Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 18259

1 Thursday, 10 May 2007

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.03 a.m.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, kindly call the case,

7 please.

8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Good morning, everyone.

9 This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar.

11 We are -- today Thursday. I would like to greet all the people

12 present in the courtroom, Prosecution representative, Defence counsel, the

13 accused, and Mr. Coric who is back in court.

14 I will ask the registrar to move into private session for a few

15 minutes, please.

16 [Private session]

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 18260











11 Page 18260 redacted. Private session















Page 18261

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 [Open session]

8 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.

9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, as far as procedural

10 matters are concerned, Ms. Nozica and Mr. Murphy have filed a motion which

11 we got yesterday. The Prosecution will reply in writing, I assume, will

12 reply to this motion.

13 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. I take on board it doesn't seem to

14 be particularly urgent in the sense that -- but we will file in the usual

15 time. Thank you.

16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I asked you the

17 question, but it's quite obvious that you were going to respond.

18 I shall now indicate to both parties that according to our

19 calculations, and the registrar will intervene if I've made a mistake,

20 Defence teams should have another 30 minutes, if I'm not mistaken.

21 Registrar is nodding to indicate that I am right. So I shall give you the

22 floor so that you can resume your cross-examination.

23 Mr. Ibrisimovic, you would like to say something?

24 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just to be

25 specific about what you said, you said the Defence had a total of 30

Page 18262

1 minutes left. Is that in reference to all the remaining Defence teams or

2 just Ms. Alaburic?

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's a very good question,

4 Mr. Ibrisimovic. This is why I shall turn to the registrar once again and

5 to ask him where we stand.

6 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The registrar has just told me

8 that what I was led to believe. With the extra 30 minutes, that would

9 amount to six hours. So theoretically, other Defence counsel don't have

10 any more time left, unless of course additional time is given to you.

11 Mr. Ibrisimovic, how much time would you need?

12 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour, we allowed

13 the prior Defence to use half our time, so I was counting on our 30

14 minutes.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well.

16 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I thank my learned

17 friend Mr. Ibrisimovic for this question. I wanted to have the point

18 clarified myself. I know that General Petkovic's Defence have used up

19 more than our one hour, but our learned friend, Mr. Karnavas, promised to

20 allow us to use half his time if necessary. Therefore, I would ask the

21 Chamber to allow the Petkovic Defence another half hour should the Chamber

22 deem the questions being asked to be relevant.

23 [Trial Chamber confers]

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The Trial Chamber

25 realises that some Defence counsel haven't taken the floor yet. Mr.

Page 18263

1 Pusic, Mr. Ibrisimovic, Mr. Coric's Defence counsel who has not taken the

2 floor, but I think he's given his time to someone else, and Mr. Karnavas,

3 who -- Mr. Prlic's Defence counsel has not taken the floor either I know

4 he's given some of his time to others.

5 The Trial Chamber has discussed the matter and with a degree of

6 flexibility rules that Defence teams will have an extra hour from now

7 onwards. So you may decide how you share the time given that Mr.

8 Ibrisimovic has said that he would -- he needs 30 minutes or he would like

9 to have 30 minutes.

10 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I would just like to say

11 one thing about the transcript. The President did indeed remember this

12 well. We allowed the Stojic Defence team all of our time so we have no

13 questions for our part.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: Good morning Mr. President Your Honours at this

16 point in time I do not see any cross-examination. There maybe five or 10

17 minutes, I don't know, I but think point from what I've seen so far I

18 don't see the use of going over old territory that has been gone over so

19 far, so ...

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.

21 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I'm just not sure I understand. There is

22 a total of one hour now or is there a half hour plus an extra hour? I

23 don't understand the "total of one hour."

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's one hour in total. The

25 remaining 30 minutes, which will amount to six hours, plus another 30

Page 18264

1 minutes. So there will only be 30 minutes more.

2 MR. SCOTT: Thank you.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, theoretically you

4 will have between 25 and 30 minutes, and Mr. Ibrisimovic will have 30

5 minutes.

6 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

7 Greetings to all.

8 Cross-examination by Ms. Alaburic: [Continued]

9 Q. [Interpretation] Just another question about the 9th of May, 1993,

10 Witness. Can you please go to my set of documents and look up document

11 number 4D 00552. This is a document dated the 10th of May, 1993. This is

12 the operations duty officer of the 4th Corps, and he sends this to the BH

13 army and to the president of the BH Presidency, Alija Izetbegovic.

14 As we have very little time left, can we please just try to focus

15 on two sentences. The beginning of the first paragraph, which reads: "On

16 the 9th of May, 1993, an unexpected general attack of the HV and HVO

17 forces was launched against the BH army - the command of the 4th Corps and

18 the 41st glorious motorised brigade."

19 And then the first sentence in paragraph 4, please, which

20 reads: "During Ustasha attacks, the attacks of the Ustasha units on the

21 command and the logistics of the 4th Corps and the 41st Glorious Motorised

22 Brigade, one combatant was killed by two members of the HV from Split, two

23 were seriously wounded, and two were arrested while two are listed as

24 missing."

