061123ED

Page 10611

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 [Open session]

4 MS. EGELS:

5 Q. Witness, can I take you now --

6 THE REGISTRAR: [Interpretation] We are in open session, Mr.

7 President.

8 MS. EGELS:

9 Q. Witness, can I take you now to Exhibit number 3160. This is an

10 order by Colonel Obradovic dated the 3rd of July, 1993, and I am referring

11 more specifically to the first item of that order. It's the first page in

12 English and the first page and only page in the B/C/S version.

13 "The civil police of Capljina and Stolac are to take upon

14 themselves and command sweeping authority in terms of protecting the

15 citizens and towns of Capljina and Stolac as well as their property, with

16 a view to preventing looting and violence."

17 Is this the situation how you recall it in the summer of 1993?

18 A. When it comes to this, as to this kind of security, I didn't feel

19 that on my own skin because I was in the house when three armed soldiers

20 stormed into the house, searched the house looking for gold, jewellery,

21 and money. So I can't say that this was actually the truth of it, that

22 this is how it was.

23 Q. I would like now to turn to Exhibit 3222. This is again an order

24 by Commander Obradovic dated the 6th of July, 1993. And unless there are

25 objections from the Defence, this is a document that corroborates what has

Page 10612

1 already been explained by the witness, which is the arrest of the Muslim

2 men in fighting age. So I would like to tender the document maybe without

3 putting it again to the witness, as it is something similar to what she

4 already testified about.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

6 MR. KARNAVAS: I object, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right.

8 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I'd just like to draw

9 your attention the fact that by this order -- this order is a complement

10 to a previous order, so for the Trial Chamber and the completeness of the

11 question asked the witness, it would be necessary to have the previous

12 order, because we don't really know what this present order changes in

13 relation to the previous order. Thank you.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, yes. But, Counsel

15 Alaburic, during the cross-examination, if you are challenging the

16 contents of the order and its weight, you can present the document that

17 you probably have. That's your work, part of your job.

18 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Yes, absolutely, Your Honour. I

19 just wanted to draw your attention to the fact that here the first point

20 is rescinded of another point in the first order that the Court has no

21 knowledge of.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. We'll bear that in mind.

23 MS. EGELS:

24 Q. Witness CE, can I take you now to Exhibit number 3222. And more

25 specifically, to the last page -- the second page, last page in the

Page 10613

1 English version, and the second page in the B/C/S version, the paragraph

2 under --

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Haven't you made a mistake

4 because 3222 is the one we've just looked at.

5 MS. EGELS: Thank you, Your Honour. It's 3347 indeed. 3347.

6 Q. And to the paragraph on page 2 under the title "Security-Related

7 Events." This is a report signed by Kresimir Bogdanovic on the 10th of

8 July, 1993, and it refers to a meeting held at the command company

9 attended by the chief of the military police administration, Mr. Valentin

10 Coric, the commander of the Stolac MUP, Mr. Pero Raguz, and other persons.

11 In your statement, you refer to the chief of MUP, Pero Raguz, who

12 seemed to be in charge of some operations of expulsions on the 4th of

13 August, 1993. Is this the person you refer to in this paragraph?

14 A. Could you repeat the number, please? I haven't been able to find

15 my way in this document.

16 Q. Sorry, that was my mistake. The number of the document is 3347,

17 3347. And the paragraph is on the second page under the

18 title "Security-Related Events." "Sigurnosno", and my B/C/S is not that

19 good.

20 Is this the Pero Raguz that you're referring to in your statement?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. I would like to take you now to Exhibit number 7529?

23 A. Yes.

24 Q. Exhibit 7529. In your statement you explained that this certain

25 Dr. Mehmet Kapic was running the Kostana hospital. On the first page of

Page 10614

1 this document, both in the B/C/S and the English version, which is an

2 information by Colonel Siljeg to Colonel Biskic on the 8th of January,

3 1994. It refers to Dr. Mehmet Kapic that has been arrested by the HVO

4 military police on the occasion of closing down the Stolac field hospital.

5 Is this the Mehmet Kapic you refer to in your statement?

6 A. Yes. He was a very humane person who worked in the hospital all

7 his life.

8 Q. Thank you. I would like to take you now to Exhibit 7533.

9 MS. EGELS: And if there is no objection by the Defence, Your

10 Honours, I would like to tender this together with the previous exhibit

11 because it refers exactly to the same document but it has a cover page,

12 and that cover page, of course, cannot be authenticated by the witness,

13 but it is the same content.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: No objections from --

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Right.

16 MS. EGELS:

17 Q. Witness, can I ask you to go to Exhibit number 9745. Do you

18 recognise this place?

19 A. Yes. It is the institution I worked in.

20 Q. Could you give us the name of the place?

21 A. Kostana hospital.

22 Q. And could I ask you to go to Exhibit number 9746. Do you

23 recognise this place?

24 A. Yes. This is the VP Dom building where I spent almost four months

25 as a prisoner.

Page 10615

1 Q. Thank you, Witness CE.

2 MS. EGELS: Your Honour, I have no further exhibits and no further

3 questions.

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You're welcome.

5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. As I have already

6 told you, the Defence has one and a half hours at their disposal. I don't

7 know how you've decided to distribute the time, but if I divide the time

8 by six, that makes it 15 minutes per Defence team. So who is going to

9 kick off?

10 MR. KARNAVAS: I have no questions for this witness, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. There's a question

12 from the Bench, and I'll give you the floor in just a moment.

13 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Madam Witness CE, you spoke about

14 Exhibit number 2215, and you spoke about the order from Colonel Obradovic,

15 who asked that all -- who ordered that all the material and equipment from

16 the osteopathic ward of the hospital should be taken away.

17 Now, I'd like you to tell me whether in that hospital there was

18 just the osteopathy ward or was there another service in the hospital.

19 And why, to the best of your knowledge, all the equipment was taken away?

20 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we just clarify

21 one point. I don't know if it's a matter of the translation, but in point

22 13, it says that it is ordered to block taking away the equipment from the

23 hospital. So it's not -- the order isn't to take the equipment away but

24 to prevent the equipment from being taken away. There was a ban on taking

25 this away.

