the TO
4 members in 1992, until October, as you said, together with members of the
5 HVO were? Where were they together? At what positions and who was on the
6 other side, on the opposite side?
7 A. I'm not quite clear about your question.
8 Q. While they were together, the HVO members and TO members, did they
9 hold any positions vis-a-vis the Serb side?
10 A. Yes, they did hold positions.
11 Q. Where? Where? What positions? Where was that? In the town of
12 Prozor, around Prozor, where?
13 A. In the surrounding parts around Prozor.
14 Q. Where?
15 A. I don't know exactly where but I know they held positions
17 Q. Around Prozor?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Did they hold any positions facing Kupres?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did they hold joint positions, for example, at Crni Vrh?
22 A. I don't remember about Crni Vrh, but I know that they did for
24 Q. Do you know whether the TO members dug any trenches or held any
25 positions at Crni Vrh itself, Makljen, towards Makljen, up at Crni Vrh,
1 mount Crni Vrh?
2 A. I don't know about that.
3 Q. You don't know. Right. Now, in your statement you said -- I'm
4 going to slow down. The Court hasn't reprimanded me yet, so I'll do so
5 myself. We speak the same language, so let's make pauses between question
6 and answer.
7 When you spoke about organised torching of houses, can you tell
8 me, please, or, rather, repeat already -- you've already said that. Who
9 was Ivan Dole? Did you say he was an HVO member?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you remember that you in fact gave a statement to the OTP on
12 the 6th of February, 2002, in which you describe these events?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. I'll remind you just part -- a part of your statement where you
15 say on page 5: "In front of the house, on the path I mentioned between
16 the torched house of my father and my uncle, (redacted), I saw Ivo Dole.
17 Together with him we fled to the nearby woods."
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar, strike the name
19 Ismet, please, from the record.
20 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I apologise.
21 Q. So "together with him we fled to the nearby woods in order to
22 hide from HVO soldiers."
23 Is that correct, is that what you've said?
24 A. Let me tell you, madam, to the nearby house, because the road to
25 Ivo's house led through the woods.
1 Q. So is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Why were you hiding with an HVO member, Ivo Dole, from other
4 members of the HVO?
5 A. Well, we were afraid. Imagine a situation in which you were a
6 house -- in a house which had already been half burnt to the ground. It's
7 terrible fear, and you had to hide. You hide from yourself.
8 Q. I'm not asking you about your fear. That's quite normal and
9 understandable. I'm asking you why Ivo Dole hid with you from the other
10 members of the HVO. Did he know them? Did he say he knew them? Did he
11 say he knew what they were doing there?
12 A. It was like this, madam: He wasn't in hiding nor were we in
13 hiding. That path led to his house. The path through the woods led to
14 his house.
15 Q. So what you say here is not in fact correct.
16 A. Maybe it was wrongly presented and stated wrongly, because the
17 path led through the woods to his house.
18 Q. All right. Let me ask you it this way: Did he go with you, Ivo
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So he was with you; he didn't stay with the other HVO soldiers?
22 A. No. He went with us, together with us.
23 Q. Did you talk to him about who these other soldiers were and what
24 they were doing?
25 A. No, I didn't.
1 Q. You didn't talk to him? You didn't ask him who are those men,
2 what are they doing?
3 A. No, I didn't ask him anything, because at that point in time --
4 no, I didn't ask him anything.
5 Q. Were you with him for a time at his place?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. For how long?
8 A. Five days.
9 Q. During those five days did you ever ask who those people were?
10 Did he know those people? Did he know why they were doing what they were
11 doing, on whose orders? Did you ask him any of that?
12 A. No, we asked him none of that.
13 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] May we now have on e-court
14 document 00679. It's a document presented to the witness, and it is in
15 fact a document from the head of the Main Staff of the HVO, General
16 Milivoj Petkovic. It is dated the 31st of October.
17 Q. Can you see underneath the date here, I'm referring to the
18 Croatian version, that it says: "To prevent the unruly behaviour of
20 A. Yes, I can see that.
21 Q. Now, in view of the situation and the situation that you
22 described, that a member of the HVO was hiding you in his house, that you
23 saw some people who were doing things like that, do you stand by the
24 assertion or conviction that the torching of houses during that period of
25 time was organised?
1 A. Yes, I still claim that, that it was organised.
11 Q. So you ought to know that the BH army or, rather, the defence
12 ministry for each individual leaving the municipality would have to issue
13 a permit for them to do so; is that correct?
14 A. I didn't understand your question.
15 Q. The Bugojno municipality and the department for national defence
16 in the municipality at the time you were working there, did it have to
17 issue for all military conscripts or anybody who had to do military
18 service be issued with a permit if they wanted to leave the municipality?