25 My question, Witness: This sort of description provided by the

Page 18265

1 duty operations officer to the 4th Corps and to the president of the

2 Presidency, Mr. Alija Izetbegovic, do you consider this sort of

3 description to be an accurate one with regard to what happened on the 9th

4 of May, 1993?

5 A. No.

6 Q. No? All right. Unfortunately, I have no time now to ask you why

7 not, since as far as I understand you were not yourself in Mostar on your

8 day. Therefore, you didn't witness what happened. Is my understanding

9 correct? You were in fact not in Mostar on the 9th of May, were you?

10 A. On the 9th of May I was above the hill in Mostar. I was viewing

11 it. But there are details in this report that I can neither confirm nor

12 deny, so therefore I can't say it is a -- whether it's an accurate report

13 or not.

14 Q. Witness, my question was not in reference to the entire report

15 but, rather, in reference to the allegation made to the Supreme Commander

16 of the BH army. There's these two sentences containing this one

17 allegation, the HVO on that day attacked the command of the 4th Corps and

18 the brigade command. That is the allegation.

19 A. There is also the allegation that the HV was involved, and at this

20 stage I -- certainly I don't believe that was ever reported from the UN

21 side. And also the details that you read out about the HV from Split,

22 there's no way we were able to get into -- know any details about that.

23 Q. Witness, sir, you are in fact entirely right. When I was asking

24 my question, what I was really half was the first sentence that we read

25 and the beginning of the second sentence, which is the description of the

Page 18266

1 attack itself as an attack on the building housing the command of the 4th

2 corps and the brigade command. So this is the only part of the report

3 that I'm really after since unfortunately I know you can't confirm or deny

4 anything about the other elements contained therein. We know you had no

5 such information.

6 Therefore, all I'm focusing on is this one allegation contained in

7 this report. Can you confirm that allegation as an accurate one, or did

8 you deny its authenticity?

9 A. I don't believe it was confirmed by the United Nations that in

10 fact the attack started at that position, albeit I believe that was

11 indicated at the time, but if you recall we were not present when the

12 attack started, and by the time we were able to get in -- in a location

13 where we could view the -- the action, the fighting was possibly a little

14 bit more widespread.

15 Q. Very well. Would it be a correct assumption based on your answer

16 that you don't really know how the attack commenced on the 9th of May,

17 1993?

18 A. That would be correct.

19 Q. Fine. Thank you. Let us move on to my next topic. If you

20 remember the end of our exchange yesterday, you confirmed that what was

21 going on not only in the Sector South, which you covered, but also in

22 Central Bosnia, was all interconnected, and that what was going on in

23 Mostar at the time could not be fully understood unless one understood

24 also what was going on in other parts of the is sector as well as the

25 neighbouring sector, that of Central Bosnia. It is for this purpose I

Page 18267

1 want us to go to go through a document, but I think this document requires

2 private session since the document is a protected one.

3 [Private session]

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 18268











11 Pages 18268-18280 redacted. Private session















Page 18281

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 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Mr. Karnavas, would

16 you please say it again? It will only take a few minutes -- or a few

17 seconds.

18 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well. I'll give the Reader's Digest version.

19 We thank the gentleman for coming to The Hague we thank the gentleman for

20 coming here to give his evidence.

21 We do wish to point to the Trial Chamber that we only question

22 witnesses when we deem it absolutely necessary, and we're very judicious,

23 and therefore we would appreciate that when we do we ask for additional

24 time with certain witnesses that the Court -- the Trial Chamber take our

25 attitude into consideration in granting more time, because I believe we

Page 18282

1 have been very judicious over the past few months or I would say since the

2 beginning of the trial. In any event, that's it, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. Does the Prosecution

4 have redirect before the Judges put their questions?

5 MR. BOS: Yes, Your Honours, a couple of questions, but I'm afraid

6 we'll have to go back into private session for it.

7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session.

8 [Private session]

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 18283











11 Pages 18283-18284 redacted. Private session















Page 18285

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 [Open session]

12 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.

13 Questioned by the Court:

14 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I have a question. Is it possible to give the

15 witness again a copy of that map 1:10000 of Mostar that was used

16 previously? I note that the sign has disappeared, but is that possible?

17 This map. I hoped it would still be there. I hesitate to give this one

18 because I have made signs on it, but if there is no other copy available,

19 perhaps that will do. I will also furnish the witness with a makeshift

20 compass, which is 10 centimetres long, as will be shown, and I would like

21 the witness to draw a circle of 1 kilometre around the place where the

22 house was where he lived. If this could be brought to him, please.

23 I have roughly marked the area where I thought the witness had

24 said that the house was, but of course you are not in any way bound by

25 this. I would like you to perhaps in red mark where the house was, where

Page 18286

1 you think the house was, which was your HQ.

2 A. [Marks]

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I think you should have the needle on the house

4 as it were.

5 A. [Marks]

6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much. Now could you show us where

7 Tito Most is on this map?

8 A. [Marks]

9 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And perhaps you also encircle it. And Spanski

10 Trg, the Spanish Square?

11 A. [Marks]

12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay. So would the conclusion of this be,

13 Mr. Finlayson, that the distance from your house to the Spanish Square

14 would be 1.000 and not 1.500 metres?