Page 10616

1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] I think there's another problem

2 here. I don't think the translation of the document is correct.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. You're going to help us

4 out here, Mr. Kovacic. You're going to read paragraph 13 out to us in

5 your own language, and with the usual vigilance of the interpreters, they

6 will translate it for us, and that way we'll see clearly how things stand.

7 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in point 13 of that

8 order, it says as follows: "The commander of the IZM of Stolac should

9 block immediately the entrance of new patients into the Kostana hospital

10 and the taking away of MTS from the hospital, material and technical

11 equipment, MTS." Now, in the translation, these words "taking away the

12 material and technical equipment from the same building" have been

13 translated with the words "Material and technical equipment," whereas in

14 the Croatian, we just have the abbreviation MTS.

15 I don't know where -- this is a draft translation, so not a full

16 version. I don't know where the interpreters get the right to translate

17 the MTS abbreviation with the full words, "material and technical

18 equipment," especially because this abbreviation MTS, in the military

19 jargon, in military jargon, is used for material and technical equipment.

20 That is the abbreviation in military jargon. But here we're dealing with

21 a hospital where the equipment is different and the resources are

22 different. So I don't think that the equipment -- that the translation is

23 the right one because we don't know what the MTS stands for in this

24 particular case. But anyway, it is a ban on taking away MTS regardless of

25 what this MTS stands for.

Page 10617

1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I'll give you the floor, Ms.

2 Egels, but after hearing what has been read out, we have the impression

3 that the order given was to prevent the arrival of new patients to the

4 hospital, to the osteopathic ward of the hospital, and also the order

5 given was to prevent that any material leaves the hospital, which is quite

6 the opposite. It's quite the contrary to the English version as it

7 stands. So what is your position?

8 MS. EGELS: Your Honours, I -- I don't believe it is the contrary

9 to the English version because it says, "Shall immediately block admission

10 of new patients and the taking out of the material." So to my

11 understanding, it blocks both actions.

12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, what is much more important is what the

13 witness understood when she said, at page 11, that this is what she

14 remembered from the situation. That paragraph was put to her. The most

15 important thing in the end is what the witness understood, and if she was

16 not under a clear understanding, it must now be re-put it her so we be

17 very clear what the witness said because none of us are giving evidence.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry, counsel. I think this is completely

19 useless because it is so clear what we have, that we should not lose

20 another second on this question.

21 MR. STEWART: With respect, Your Honour, I do not, with respect,

22 agree because we need again -- if it is very clear to the witness, if the

23 witness says, yes, I fully understood when I confirmed this paragraph,

24 then I'm a hundred per cent in agreement with Your Honour. But it may be

25 crystal clear to all of us what's absolutely important in all this and

Page 10618

1 there has been --

2 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry.

3 MR. STEWART: -- that the witness is clear.

4 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Counsel, this, I'm sorry, is a sheer loss of time

5 because there was no misunderstanding. The witness got the text right.

6 We got it right. Those conversant with -- with B/C/S got it right, and

7 there has been a little built of confusion because one Judge understood it

8 in a different way, but it has been shown that that was a

9 misunderstanding.

10 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I add this. If a Judge, if one of

11 Your Honours is capable of being momently confused and not understanding,

12 there is a possibility that a --

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Come on.

14 MR. STEWART: -- witness might also be in the same position. It's

15 important to be clear.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I have understood everything.

17 I understood everything.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, just a moment. As I

19 didn't understand it myself, could you read paragraph 13 in your own

20 language and give us a comment on that paragraph, paragraph 13. So what

21 is important is your perception of it, and mine as well, because I am

22 completely confused at present. Read paragraph 13 out loud and then you

23 can give us your comments.

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "The commander of the Forward

25 Command Post of Stolac should block the entry of new patients to Kostana

Page 10641

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. Thank you. Then I have no further questions.

3 A. You're welcome.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, counsel. Mr. Praljak

5 next.

6 Cross-examination by the Accused Praljak:

7 Q. [Interpretation] Madam Witness, in 1992, in the spring, you lived

8 in Stolac, did you not?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Were you in Stolac when the Serb forces entered Stolac with their

11 tanks?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. Did you see anyone -- or, rather, had the Croats fled from the

14 Stolac area prior to that, had they left?

15 A. They were fleeing during that period of time.

16 Q. Did some Muslims hold flowers in their hands when the tanks

17 entered? Did you see the tanks?

18 A. No.

19 Q. After the arrival of the Serbs, at the end of March and the

20 beginning of April, 1992, did the Serbs and Muslims set up authority in

21 Stolac? Do you know about that, anything about that?

22 A. No.

23 Q. So I assume you don't know whether that kind of joint authority

24 existed after the occupation of Sarajevo either?

25 A. No, I don't.

Page 10642

1 Q. In your statement, which I have before me here, you say that in

2 1992, during the conflict with the Serbs, the -- the hospital worked

3 normally, functioned normally?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. But we took in war invalids and the war wounded because the town

6 was shelled.

7 A. Yes.

8 Q. So do you mean the conflict with the Serbs in June when the HVO

9 liberated the area? Is that the conflict you're referring to?

10 A. Can you repeat that question, please?

11 Q. In the statement that we have, your statement, you say that in

12 1992, during the conflict with the Serbs -- now, are you thinking of June,

13 1992, when there was fighting between the HVO and the Serb forces for the

14 liberation of Stolac? Is that what you're referring to? When the

15 hospital took in the wounded.

16 A. You know that the front lines were around Stolac.

17 Q. Madam, I know a lot of things, but what I'm asking you is this:

18 If the Serbs came to Stolac and the Croats pulled out -- or let me start

19 this way: After the liberation of Stolac, as we refer to it, how many

20 Muslims stayed in the Stolac area, in the territory of Stolac? Did a lot

21 of them leave?

22 A. All the -- practically, all the Muslims remained.

23 Q. I see. They remained. So you don't know the number of Muslims

24 who went to Citluk and Croatia and crossed over?

25 A. No.

Page 10643

1 Q. Right. You don't know anything about that. Thank you. Now, in

2 June, the HVO liberated the Stolac area; is that right? Do you know

3 anything about that?

4 A. I don't remember the exact date, nor do I know when that happened

5 exactly, but the fact is that the Serbs withdrew and that the HVO took

6 control of the lines which were lines against the -- defending themselves

7 against the Serbo-Chetnik aggressor.