19 Is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So the situation is exactly the same as you described it in Prozor
22 when the HVO issued permits. Would that be the same situation?
23 A. Well, let me tell you this. I worked in Bugojno when there was no
24 conflict. The conflict had already ceased in Bugojno when I arrived there
25 in 1994 and worked in Bugojno. There wasn't a conflict going on there
2 Q. Madam, you have the education you told us you have. I can't
3 repeat what it is in open session, but was it a war situation? Was there
4 the imminent threat of war?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And were the same provisions and regulations applied during a war
7 and during imminent war? You were in Bugojno during the war situation.
8 It doesn't matter that there were no conflicts going on at the time.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. So did the same permits have to be issued throughout the territory
11 where a situation of war existed regardless of the fact of which
12 authorities controlled the area?
13 A. I know that in Bugojno permits were issued to people who wished to
14 leave the municipality, so that anybody wishing to leave would be issued a
15 permit if he wasn't a military recruit.
16 Q. And what happened to military recruits if they asked for permits
17 to leave?
18 A. They didn't -- they weren't issued with permits.
19 Q. What about those who had a work assignment like you?
20 A. They weren't issued permits either.
21 Q. So they could request a permit but weren't issued with a permit;
22 is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. In the meantime -- and I thank my colleagues, I have been given
25 Mr. Ibrisimovic's time. I'll just use a bit of it.
1 May we have a look at the next permit - it is Exhibit number 2999,
2 which was shown to the witness - for some so clarification.
3 Madam, would you take a look at this, please. It is an order, in
4 fact. And when we read the order, we can see that they regulate relations
5 on this territory because it says: "I emphasise once again that passes
6 issued by other civilian and military organs in the municipality should
7 not be recognised and that these persons should be returned."
8 So do we agree that this order, and you've read it -- well, during
9 preparations for your testimony did you see this order?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Can we agree, you and I, that this order in fact regulates
12 relations on a given territory and states who can issue passes?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And do you agree with me that in Bugojno municipality, that is to
15 say where you were, that these rules applied as well, that it was only the
16 Secretariat for National Defence who was able and permitted to issue
17 passes of this kind or permits of this kind?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Now, I wanted to focus on one particular point, and it is this.
20 The sentence which says: "This order shall apply to persons of Muslim
21 ethnicity as well." "To persons of Muslim ethnicity as well."
22 There's a problem. It says this order -- not that one. "Also
23 applied to persons of Muslim ethnicity." That's what it says in the
25 Does that mean logically to you and me that it refers to everybody
1 else, to the Croats, to the Serbs, and to persons of Muslim ethnicity? Am
2 I right in stating that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, just briefly, something about your
5 work in this commission. Can you tell the Court, please -- can you give
6 the full name of the commission to the Court? What was it called?
7 A. The commission for investigating war crimes.
8 Q. And who headed the commission?
9 A. Mirza Pogarca [as interpreted].
10 Q. Thank you. Mirsad Tokaca was the name. Tokaca Mirsad; is that
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I'm just looking at the transcript to get the name right. Do you
14 agree with me that the commission was actually called the state commission
15 for gathering information on war crimes?
16 A. Yes, that's right. I just gave you the abridged version.
17 Q. Right. But it was a state commission.
18 A. Yes, a state commission.
19 Q. Now, while -- you were working as a volunteer; is that right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. While you were working as a volunteer for that commission, did you
22 have any knowledge of, did you have an assignment to or knew about anybody
23 collecting information about crimes committed in Bugojno against Croats?
24 A. No, I didn't know anything about that.
25 Q. You didn't work on that yourself?
1 A. No.
2 Q. You didn't have an assignment of that kind?
3 A. No.
4 Q. You didn't know that anybody in the commission gathered
5 information of that kind?
6 A. No, I don't know anything about that.
7 Q. You as a citizen of Bugojno, did you hear that there were crimes
8 committed against Croats and that Croats were in prisons, too, that they
9 were killed, that their wives were raped and so on, women were raped and
10 so on?
11 A. No, I didn't hear about that. I didn't wish to hear anything
12 about that. I had enough problems of my own from my own people, and I
13 didn't talk to anybody about things like that.
14 Q. When you said, "I had enough of my own," what do you mean your
16 A. I had my own problems. That's what I meant. Problems of my own.
17 So when you have your own problems you don't have time to deal with other
19 Q. But you did deal with other people's problems. You listened to
20 women, heard their statements, Bosniak women who were raped by Croats?
21 A. Yes, I did do that.
22 Q. So those are your problems. You considered those to be your
23 problems; is that right?
24 A. Well, let me tell you, it's like this. They were the problems in
25 my own municipality. I'm sure that somebody worked for the Bugojno
1 municipality to collect information of that kind. I didn't know what they
2 did, just as they didn't know what I did for the Prozor municipality.
3 Q. During your work did you ever receive any information according to
4 which some Croats were abused, arrested, expelled, that their houses were
5 torched, that they were killed, anything like that? During that period of
6 time, because you occupied a very important post. Lots of people went
7 through your office. I assume everybody, the whole town goes through your
8 offices. So everybody had problems to solve and go to the office that you
9 worked in, not to mention your exact work post. Did you ever hear of
10 things like that happening to Croats?
11 A. I didn't work in Bugojno for a long time.
12 Q. But during that brief period of time did you hear about that?
13 A. Well, whoever had a problem asked for Mr. Vlaco [as interpreted]
14 and spoke to him. I really don't know how or why they came.
15 Q. Did anyone speak to you out of the individuals that you contacted
16 about war crimes? Did they tell you about crimes against Croats?
17 A. Well, they spoke about crimes, but I couldn't say anything about
18 that. I didn't see them. I wasn't there during the conflict.
19 Q. You told the Chamber, with regard to the rape of Muslim women and
20 their names, you said that you found out about these crimes because
21 someone told you about them. You followed the line of information. Did
22 you do the same to find out what had happened to Croats if you heard that
23 something had happened to them?
24 A. I had no authority to do that.
25 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. I have no
1 further questions.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could we have the next Defence
3 team, please. Ms. Alaburic.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honours. My
6 colleague, Ms. Nozica, says that we should correct something in the
7 transcript. On page 72, line 18, it should say Mlaco, with an M, instead
8 of Vlaco. So the first letter is wrong.
9 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:
10 Q. Witness, good day. My name is Vesna Alaburic. I'm a lawyer from
11 Zagreb, and I represent General Milivoj Petkovic in these proceedings. I
12 have a few questions for you that concern your testimony, and that also
13 concern the written statements you provided to the Prosecution.
17 A. No, not from the security service in Bugojno, in Prozor.
18 Q. I apologise. In Prozor. You said that you handed over the
19 statements to him; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Can you tell us whether while gathering those statements, while
22 taking those statements you cooperated with him by asking him for
23 any explanations, assistance to locate women, et cetera?
24 A. No. I did this myself. I performed such duties myself. I looked
25 for the women and took statements from them.
4 A. No.
5 Q. So can we conclude that when taking statements from raped women
6 you cooperated exclusively with the security service and not with the
7 state commission for investigating war crimes?
10 Q. Very well. But I'm interested in your direct link.
15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Witness, I'm interested in your communication with this
17 individual. According to your testimony, while gathering or taking
18 statements, you didn't cooperate with anyone in the state commission for
19 investigating war crimes; is that correct?
20 A. Well, I have just told you how I did this.
21 Q. Yes, I understand that this was through the security service. But
22 you did not have direct contact with the state commission?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Thank you. Tell us, with regard to the statements that you took,
25 did you ever testify about these statements before a court, or did you
1 contribute to the institution of proceedings in any other way and to the
2 sanctions being taken against the perpetrators?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Thank you. You said that the women you interviewed told you how
5 they had been raped by HVO soldiers.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Are you sure that the women you interviewed said that exactly?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Some of the women you have interviewed have testified here, and
10 their testimony doesn't correspond to what you have said. They said that
11 there were men who arrived in civilian clothing. They also mentioned
12 members of other units, and this is why I'm now asking you. On what basis
13 did the women you interviewed come to the conclusion that the men involved
14 were HVO soldiers?
15 A. Well, they came to that conclusion because the men who were in
16 uniforms with the chequer-boards and they knew they were HVO soldiers.
17 Q. So you are sure that the all the women that you interviewed said
18 that those who had raped them were HVO soldiers.
19 A. Well, according to their statements, yes.
20 Q. According to their statements.
21 A. Well, I know what the women said when they gave me their
22 statements. I can't write anything else down.
23 Q. I'm just trying to ask you whether you are quite sure that those
24 were the contents of their statements.
25 A. Well, yes. The statements I took reflected what they said. I
1 noted down what they actually said.
2 Q. As far as the investigating war crimes are concerned - I only have
3 another two questions - according to your information to the state
4 commission for investigating war crimes had the task of investigating all
5 crimes committed in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6 A. Well, yes, it did have that task.
7 Q. Do you have any information according to which that state
8 commission determined that -- that a crime was committed by the ABiH?
9 A. I assume they did.
10 Q. Tell us, did the state commission for investigating war crimes
11 publish the results of its investigations in books and reviews about
12 crimes committed in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina? Is there a lot
13 of literature about the subject, unfortunately a lot?