8 Q. When you say "withdrew", you say during the conflict with the

9 Serbs, the hospital worked normally, but we took in most of the wounded

10 who were wounded when the town was shelled?

11 A. Well, nobody stood still. Of course there were killed and wounded

12 persons too, because there was shooting and shelling. That is normal.

13 Q. Well, let's leave what is normal. You answer my questions. If

14 there were conflicts, that means that somebody attacked someone else. Do

15 we agree on that point?

16 A. Yes.

17 Q. Because there was fighting and you had to get to the lines?

18 A. There were no -- there was to fighting in town. The Serbs had

19 withdrawn, actually. They had withdrawn.

20 Q. Right. The Serbs had withdrawn just when they -- of their own

21 accord?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. Well, whose wounded were in the hospital then? Who came to the

24 hospital and who did you take in?

25 A. When the Serbs withdrew, they -- there was a separation line, a

Page 10644

1 demarcation line, and, of course, some people stayed on. There was --

2 there were shells falling and people were wounded up at the line and they

3 were brought to the hospital.

4 Q. Yes. Right. Thank you. You know that very well yourself?

5 A. Yes, I do.

6 Q. Yes, you do. And you said we received some aid and assistance

7 from outside, but I do know that we received food and medicines from some

8 humanitarian organisations. Tell me this now please: Did you, as a

9 member of the hospital staff, receive any salary?

10 A. No.

11 Q. Did a single doctor receive a salary?

12 A. No.

13 Q. Right. Thank you. Now, do you know after that that a brigade was

14 set up of the BH army in the Stolac area?

15 A. Not in the Stolac area, no.

16 Q. Where was the Bregava Brigade then established?

17 A. I think it was Grbavica.

18 Q. Is that Stolac municipality?

19 A. No, it isn't.

20 Q. Right. Thank you. Tell me this now, please: Your boyfriend who

21 was in the HVO, did he receive a salary of any kind?

22 A. No.

23 Q. He didn't receive a salary either. Right. Now just a couple more

24 questions. You're not a doctor, yourself, are you?

25 A. Unfortunately, no. No, I'm not.

Page 10645

1 Q. Were you ever in Grabovina to see what the hospital looked like

2 there?

3 A. No.

4 Q. Do you know how many physicians worked in that particular hospital

5 where these people were transferred to?

6 A. No.

7 Q. Can you just tell me, you said at one point that your boyfriend,

8 during the month of May in 1993, left and went to liberated territory; is

9 that right? Is that what you said?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. And you until then, was he on occupied territory, then?

12 A. I don't know.

13 Q. What about your -- you, yourself, were you on occupied territory?

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Throughout, during the Serbs and the -- during the HZ HB, you were

16 on occupied territory, were you?

17 A. Yes.

18 Q. It was an occupation of that territory, was it?

19 A. Yes.

20 Q. And you worked there under that occupation?

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. And your boyfriend was in the occupational army of the HVO?

23 A. That transpired later on.

24 Q. Well, I don't know when that transpired. You tell me whether he

25 was in the HVO.

Page 10646

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. So if that was occupied territory, the occupying army was the HVO,

3 was it?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. So he worked in the occupying army, did he? He was a member of

6 the occupying army; is that right?

7 A. Well, let me tell you this way --

8 Q. Go on, then. Explain to me.

9 A. When the Serb aggressor withdrew, there were Muslims and Bosniaks

10 in the HVO; no difference between them.

11 Q. You mean to say Croats and Bosniaks?

12 A. Yes, Croats and Bosniaks. That's right.

13 Q. Please continue.

14 A. That was the case up to one point when there was something wrong

15 with the situation. You felt there was something wrong with the

16 situation. When what people said didn't hold water, then you felt that

17 something was happening and that's the point in time when he left.

18 Q. I didn't deny that. I think that something was afoot. You could

19 feel something in the air. But up until then, was he in the occupying

20 army that had occupied the territory?

21 A. Not until that point.

22 Q. Well, then he couldn't have moved to liberated territory, could

23 he? Never mind. Tell me this now, please: From the spring of 1992 up

24 until the beginning of the spring and summer of 1993, I think you'll agree

25 with me when I say that there were a lot of Muslims, Bosniaks in the HVO.

Page 10647

1 A. Yes.

2 Q. And that at Gubavica, we had the Bregava Brigade that was

3 established in October and November of 1992; is that correct?

4 A. I know that it existed, but I can't tell you the month.

5 Q. That's fine. Tell me this now, please: Did you in any way

6 whatsoever, because rumours like this were going round, were you aware of

7 a plan of the 4th Corps and commander of the 4th Corps of the BH army by

8 the name of Arif Pasalic, that he was tied in with the Bosniak Muslims who

9 were members of the HVO, and that at a certain point in time, they

10 intended to liberate, if we can put it that way, to liberate Stolac and to

11 take control of the bridges in Capljina and so on? Were you aware of that

12 plan?

13 A. No. That wasn't something I was aware of or heard about.

14 Q. You didn't hear about that from your boyfriend?

15 A. No. There were many more beautiful things that we discussed but

16 not that.

17 Q. Thank you. I do believe you there.

18 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no

19 further questions for this witness.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Alaburic, you have 15

21 minutes.

22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.

23 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic:

24 Q. Madam Witness, good morning to you.

25 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if at all possible,

Page 10648

1 could you give me more time for my cross-examination. As Mr. Kovacic told

2 you, the Defence -- none of the Defence teams, during the consultations we

3 had during the break, will have any questions or, at least, will not have

4 many questions for the next witness, so might I be allowed more time for

5 this witness, because she obviously does have certain knowledge about

6 certain things?

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] When you say you want more time,

8 how much more do you need?

9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I would need another half an hour,

10 which means 45 minutes in total, which would take us up to our next break.

11 I would be very grateful if the Court would accord me that additional

12 time.

13 [Trial Chamber confers]

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So we do grant you 45 minutes,

15 but on condition that there are no questions for the following witness.