14 A. Probably.
15 Q. And in all these publications published by the state commission
16 for war crimes, did you ever come across information on crimes committed
17 by members of the ABiH?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. In which publication? Which crime is in question? Could you tell
20 us, please.
21 A. Well, for example, crimes committed in Uzdol, Gabravica,
22 et cetera.
23 Q. And these publications were published by the state commission for
24 war crimes?
25 A. I've heard about those war crimes, but believe me, right now I
1 cannot remember everything.
2 Q. On the basis of your answer can we draw the conclusion that you
3 cannot claim for certain that you ever found out that the state commission
4 for war crimes published information on war crimes committed by members of
5 the ABiH?
6 A. I really couldn't answer that question.
7 Q. Thank you. I now have some questions that concern the incident
8 with the flag in Prozor on the 20th of October, 1992.
9 In response to a question from the Prosecution, you said that on
10 the 20th of October, 1992, a chequer-board flag was flown from the police
11 building, a Croatian flag.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. When this flag was hoisted, was some other flag taken down from
14 that building?
15 A. I don't know, believe me. I'm not aware of any other flag being
17 Q. And next to the Croatian flag was there some other flag?
18 A. I don't know. I'm not aware of that.
19 Q. And a day earlier, on the 19th of October, on the police building
20 could you tell us whether there was a flag on the police building then?
21 A. I can't remember.
22 Q. Would you pass by the police building?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. How is it that you saw -- or, rather, did you see the Croatian
25 flag on the police building on the 20th of October?
1 A. On the 20th of October I was told that there was a Croatian flag
2 that had been hoisted, and then I later passed by and saw it.
3 Q. How did you hear about the Croatian flag flying from the building,
4 and why was this new? Why should people speak about it?
5 A. Well, it wasn't particularly important because at the time I
6 worked in Prozor municipality and, well, they said there was a Croatian
7 flag on the -- flying from the police station. And then I passed by and
8 saw it.
9 Q. Like my colleague, Nozica, I would like to refer your to your
10 educational background and your knowledge of the judicial system in
12 My question is as follows: As a rule, buildings that were part of
13 a state body, that belonged to a state body, did they usually have flags
14 flying from them? The municipality building, for example, the police
15 building, the state inspector's office, tax office, et cetera, did these
16 buildings have flags flying from them?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Yes. So it would be logical for there to be a flag flying from
19 the police station before the 20th of October?
20 A. Well, I can't remember.
21 Q. I'm asking you whether that would be logical.
22 A. Yes, it would be logical to expect there to be a flag there.
23 Q. Would you be surprised if I told you that on the 20th of October,
24 1992, both the Croatian flag and the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina were
25 flying from that building?
1 A. That's possible.
2 Q. You said that hoisting the Croatian flag provoked a Muslim revolt
3 to a certain extent.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you explain to us what the flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina
6 looked like at the time?
7 A. The flag of Bosnia and Herzegovina had lilies on it at the time.
8 Q. It had lilies on it. Thank you. You also said that on the 20th
9 of October, 1992, the Muslim police members were dismissed.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you see any letter of dismissal that had been provided to
12 Muslim policemen?
13 A. You mean in a written letter?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. I didn't see any written letters, but I know that these people
16 didn't go to work.
17 Q. They didn't go to work. I'm interested in that. Why did you come
18 to the conclusion that these individuals didn't go to work, because they
19 had been fired?
20 A. Well, they were not allowed to enter the building.
21 Q. Well, according to the information you had, who prevented them
22 from entering the building? Who forbade it?
23 A. I don't know.
24 Q. How -- what's your source of information, according to which they
25 were not allowed to enter the building?
1 A. I don't know what the reason was.
2 Q. Do you know that because the Croatian flag had been hoisted on the
3 police building the Muslims -- the Muslim policemen were so revolted they
4 decided not to go to work? Were you provided with such information?
5 A. No. I'm not familiar with that.
6 Q. Thank you very much.
7 I now have a number of questions that concern the houses that were
8 set on fire. Please have a look at P 09376. Could we have the document
9 on the screen too. It's a document that we have already seen. It's a
10 description of the houses that were set on fire.
11 Witness, we can now see the list of the houses in Prozor that had
12 been set on fire from the 23rd of October onwards. 1992 is the year
13 concerned. If I have correctly noted your testimony, today you said that
14 in April 1993 Ibrahim Sljivo's house was set on fire. Is that correct?
15 Is that what you said?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Please have a look at the list and find the houses that were set
18 on fire in April and tell us whether the house you mentioned is included
19 in the list.
20 So as not to waste time, this list doesn't include any houses
21 burnt in April, and the name of Ibrahim Sljivo that you mentioned is not
22 on the list either.
23 Could you now have a look at the name Salko Konjaric. You said
24 that his house was burned in June 1993.
25 So as not to waste time, there is no information here about June,
1 and this name that you've mentioned doesn't appear.
2 A. Konjaric Hata. That's his mother. But the date is the 10th of
3 May; perhaps I was a little mistaken when it comes to the date. Konjaric
4 Hata. Under number 50.
5 Q. So can I draw the conclusion that it was incorrect when you said
6 that Salko Konjaric's house was set on fire in June? The answer is
8 A. The 10th of May. Well, I was a little mistaken when it comes to
9 the date, but it's more or less that period. Konjaric Hata.
10 Q. We're talking about Salko Konjaric and about whether his house was
11 set on fire in June.
12 I have a few questions about this document. Can you tell us who
13 compiled the document and when?
14 A. Well, I really don't know who compiled the document.
15 Q. Can you tell us when it was compiled? Approximately.
16 A. I don't know, believe me.
17 Q. According to what you know, were some houses in Prozor damaged,
18 set on fire, or destroyed as a result of the combat? Did any shells fall
19 on houses?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. According to what you can see in the list, are those houses also
22 included among the houses that were destroyed in Prozor from October 1992
24 A. Something was destroyed in the fighting, but most of them were
1 Q. All right. Thank you. Now, can you tell us whether in the Prozor
2 municipality there was the Territorial Defence Staff headquarters?
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] We're going to have to stop
4 there. We've already gone on for an hour and a half. We have to make a
5 30-minute break now for technical reasons.
6 Yes, the Prosecution.
7 MS. EGELS: Yes, Your Honour. I would like to ask the redaction
8 of lines 67 -- page 67, line 11 to 19 as they might help in identifying
9 the witness.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. That's been done.
11 We reconvene at 1.00.
12 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
13 --- On resuming at 1.00 p.m.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Alaburic.
15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Witness, may we just finish off discussing the document still on
17 our screens. It is a list of facilities in Prozor municipality which were
18 destroyed in one way or another from the 23rd of October onwards.
19 Now, from what we've said so far -- or, rather, from what you've
20 said so far about the document, we can conclude that this document
21 contains the buildings and facilities destroyed in battle, during the
22 fighting; is that right?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And we can conclude also that you cannot confirm who compiled this
25 document and when; is that right?
1 Witness, can you switch your microphone on, please, and could you
2 repeat the answer to that last question of mine.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. All right. Now, may the witness be shown P 00640, the next
5 document. And I'd like to ask you to open the document in front of you.
6 It is a list of confiscated vehicles -- or, rather, vehicles seized.
7 Now, with respect to that document, you told us that on the list
8 here there was the vehicle that was set fire to.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Now, with all your education, are you able to conclude that the
11 list is not a list of vehicles -- only vehicles seized or confiscated,, I
12 assume you know what the term "confiscated" means.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So there are also vehicles on list which were not confiscated; is
15 that right?
16 A. Yes. Most of them were confiscated, but there are vehicles, such
17 as my brother's car, I know for sure was burnt.
18 Q. All right. Fine. Now, who and when was this list compiled? Who
19 compiled the list and when?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 A. You're welcome.
23 Q. You told us that you worked in the municipality --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Alaburic, we gave you a
25 lot of time, but you've already overstepped the time limit. You have
1 taken up 20 minutes.
2 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I have been given time by the
3 Praljak Defence, and I also consulted the Valentin Coric Defence, and they
4 told me that they just need about 10 minutes. So can we ask the
5 Prosecutor how much time they will need?
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, they do not -- they do not have more
7 than 10 minutes from the beginning, so there's nothing left over to give
8 to you, I'm afraid.
9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] No, they don't have anything to
10 give me. All I'm saying is that they will need 10 minutes. So if the
11 Prosecutor does not need additional time, I suggest that we use up today's
12 session for listening to the witness, and if it's 10 minutes longer than
13 what was provided for, I don't expect that will be a problem for the Trial
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Get to the heart of the matter
16 straight away then.
17 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Madam Witness, I hope that this will still be important, because
19 these are documents that we discussed that came from the Prosecution. You
20 told us that you worked in the municipality up until the middle of 1993;
21 is that right?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I take it that you weren't dismissed, nobody prevented you from
24 working, and that you continued working just like you did before; is that
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. I'd now like you to tell us if you compare the situation in 1993
3 to the situation that prevailed previously in the place you lived, would
4 you agree with me when I say that there were a great many more people who
5 came into your town from other places, Bugojno and other places like that
6 from Central Bosnia-Herzegovina?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Could these be counted in their thousands, thousands of new people
9 coming into the Prozor area?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Would you agree with me when I say that there were a great many
12 members of military units as well in the Prozor municipality?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Can you confirm that in the Prozor area and the surrounding parts
15 there were certain -- a certain amount of fighting going on?