16 And it is up to the Defence to abide by that. As you know, the Trial

17 Chamber is always flexible, even extremely flexible when it comes to

18 Defence and Defence time. So wherever possible, we try to accord what you

19 have requested. So you're going to have 45 minutes, and as you have a lot

20 of documents to get through, then that is justified on condition that the

21 documents are, of course, relevant.

22 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I myself hope the documents

23 are relevant.

24 Q. But I'd like to start off by asking you, Witness, something about

25 some documents, documents that you have already seen today and commented

Page 10649

1 on today. So in the Prosecution's sets of documents, would you now take a

2 look at document P 02215. It's an order from commander Nedeljko

3 Obradovic. We have commented on item 13. Is this an order from the

4 commander of the 1st HVO Brigade Knez Domagoj.

5 A. Yes, that's what the signature says.

6 Q. Have a look at the heading on the first page. Is this the HVO 1st

7 Brigade Knez Domagoj?

8 A. Yes.

9 Q. Was this brigade active in the territory of Stolac and in the

10 surroundings? Are you familiar with this name, the Knez Domagoj 1st

11 Brigade?

12 A. I'm familiar with the name, but I'm not certain.

13 Q. Very well. Now, let's have a look at P 03019. That's an order

14 from my client, General Petkovic.

15 A. I apologise.

16 Q. 3019.

17 A. 3019. Very well.

18 Q. You can also have a look at the screen; it might be easier for

19 you. This is an order. Defence department, the chief of the Main Staff

20 of the HVO, my client, General Petkovic, and on the first page of this

21 order above the word "Order", it mentions the addressee. Do you agree

22 that we have the abbreviation OZ JiH here? And you might know that this

23 means the operative zone of South-eastern Herzegovina. So it was an order

24 that was sent to that zone, the area of Mostar, Stolac, and the

25 surroundings.

Page 10650

1 A. I'm not aware of that.

2 Q. Well, can you confirm that it says that it was sent to that

3 operative zone?

4 A. Yes.

5 Q. Let's have a look at page 2. The commander of that operative zone

6 forwarded the same order to certain brigades. Which brigades did he

7 forward it to? Could you read it out, please?

8 A. The 2nd HVO Brigade and the 3rd HVO Brigade.

9 Q. Very well. Now, let's bear in mind the previous document issued

10 by Nedeljko Obradovic, and we said that the 1st HVO Brigade, the Knez

11 Domagoj Brigade was concerned and would you agree with me that according

12 to this document, this order issued by my client wasn't sent to the first

13 HVO Brigade, it was sent to the 2nd and 3rd HVO Brigade?

14 A. Could you repeat the question.

15 Q. Does the document that you now see show that this order was not

16 forwarded to the 1st HVO Brigade. It was only forwarded to the 2nd and

17 3rd HVO Brigades.

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. Thank you very much. Now, let's go back to the document that

20 concerns the 1st HVO Brigade. 2215 is the number. And just a brief

21 explanation that concerns item 13. This has to do with something that you

22 were asked by my colleague, Senka Nozica. Item 13 is an item we have

23 already read through. It has been interpreted, and it says: "The

24 commander of the Stolac forward command post should block the entry of new

25 patients into the Kostana hospital and should block MTS being taken out,

Page 10651

1 to prevent MTS to be taken out from the hospital."

2 My colleague asked you whether you were suspected of having

3 organised certain activities, for example, taking equipment out of the

4 hospital, and my question is as follows: Are you aware of the fact that

5 in the HVO there were suspicions, according to which, patients were being

6 received in the hospital who were not, in fact, real patients. I'm not

7 asking you whether that's true, but I'm asking you whether you were aware

8 of the fact that this is what some people in the HVO believed?

9 A. No, I'm not aware of that.

10 Q. Are you aware of the fact that, within the HVO, they believed that

11 this is how they were augmenting, increasing the number of patients. They

12 were doing this in order to obtain an increasing amount of food.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, my comment is the

14 same as yesterday. This is a hypothesis or is this something that is

15 certain, that is supported by documents, because you are telling the

16 witness -- or, rather, you are asking the witness whether there were any

17 rumours according to which the patients or some patients were not in fact

18 real patients, were not in fact sick. Is this a hypothesis or is this

19 something you're certain of?

20 You follow the same procedure when putting questions to the

21 witness and I always feel uneasy because I'm not sure whether we're

22 dealing with speculations or whether what you say is something that is

23 certain. If you say that there were false patients, that means that you

24 have evidence or else you're just coming out with this and waiting to see

25 what the witness will say about it.

Page 10652

1 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have an order in

2 front us, an order that concerns preventing new patients from entering the

3 hospital and that concerns preventing equipment from being taken out of

4 the hospital. It's quite possible that the author of this order had no

5 factual basis for drafting the sentence that we are now discussing.

6 However, there is another possibility, and that is that the author of this

7 order had certain information or certain suspicions which led him to write

8 the sentence that we are currently discussing.

9 It is my belief that it is my task to determine what is in fact at

10 stake since, as my colleague, Senka Nozica, has also demonstrated, this

11 witness was suspected of having organised certain activities, for example,

12 taking equipment out of the hospital and that is why I'm asking her

13 whether she has any information about such a matter.

14 MS. EGELS: I'm sorry, Your Honour, but this is pure speculation.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: If -- if I may, Your Honour. I believe where there

16 is -- where there is good cause to believe, you know, and there is a good

17 faith basis, a question may be posed. So I think perhaps Ms. Alaburic

18 failed to articulate initially what the good faith basis was. Now she's

19 tying it in with Ms. Nozica's questions. Perhaps it's not quite on point,

20 but I believe we should all abide by that rule, that we must have a good

21 faith basis when posing such questions. In other words, something to back

22 up what we are alleging or what is being alleged in a particular question.

23 But I think for the most part, given the earlier answers that we

24 received from Ms. Nozica, there seems to be a good faith basis to suspect

25 that this particular individual, in light of her position, in light of the

Page 10653

1 family members' involvement in certain activities, that there is a good

2 faith basis for Ms. Alaburic to pose these questions.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, so your question

4 is being linked up to the preceding question put by Ms. Nozica. Very

5 well. Do continue.

6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, in my -- in the first

7 part of the my question, I said that the question was following on the

8 question put by Ms. Nozica, so I think that that was quite clear. And now

9 my last question about this.

10 Q. Witness, do you have any information according to which certain

11 equipment was taken out of the hospital and, as a result, an order of this

12 kind was drafted?

13 A. As I have already said with regard to this document, what I have

14 before me is not something that I have ever seen before, but I was a

15 witness on that day when it was no longer possible for anyone to enter the

16 hospital again and when patients were being evacuated. I was a witness of

17 the time when it was impossible to take things out of the hospital.

18 Q. That's what I'm interested in. What was taken out of the hospital

19 before, and what was it subsequently impossible to take out?

20 A. Nothing was taken out of the hospital before, but all the medical

21 equipment remained there. That is a fact. And that's what I meant when I

22 said that nothing could be taken out of the hospital. Everything remained

23 there.

24 Q. Witness, you told us that on that day you noticed that nothing

25 could be taken out the hospital. Now I would just like know what was

Page 10657

1 President.

2 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

3 Q. Witness, I'd like to ask you something about this report on

4 Mostar. I'll mention the relevant items and sub-items. Item 5A and then

5 3, pages 5 and 6. It's very simple. You can focus on my question. I'm

6 interested in page 5 and 6 in the B/C/S version, and this is a report for

7 the period from the 27th of June up until the 3rd of July, 1993.

8 And it says that they were very concerned in the HVO about the

9 fact that the Muslims were leading -- leaving the 1st and 3rd HVO brigades

10 and they were joining ABiH units. Tell me, apart from what you have

11 already told us about your boyfriend at the time, do you have any

12 information about other Muslims who left HVO brigades and joined the ABiH?

13 A. No.

14 Q. Let's now have a look at the following document: 4698A. It's a

15 SpaBat report again, page 38 in both versions of the document. Only this

16 page has been provided, since this is a very voluminous report. We have

17 recently discussed it, so I think we all still have it in mind.

18 And this report states that what was expected happened at dawn on

19 the 30th of June at 0345 hours. The ABiH launched an attack in the

20 direction of the south, and they took the Tihomir Misic barracks and part

21 of Bijelo Polje to the south-east of the town. It seems that that

22 operation was launched in the night between the 29th and 30th of June when

23 the Muslims, in the ranks of the 3rd Brigade of the HVO, which were based

24 in the Tihomir barracks, in the Tihomir Misic barracks, deserted together

25 with their weapons, in order to join the ABiH. On this occasion, the

Page 10658

1 Muslims advanced towards the north and reached Bijelo Polje.

2 Witness, do you have any information according to which this

3 facility and other areas under HVO control were lost as a result of Muslim

4 betrayal within the HVO ranks?

5 A. I know nothing about this.

6 Q. Thank you very much. Now, let's have a look at 4D 0033. We're in

7 open session. 4D 0033. The 32nd [as interpreted] Mountain Brigade. Do

8 you know which brigade this is?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. The 4th Corps, you know about this too?

11 A. Yes.

12 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction, the 46th Brigade.

13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

14 Q. The person who signed it, Haris Huso, do you know this person?

15 A. No.

16 Q. Let's have a look at the assessment of the security situation.

17 JUDGE PRANDLER: I would like only to clarify how the interpreter

18 said it was the 46th Brigade, but as far as the document is concerned,

19 before me at least, it is said the 42nd Brigade. So that is the document

20 4D 00033. Isn't it so? So it is now the 42nd or 46th?

21 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] We're talking about the 42nd

22 Brigade. I wasn't following the transcript, so I didn't notice a mistake.

23 So we're talking about 42nd Brigade in the lower part of the text, third

24 and fourth lines from the bottom.

25 Q. It says: "Use the civilian authorities to establish contact with

Page 10659

1 all members of the Muslim population and request that they become fully

2 engaged in defending their homes."

3 And the next task: "Appeal to all Muslims who are members of the

4 HVO to place themselves at the disposal of their people."

5 Witness, are you aware of any activities that had been undertaken

6 to attain these objectives?

7 A. No, I'm not.

8 Q. My colleague mentions that the date of the document hasn't been

9 mentioned, so I'll repeat what I said. The 16th of April, 1993, is the

10 date.

11 Now let's move on to the next document 4D 00034. It is a document

12 by the same author, the chief of security of the 42nd Mountain Brigade two

13 days later, or, rather, the 18th of April, 1993. And I'm going to read

14 out the fifth bullet point, the third and fifth bullet points and the task

15 are as follows: "Through the organs of the civilian authorities, to

16 establish cooperation with the inhabitants of Dubrava and Stolac." This

17 is a more precise assignment now.

18 And next, the third bullet point: "To establish cooperation with

19 our fighters in the HVO and indicate the seriousness of the situation to

20 them."

21 Do you have any knowledge about these activities of the BH army to

22 link up with the Muslims in the HVO?

23 A. No. I know nothing about any of this. It would appear that I was

24 engaged militarily and not a health worker. I don't know why you're

25 asking me any of this.

Page 10660

1 Q. I'll tell you, because you deserve an answer to why I'm asking you

2 this question. With the Court's permission, I'll tell the witness.

3 I'm asking you this question because the Prosecutor showed you a

4 military document earlier on and wanted to introduce the document through

5 you into evidence. Now, the author of this document is my client, General

6 Petkovic. So what I want to do through my questions now is to show the

7 following: First of all, whether the order reached the brigade which was

8 active in the area you were in; and secondly, to establish why the order

9 was issued. And I think that it -- regardless of what went on, that you

10 have the right to know why an order was written, regardless of what you

11 think about that order and whether it brought any difficulties to your

12 life. I simply feel that you have the right to know what the factual

13 basis was for a order of this kind to be issued.

14 A. Thank you. Thank you, but --

15 Q. These are not documents that we are looking at for the first time

16 in this courtroom. So let's take a look at the next document together.

17 It is 4D 00035, and it is a document by the commander of the 42nd Mountain

18 Brigade this time, (redacted). Does the name (redacted) sounds

19 familiar?

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 10661

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted).

4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

5 Q. Witness, let's do our best not -- do our best to avoid pinpointing

6 whether you were anybody's neighbour, who was your neighbour. But what I

7 wanted to ask you about was the last line of point 3. "The morale --

8 prepare the personnel to --"

9 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat what she's reading.