16 A. For what period are you asking?
17 Q. The entire period, up until mid-1993. Until August 1993, let's
18 say, when you left the town. Was there fighting going on, or was it just
19 peaceful? I'm not asking you for the town itself, but I'm also asking you
20 for the entire municipality and surrounding parts.
21 A. Yes, there was fighting.
22 Q. Thank you. Do you know that during that combat members of the
23 civilian and military police were engaged as well?
24 A. No, I'm not aware of that.
25 Q. Well, I'm telling you that they were. Now, on that basis would it
1 be logical to conclude that in view of the increased number of people in
2 the town itself and the lack of policemen that it was very difficult to
3 keep law and order, public law and order?
4 A. Can you repeat that question?
5 Q. In view of the many more people who had come in to Prozor
6 municipality and the fact that there were more military unit members and
7 the general combat that was going on, the problems with food and many
8 other problems that created a situation of chaos that it was very
9 difficult to keep law and order or maintain public law and order in town?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, you also told us that to the best of your
12 knowledge the civilian and military authorities on the territory of your
13 municipality did nothing to establish public law and order linked to an
14 order from General Milivoj Petkovic issued on the 31st of October.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I'd just like to ask you something in that regard about several
17 decisions, in fact, signed by the president of the civilian -- yes, if I
18 can say so, the civilian HVO.
19 And just a digression here: During 1993, did you work in a
20 building in which Mr. Mijo Jozic was, too, where he had his office?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Do you happen to know that already in November 1992, a mixed
23 Muslim-Croat commission was set up which was supposed to assess and
24 determine the damage done to state and private facilities? Do you know
25 about that?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you tell me what you know about that particular commission and
3 what it established? Were people remunerated for the damage done?
4 A. The commission went round to visit the damaged facilities, torched
5 facilities. They made a record, compiled a record and minutes of that,
6 but people were never refunded for the damage done.
7 Q. When you say "never," what period of time are you referring to?
8 A. From the time the damage was incurred to the present day.
9 Q. Yes.
10 A. Yes, that's right.
11 Q. Can we then conclude that during the time that Prozor was not
12 fully controlled by the HVO but by another power, people did -- received
13 no remuneration for the damage that had been incurred to their property?
14 A. I don't understand your question.
15 Q. Well, the powers and authorities changed in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
16 There were different people in power. So I'm asking you after the
17 Washington agreements and Dayton Accords the powers that be established in
18 Prozor, did they perhaps make up for the damages incurred?
19 A. No.
20 Q. All right. We'll deal with this subject later on through other
21 witnesses. But do you happen to know a request made by Mr. Mijo Jozic to
22 increase the number of policemen in the Prozor municipality so that law
23 and order could be preserved? Do you know these efforts on his part, that
24 is to say to increase the number of policemen on the police force?
25 A. No, I don't.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, do you know an order issued by the chief of the
2 military police to have vehicles returned who -- which were confiscated
3 contrary to legal provisions in Prozor?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you know about the conclusion made by the municipal authorities
6 of your town to replace and dismiss all those who took part in any looting
7 and who engaged in crimes on the territory of Prozor?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Can you now tell me, in view of your education, these decisions
10 that I picked, had you known about these decisions would you still claim
11 that the HVO authorities did nothing to preserve law and order or
12 establish law and order in Prozor?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You would stand by your statement?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Regardless of these decisions?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you explain how that is?
19 A. Well, the situation in the field was --
20 Q. I'm not asking you about the results. I'm asking you about the
21 efforts made to do something. I assume you can differentiate between the
22 endeavours on the part of the authorities to do something and the results
23 of their efforts. So I'm just asking you about their efforts, the steps
24 they undertook and efforts they made. We'll leave the results of that
25 alone and discuss them in due course. But all the conclusions and
1 decisions that I mentioned a moment ago, which I just selected at random
2 by way of example, can confirm that the authorities did indeed wish to
3 establish public law and order.
4 A. On the basis of documents the answer would be yes.
5 Q. Just one more question with the Court's indulgence, and it is
6 linked to your statement. You told us -- or, actually, you didn't tell us
7 but it was recorded in your statement, the statement of the 6th of
8 February, 2002, that after the conflict in October 1992, most of the men
9 decided not to remain in Prozor and that they left and went to Jablanica
10 or Gornji Vakuf. Is that right?