10 Thank you.

11 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

12 Q. Did you have any knowledge --

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Counsel Alaburic, would you

14 repeat that portion that you just read out, the last point of point 3.

15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] "The organ for moral affairs, the

16 IPD and VP, information propaganda religious affairs, will draft a plan

17 for informing the personnel, the members of the brigade, the inhabitants

18 of Mostar, Capljina, and Stolac municipalities, and the Muslim soldiers in

19 the HVO Croatian Defence Council units in these municipalities."

20 Q. Now, my question to you was as follows: Do you have any knowledge

21 of the fact that the BH army would inform the members of the Muslim ethnic

22 group in the ranks of the HVO what they should do and how they should act

23 and be prepared?

24 A. No.

25 Q. Thank you. And let us now look at another document to which

Page 10662

1 General Praljak referred when he asked you his questions, and it is number

2 4D 00036, the following document. This time it is a level even higher up.

3 It is the 4th Corps commander. And do you know who the 4th Corps

4 commander was?

5 A. No, I don't.

6 Q. It was Arif Pasalic. Have you ever heard of the name Arif

7 Pasalic?

8 A. Yes, I have.

9 Q. Let us look at what he says in the report to the staff of the

10 Supreme Command of the armed forces, what he wrote on the 2nd of May,

11 1993. And let's us focus on point 3, the second paragraph, and I

12 quote: "Tying up has been affected with our people in the HVO." And

13 further on in point 3, it goes on to say that the men from the Capljina

14 HVO have the task of taking Tasovcici village and the bridge in Capljina

15 in order to prevent troops from being brought in from the direction of

16 Metkovic. And then there are other assignments, too, intended for the

17 members of the Muslim ethnic group within HVO ranks.

18 Now, tell me, please, did you have any knowledge about any of

19 this?

20 A. No.

21 Q. I'm told to draw your attention to something else. Just a moment,

22 please. May I just take a moment to find it.

23 Let us take a look at where it says: "Take control of the town of

24 Stolac with our men in the HVO."

25 Now, since you are from Stolac, I have been warned that we should

Page 10663

1 clarify this situation. So were you informed about the task whereby the

2 Muslims in the HVO, precisely in Stolac, tied in with the BH army, should

3 in fact take control of the town of Stolac?

4 A. Could you repeat that question, please?

5 Q. Happy to. Were you informed in any way that members of the Muslim

6 ethnic group within the HVO had the order of taking -- or seizing -- or

7 seizing Stolac from the HVO and handing it over to the BH army?

8 A. I don't know anything about that.

9 Q. You don't. Right. Now let us take a look, but before we do so,

10 let me tell you that when we discussed these documents with members of

11 UNPROFOR, it was stated that this kind of conduct by the members of one

12 ethnic group, desertion of this kind, is considered high treason in any

13 army. So I'm asking you for your opinion. And if the Court allows me and

14 if you agree, would you say this was high treason? What do you think?

15 A. Can you repeat the question?

16 Q. Well, is it normal, as far as you're concerned, that the members

17 of an army should act in this way? All right. I take that question back.

18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's a question that perhaps

19 goes above the witness's head because it is a legal issue.

20 MR. KARNAVAS: If I -- if I may, Your Honour. Perhaps by using

21 the technical word, the legal term, yes. However, the content itself

22 could be asked of the witness, especially since the witness's testimony on

23 direct examination. You know, so if she was aware of this activity and

24 what this activity, if indeed it was occurring, how it might be perceived

25 by the other people. If we phrase it that way, it takes away the

Page 10664

1 technical term, the term of art treason and allows the witness to give us

2 her opinion.

3 JUDGE PRANDLER: I really -- I wouldn't like to enter into a

4 debate on technical legal terms, but I do feel that the witness is here.

5 She is not an expert in military matters in the first case. In the

6 second, she is of course even less an expert on legal issues and kind of

7 high treason and everything else which had been asked for from her. So

8 therefore, I would also ask Counsel Alaburic probably not to formulate

9 questions which are really beyond the competence and the knowledge of the

10 witness. Thank you.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may. If I may add a point. I really cannot

12 see in any way how the opinion of this witness on such a question could be

13 of any use to the Bench.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may, since I raised that issue. See, here is

15 the conundrum, Your Honour. By using this technique -- you see, we're

16 asked to respond to the Prosecution's technique. They are bringing in

17 documents which the witness is absolutely clueless about and they're

18 asking her to comment in a rather leading fashion, yes or no. And that

19 forces us now to use other documents because this tests the witness's

20 knowledge and activities at the time and place. If she is saying simply

21 on direct, "Well, this is what the bad Croats were doing," and now we're

22 showing that here is some other evidence that you'll perhaps -- at the

23 other side was engaging in certain activity, she can say I don't know, I'm

24 not aware of it. Had you been aware of this, would this change your

25 opinion? I think this is perfectly --

Page 10665

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Karnavas, I'm objecting to her giving an

2 evaluation. Do you think this is such a crime or this is good or this is

3 bad.

4 MR. KARNAVAS: I would agree with you on that. But if she were to

5 be asked, with all due respect, do you think this activity was ongoing,

6 might this activity cause some concerns which would lead him to, for

7 instance, search for weapons, carry out other activities. And I think

8 that's where Ms. Alaburic is going to. She's merely responding to the

9 direct examination and, frankly, I must say, you know I fully support what

10 is going on.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And I'd like to add my point of

12 view on this matter. The problem as far as the Defence is concerned is to

13 put into evidence the fact that the members of the HVO, who were Muslims,

14 left the HVO at a precise point in time, and that by leaving the HVO, from

15 the point of view of the Defence, legally speaking, this could be

16 qualified as being high treason. All right. That's what the Defence

17 wishes to show.

18 Now, you can ask this type of question of a military witness.

19 We're going to have officers, HVO officers come in to testify, BH army

20 officers. So that's the kind of question you can ask them and people who

21 are in the know, whereas the witness here is a nurse. So to ask her --

22 you would have to ask her about the hospital, about illnesses, about

23 injections and things like that. You're asking her questions about high

24 treason. Well, why not ultimately, but what weight is her answer going to

25 carry? It is quite obvious that if you asked the same question of an

Page 10666

1 officer, that would be far more interesting as far as the Court was

2 concerned.

3 I give the floor to the Prosecution.

4 MS. EGELS: Thank you -- thank you, Your Honour. Just for the

5 record, indeed, this is irrelevant and speculation. The witness answered

6 the question of the Defence as to if she knew or didn't know about the

7 activities of her husband in 1992. The witness answered the question to

8 the Defence as to whether or not her husband left the HVO at one point.

9 For the rest, this witness is not the one who should be asked anything

10 further on the question of what is it qualified and what is her opinion

11 about it.

12 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, can I just observe that my lead counsel

13 took the question back at 11.49, since when we stood her and said nothing

14 at all. It's --

15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I be allowed to

16 explain?

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, I'll deal with the

18 problem.

19 Witness, your boyfriend, who later became your husband, left the

20 HVO, and nobody is challenging that. That seems to be accepted. While he

21 was -- you might have had some conversations with him. Now, when you were

22 talking together intimately, did you look into the possibility of his

23 leaving the HVO being considered by some legal authority as -- as possible

24 treason or high treason? In your conversations with him, did you ever

25 raise that matter?

Page 10667

1 A. No. But let me tell you, when he left in May, we were in the

2 hospital the whole time. We wouldn't leave at all. We would be given one

3 or two days to rest during one month, but we were there round the clock,

4 24 hours. We had no contacts with anybody. We worked there. We were

5 there when the shells were falling. The population had moved quite a bit

6 due to the shelling. They went to Capljina, to Pocitelj, or towards the

7 coast. So that from the month of May right up to when I was released from

8 prison, I had absolutely no contact with him.

9 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation]

10 Q. Thank you for that answer. Can we just clarify one point? We

11 didn't know up until this time when your boyfriend of the time left the

12 HVO and joined the BH army. You've now told us that took place in May,

13 1993; is that right?

14 A. I said that I didn't see him after that, after that date, but when

15 he left, I really can't say.

16 Q. You said that he went in May. You didn't give us the year, but we

17 know that we're dealing with 1993. So was it May, 1993, when you were

18 answering the question by His Honour Judge Antonetti? Were you telling

19 the truth that he left in May, 1993?

20 A. Yes.

21 Q. And May, 1993, did that follow on from all the orders that I've

22 just read out to you that were dated April, 1993, including the one by

23 Arif Pasalic in May?

24 A. I didn't understand the question.

25 Q. Did you -- did that happen after all these orders were issued, the

Page 10668

1 ones that I read out to you?

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Egels.

3 MS. EGELS: Again, Your Honour, speculation. She just said that

4 she has not seen her boyfriend after he left, so how would she know why he

5 left?

6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] I have to say to my learned

7 colleague, we're not dealing with the reasons he left, but the fact of his

8 leaving at that particular date, leaving the HVO. And in response to His

9 Honour's question, the witness herself said it was May, 1993, and my

10 question was along the lines of noting that that was after all these

11 orders had been issued, the ones I read out a moment ago. And of course

12 May comes after April, so there is no dilemma on that score.

13 I have no separate questions.

14 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry again, Ms. Alaburic, but, frankly, I do

15 not understand. The witness is here -- is here, but she is not here for

16 being a witness about her boyfriend and later her husband. She's here to

17 be a witness about those -- those events which happened in 1992, 1993, and

18 especially when it was related -- those events which were related to her

19 presence in the hospital, et cetera. So I understand the situation and I

20 understand your reasons and the others' reasons to speak about her

21 boyfriend and husband, but really, I do not see the very close

22 relationship between her being here as a witness and -- and her boyfriend

23 and husband on the other hand. So I'm sorry, but I would like to say that

24 probably the questions might be put in an another way. Thank you.

25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, the problem is

Page 10669

1 that we don't understand your strategy. We don't understand what you wish

2 to demonstrate. Perhaps, with a more concise question, you will be able

3 to explain to us what it is you wish to show, because all the Judges have

4 said this. First of all, she's not a military person. Secondly, she

5 always answers no to anything asked about military documents.

6 My colleagues have brought this up and told you that, yes, her

7 boyfriend was her boyfriend, but she was in the hospital at the time and

8 that she can't add to anything she's already said. So what do you wish to

9 demonstrate? I really -- I'm not following your argument. And if we

10 don't understand it, then it's wasted time for everyone, for you who have

11 spent a lot of time preparing your cross-examination, but for justice as

12 well, in general terms. So try and ask precise, concise questions to show

13 what you're trying to demonstrate. All I'm asking is to be able to

14 understand, but in order to do so, you have to explain it to me.

15 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I'd

16 like to provide you with two explanations before I explain my question.

17 I'd like to tell Judge Prandler that I believe it's not fair if one

18 objects to the Defence for having put questions to the witness about

19 certain military documents, since the examination-in-chief was based on

20 military documents, and if the Chamber had objected to the Prosecution in

21 the same way, I wouldn't have had the idea of showing this witness a

22 single document.

23 And the second thing is that I must admit that I expected the

24 Trial Chamber to intervene in this manner, and I was wondering about how I

25 should respond to such an objection, and I think that it would also be

Page 10670

1 good to remind you of certain other war events. For example, what

2 happened in the USA, when the war with Japan broke out, what happened to

3 the Japanese citizens of the USA -- to the Japanese who were citizens of

4 the USA, what happened -- anti-terroristic measures that violate human

5 rights. For example, in the USA, Great Britain, France, measures that

6 discriminate against the Muslims, discriminate against people who have an

7 Arab appearance and can be identified as Muslims. We're talking about

8 certain measures that at certain points in time may seem to be

9 discriminatory. And the question is: Are these measures justified or

10 not?

11 I know that the order issued by my client, that we are now

12 discussing, is one of the key orders that concern his responsibility, and

13 I believe that it is my duty to show the factual basis for issuing that

14 order. If -- it's not disputed that many Muslims left the HVO and joined

15 the ABiH in a way that could be considered to be treason, and if they left

16 with their weapons, if they were linked up for months, and if in a certain

17 sense, they were in reserve at HVO positions, they were being kept in

18 reserve in HVO positions at a given point in time, they disarmed HVO

19 members and surrendered the positions to the ABiH, well, I believe in that

20 case, it is the responsibility of any military commander to take the

21 necessary measures. I believe that this is what my client in fact did.