11 A. Yes. The people's whose houses had been devastated went to
12 Jablanica and Gornji Vakuf.
13 Q. Let me remind you, with the Court's indulgence, of a portion of
14 your statement of the 6th of February, 2002, and it is contained on page 6
15 of the English version and page 8 of the -- or 6 of the Croatian version
16 and 5 of the English version. You didn't speak about the departure of men
17 who lived in the houses which had been destroyed, but you refer to men
18 who -- or males who for security reasons went to Jablanica and
19 Gornji Vakuf and joined up with the BH army forces there.
20 A. Yes. As I said, they were mostly people who didn't have anywhere
21 to go. They couldn't return to their own houses.
22 Q. So the males didn't have any place to return went to Jablanica and
23 Gornji Vakuf, and those males without a roof over their heads left their
24 women, children, and elderly people. Is that what you're saying?
25 A. No. Whole families left.
1 Q. I see, whole families left. Now, on those same pages of that
2 statement of yours, you said that the women, children, and elderly persons
3 remained in Prozor while the men, for the most part, left to Jablanica and
4 Gornji Vakuf to join up with the BH army forces there.
5 A. Yes. But I should have added those who didn't have anywhere to
6 live in Prozor.
7 Q. So the men who didn't have anywhere to live left.
8 A. They left with their families.
9 Q. Right. They left with their families. That means that in 2002,
10 when you gave this statement, you did not tell us the exact -- describe
11 the exact situation.
12 Now, two more questions. You mentioned in your statements that
13 the men left, the women stayed, and that the women asked the president of
14 the municipality to organise a convoy in order to leave town; is that
16 A. Not those women. Not the women that left.
17 Q. Well, no, not the women who left, of course, the women who stayed
19 A. Yes, but they didn't ask those men, but the women who were in town
20 with their own families.
21 Q. So the women who were in town with their husbands asked that a
22 convoy to leave town be organised.
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Can you explain to us how the women went to ask for this and not
25 the men, not their husbands who lived in the same town, or at least a
1 mixed delegation?
2 A. All I know is that the women came to talk to the president for the
3 population to be evacuated because the living conditions were terrible.
4 Q. Can you tell us this: You and most other witnesses who left the
5 Prozor municipality told us that they left and went to Bugojno. Can you
6 tell us whether you received any instructions, particular instructions to
7 go to Bugojno, or how come you decided to go precisely to Bugojno?
8 A. We didn't have anywhere else to go.
9 Q. So it was only the road leading to Bugojno that was free, there
10 was free passage on that road. You couldn't take any other route?
11 A. No.
12 Q. How come some people went to Jablanica and Vakuf then?
13 A. Jablanica Vakuf?
14 Q. Yes.
15 A. They didn't go then. They had left previously.
16 Q. How did some people from Jablanica go towards Bugojno as well,
17 even going on foot for a great part -- for a lot of the time?
18 A. I don't know about that. Perhaps that happened, but I really
19 don't know. All I do know is that the population mostly moved to Bugojno.
20 Q. Yes. They were concentrated in Bugojno. Now, I'm interested in
21 knowing how they happened to go precisely to Bugojno and stay there. Can
22 you explain that to us?
23 A. Well, they didn't have anywhere else to go.
24 Q. And how did you learn about the fact that there was an area in
25 Bugojno where you could be accommodated? Did anyone tell you that?
1 A. Madam, nobody told us that, but since we spent a little time in
2 Celina, in Buturovic Polje, they told us there were room in Bugojno, so
3 most of the population went to Bugojno.
4 Q. Who told you that there was some room in Bugojno?
5 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Just one more question.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'm going to stop you there
7 because Mr. Coric has 10 minutes and Mr. Prlic has 10 minutes, or rather
8 their counsel, and we're not going to be able to get through that if you
9 continue with your questioning.
10 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] With the Court's indulgence, just
11 one more question with regard to accommodation in Bugojno.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right, the last question
14 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
15 Q. Witness, did you ever hear about a concept which was relatively
16 frequently mentioned here and also in the documentation of international
17 organisations, the notion of exchange of --
18 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the other word.
19 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. What does that concept mean, what does the term mean?
21 A. Since the population was Croatian, came to Bugojno, the civilian
22 population, and took over the houses of Bosniaks in Prozor, then it was
23 assumed that there was room in Bugojno for Prozor Bosniaks since the
24 others were in our houses in Prozor.
25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Witness. Thank you,
1 Your Honour.
2 Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:
3 Q. Good afternoon, madam. I'm not going to introduce myself. We
4 don't have time for that.
5 I'll start straight away. And I'll follow on from what my
6 colleague before me asked you, and I'm going to ask you this: Where were
7 you put up in Bugojno?
8 A. I was accommodated in a friend's house in Bugojno.
9 Q. And the friends were in that house, too, with you?
10 A. No. The friends had two houses and we lived in one of their
12 Q. Thank you. Tell me now, please, and I'd like to go back to your
13 statement, I'm sure you'll remember, and somebody already asked you that,
14 I think, of my colleagues, you gave in a statement to the OTP, the
15 investigators of the OTP on the 1st of June, 2002. You remember that, I'm
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I'd like to read out something from that statement of yours now.
19 In the statement it says linked to the women that you interviewed, that's
20 what this is about, and in the statement it says the following: "At the
21 beginning of our conversation, I would tell them that I would take their
22 statement secretly, confidentially, and that their husbands and families
23 would not learn about the statement they had given."
24 Similarly, the statement says, reads: "None of the women that I
25 spoke to told me that they had filed a complaint with the authorities."
1 Is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you very much.
4 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Could we briefly move into
5 private session, please.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.
7 [Private session]
11 Page 8158 redacted. Private session.
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,
9 Mr. President.
10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Let's say did one of the roads lead through Gornji Vakuf to Jajce?
12 A. Well, believe me, I can't remember what the roads were like. I
13 know that they just said that they had come to help Jajce because Jajce
14 was under threat.
15 Q. Where is the road that leads to Jajce, madam? Does it pass
16 through Gornji Vakuf? You're from that area. You must know which area
17 the road passes through.
18 A. Well, I'm not sure where they were supposed to go. They all came
19 claiming that they had to go to Jajce, but believe me, I don't know which
20 road they used.
21 Q. I'm not asking you about their intentions. I'm asking you about
22 geography. Does the road for Jajce pass through Vakuf? Is Vakuf between
23 Prozor and Jajce? Let's put it that way.
24 A. No it isn't.
25 Q. Vakuf isn't between Prozor and Jajce. Have you heard of a place
1 called Karamustafic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Where is it?
4 A. In Gornji Vakuf.
5 Q. Do you know whether there was a check-point of some kind in
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Do you know whether any of the troops in Prozor set off for Jajce?
9 A. I don't know. Believe me, I don't know whether they set off.
10 Q. You don't know.
11 A. I don't.
12 Q. Thank you. And my very last question: Perhaps you remember
13 having seen a photograph that you recognised today. It was a photograph
14 of Podgradje where you were accommodated.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. I don't want to call up the photograph now, but in that photograph
17 can you see the location of the house you were accommodated in?
18 A. No, you can't see it.
19 Q. Can you see any houses in the vicinity of that house?
20 A. No. It was outside the frame of the photograph.
21 Q. Can you see the woods that you hid in in that photograph?
22 A. I just have to have a look.
23 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] It might be easier to see
24 that photograph again. P 0794. Perhaps we could have it on the screen
25 for everyone. P 0794. P 09 -- I see it's been incorrectly entered in the
1 transcript. That's the one.
2 Q. Can you see the woods in the photograph?
3 A. No. The part of the woods that we went to can't be seen here
4 because the house was down below. It can't be seen in this photograph.
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
6 I have no further questions.
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: May I? Still on the picture and the location of
8 the house, was it to the left or to the right of the road one sees on the
9 left hand of the picture?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It was to the left.
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, you have
13 10 minutes.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions.
15 Cross-examination by Mr. Karnavas:
16 Q. Good morning, madam. I want to touch upon a question that was
17 posed by my colleague, Ms. Alaburic, and I want to go into it a little bit
19 MR. KARNAVAS: Perhaps we can go into I guess a private session?
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Registrar.
21 [Private session]
11 Page 8162-8167 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We're in open session,
13 Mr. President.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, this concludes your
15 testimony. I'd like to thank you for having come to testify at the
16 request of the Prosecution in The Hague, and we wish you a safe trip home.
17 Don't move until we have lowered the blinds.
18 As far as the admission of documents is concerned into evidence on
19 the part of the Prosecution, does the Defence have any comments to make?
20 Mr. Kovacic -- or Ms. Alaburic.
21 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I object to two
22 documents that are tendered. The list of houses and vehicles, P 09376 and
23 P 00640. I believe that the witness was unable to confirm when the list
24 was compiled or who the author was, so I don't think it's a reliable
1 I'd like to point out also that I'm not sure whether the
2 Prosecution intended to tender these documents.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Prosecution.
4 MS. EGELS: Yes, Your Honour. Just for the record, these two
5 exhibits have already been admitted on previous -- a previous session.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That's what I
8 Tomorrow, the hearing will start at 9.00, and two witnesses will
9 be appearing.
10 Mr. Kovacic.
11 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, shall we be tendering
12 documents into evidence tomorrow for the witness Kljuic? However you
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Well, the best would be to
15 deal with it tomorrow morning at the beginning of the hearing. We'll do
16 that tomorrow as soon as the hearing commences.
17 Thank you, and I will see you all tomorrow morning at 9.00.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.45 p.m.,
20 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 11th day
21 of October, 2006, at 9.00 a.m.