22 And I would like to continue analysing this order because we can see how

23 the civilian population, women and children, were to be treated, et

24 cetera. That's the only reason.

25 As far as the questions put to this witness are concerned, I'd

Page 10671

1 like to say the following: This witness has shown an understanding of the

2 situation at the time, and the positions about the situation at the time.

3 The witness hasn't said that her boyfriend left the HVO. She said that he

4 was free to reach the liberated territory. And these are the reasons for

5 which I have been putting these questions to the witness.

6 I don't know whether it's time to have the break now or whether we

7 should conclude.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Do try to conclude your

9 cross-examination.

10 Mr. Registrar, how much time has Ms. Alaburic used up so far?

11 We've given you some time. We've said three-quarters of an hour,

12 in fact.

13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] With your leave, there is just one

14 other document I would like to have a look at.

15 Q. Let's have a look at another criminal report, Witness. It's in my

16 bundle of documents under number 4D -- I apologise. P 06916.

17 A. Could you repeat that?

18 Q. P 06916.

19 A. Thank you.

20 Q. Since I'll be mentioning names again, could we please move into

21 private session.

22 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Let's move into private session.

23 [Private session]

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 10678

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 [Open session]

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Before we call the witness into

15 the courtroom, the Chamber will now read out an oral decision. I will

16 read it out slowly that the interpreters, who have been provided with a

17 copy of the decision, can interpret.

18 Decision on the request for certification of the motion to appeal

19 the Chamber's decision of the 13th of November, 2006, on adoption of new

20 measures to bring the trial to an end within a reasonable time.

21 On the 13th of November, 2006, the Chamber rendered a decision,

22 hereinafter, the contested decision, on the adoption of new measures to

23 bring the trial to an end within a reasonable time, a decision in which,

24 among other things, it reduced by 107 hours the amount of time granted to

25 the Prosecution to present its case.

Page 10679

1 On the 20th of November, 2006, the Prosecution filed a motion

2 requesting the certification of the motion to appeal the contested

3 decision pursuant to Rule 73(B) and 73(C) of the Rules. On the same day,

4 the Petkovic Defence also filed a motion requesting the certification of

5 the motion to appeal the contested decision, but this only concerned

6 reducing by 107 hours the amount of time granted to the Prosecution for

7 the presentation of its case.

8 On the 22nd of November, the other accused expressed their support

9 for the motion filed by the accused Petkovic.

10 The Chamber must rule on the conditions under which 73 bis of the

11 Rules of Procedure are applicable -- is applicable. It's not 73 bis. The

12 Rule concerned is 73(B). The Chamber notes that the Defence is only

13 indirectly concerned by the decision to reduce by 107 hours the time

14 granted to the Prosecution. In fact -- or, firstly, the contested

15 decision does not determine the mode followed by the Defence and the time

16 allocated to the Defence to present its case. Secondly, although reducing

17 the amount of time allocated for the examination-in-chief would result in

18 reducing the total amount of time allocated for the cross-examination,

19 such reduction will not affect the fairness or expeditious conduct of the

20 proceedings pursuant to Rule 73(B) of the Rules. The reduction of the

21 time granted for cross-examination is a reduction proportional to the

22 reduction of time granted for the examination-in-chief, which does not

23 affect the right of the accused to cross-examine Prosecution witnesses.

24 The accused will, in fact, have the necessary amount of time available for

25 cross-examination.

Page 10680

1 In this respect, the Chamber notes that it determines the amount

2 of time to be allocated for the cross-examination on a case-by-case basis

3 after having examined, on the basis of the previously given witness

4 statement, the anticipated scope of the witness's testimony. To the

5 extent that the Chamber has allowed and will continue to allow more

6 frequent recourse to the procedure provided for under Rule 92 ter of the

7 Rules, the Chamber will continue to ensure that the accused have at their

8 disposal a sufficient amount of time for cross-examination. The Chamber

9 has, in fact, always allocated significantly more time to the Defence for

10 their cross-examination of witnesses called pursuant to Rule 92 ter.

11 In conclusion, a proportional reduction of the time allocated for

12 cross-examination will not significantly affect the fairness or

13 expeditiousness of the proceedings nor their outcome.

14 The Chamber, however, grants the Prosecution motion, the

15 Prosecution being directly concerned by the contested decision. The

16 reduction of the amount of time allocated for the Prosecution case could,

17 in its opinion, significantly compromise the fairness and, in particular,

18 the expeditiousness of the proceedings. As the Chamber has stated in

19 paragraph 14 of the contested decision, the question as to what

20 constitutes reasonable time constitutes a question that concerns fairness

21 and the expeditiousness of the proceedings pursuant to Rule 20 and 21 of

22 the Statute.

23 Given that an immediate decision by the Appeals Chamber could help

24 to expedite the proceedings, the Chamber hereby grants the Prosecution

25 motion and decides to certify the appeal.

Page 10681

1 For the foregoing reasons, the Chamber hereby rejects the Defence

2 motion, grants the Prosecution motion, and certifies the appeal of the

3 contested decision. So the Appeals Chamber will render its decision.

4 Mr. Mundis.

5 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you, Mr. President and Your Honours. One quick

6 question of clarification. Our time period runs from the certification,

7 but in the event a written decision would follow, it would run from that.

8 And our question is whether a written decision will follow this oral

9 ruling?

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The oral decision is the only

11 decision. Today's oral decision is the only one. So tomorrow, as of

12 1.45, you may file your submissions, your written submissions, with the

13 Appeals Chamber, because this is the only decision we have. There will be

14 no written decision.

15 MR. MUNDIS: Thank you very much, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We will now call the

17 witness into the courtroom. Could we lower the blinds, please.

18 MR. MUNDIS: Perhaps, Mr. President, while that's being done, I

19 would take this opportunity to introduce my colleague, Mr. Paul Flynn, to

20 the Trial Chamber. Mr. Flynn, a trial attorney with the Office of the

21 Prosecutor, will be leading the examination of the next witness. Thank

22 you.

23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Chamber would

24 like to welcome Mr. Flynn.

25 I can see that there are a lot of documents, so we will have to