15 A. That would be the conclusion, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much. Perhaps you want to -- to

17 put the date on -- on the map and then sign it.

18 A. [Marks]

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could you also -- yes. Perhaps it would be

20 useful if you would mark the place where your house is in the red circle

21 with a 1. I think that the red marker is the most effective one,

22 actually. And you can draw large figures.

23 A. [Marks]

24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Then the Tito Most with a 2.

25 A. [Marks]

Page 18287

1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And the Spanish Square with a 3.

2 A. [Marks]

3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you very much.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please, an IC number, Mr.

5 Registrar, for the map.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honour, this map will become IC 551.

7 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Witness, usually or normally I

8 would have asked my question at the very beginning of your testimony, but

9 I did not want to interrupt you, so I refrained from it. It's a very

10 simple question.

11 When you introduced yourself, you gave your rank. Lieutenant

12 commander, that was. I know that in principle UNMOs were non-commissioned

13 officers, or they could have been also higher-ranking officers. And you

14 also said that you were a driver at some point in time. So I'd like to

15 have some clarification on this regarding the exact title of your rank,

16 taking by way of reference the NATO nomenclature, and I would like

17 exactly -- to know exactly what your position was.

18 A. Very well. The UNMO position in the -- in this mission, the

19 United Nations military observer is always an officer and only an officer

20 of major, lieutenant colonel, or captain rank. They are only -- that is

21 the only -- the only ranks in the United Nations military observer

22 organisation. It runs as its own organisation. It doesn't have a support

23 network of non-commissioned officers or soldiers. Therefore, when you

24 join, your rank -- everyone has to -- if you're familiar with the term

25 "muck in," everyone has to do all the jobs. So yes, you had to do

Page 18288

1 driving tasks. One day you might be a driver. When I day a driver, you

2 might be tasked with driving. On other days -- on the very next day you

3 may be the duty officer in the headquarters. So it's only officers, and

4 it's only officers working together. They are funded differently and they

5 are operated differently than the -- sorry, yeah. The battalions, they

6 work together. They don't get a lot of support. Ideally you have to find

7 your own accommodation. That's -- that was the general run of the mill.

8 My mission was to go into East Mostar and set up a team. I was

9 given an unarmoured vehicle, a hand-held radio, and two people, and that

10 was it.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry --

12 JUDGE MINDUA: [Interpretation] Thank you.

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If you allow a follow-up. You said two people.

14 Before you said there were no soldiers. What do you mean by two people?

15 A. Two fellow UNMOs. When I went into East Mostar to set up that

16 team is what I was talking about. I had a Danish captain and an

17 Argentinian lieutenant colonel.

18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: And what would your rank be in -- in general army

19 terminology? Because I recall you had some sort of superior lieutenant,

20 but lieutenant is normally the lowest officer grade. That's what may

21 confuse.

22 A. In the -- in the navy, a lieutenant commander is a major.

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, I would like to go to

25 the 9th of May, since it is a relevant date, and I'd like to go back to

Page 18289

1 document 4D 00552. It is a portion of a book published by Mr. Esad

2 Sejtanic. It was the last document in the binder that you were provided

3 with.

4 This document is a report by the duty officer Emir Besalic [phoen]

5 and oddly enough it is sent to the supreme commander in Sarajevo and to

6 Mr. Izetbegovic in person. It is rather astonishing to see that a duty

7 officer could send something directly to the Supreme Commander of the

8 army. But this being said, in the first paragraph he described the

9 surprise attack on the 9th of May, providing details as well. Towards the

10 middle of the sentence it is stated that there were 120-millimetre

11 mortars, howitzers, and tanks, and I see "tanks" in the plural. So let me

12 talk about the tanks, because I do recall you saying a few days ago that

13 on the 9th it of May you had attempted to enter Mostar, unsuccessfully,

14 and that you went to position yourself on an OP to have an overview, and

15 that next to it, adjacent to it, there was a tank.

16 Can you confirm today that from the place where you were next to

17 the OP there was a tank?

18 A. That's affirmative.

19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] How could you distinguish that

20 tank from, say, an ABiH tank, provided they had any, or was there an

21 insignia or a chequer-board or anything that would lead you to believe

22 that this was an HVO tank?

23 A. At this point in time I can't recall exactly what incidents there.

24 I'm fairly sure there was one, and we also talked to the troops that were

25 on that tank. We actually had to pass the tank to -- to go to the

Page 18290

1 position where we ended up.

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very Well. So you talked to the

3 men in the tank. And I also understood that this tank fired. Is that

4 what you said?

5 I'll repeat my question.

6 A. If that tank fired, and it seems a remarkable thing that I can't

7 recall, but I don't believe it -- it fired. The tank that was firing was

8 the tank more -- was -- that was closer to the city centre. We were

9 fairly well to the north. And that tank stood quiet for most of the day,

10 if not all the day.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So the tank stood quiet. But

12 you mention another tank, that one fired. Where was it positioned, that

13 other tank?

14 A. That tank was fired more or less under -- the -- I marked it up on

15 a map, but using that map that we were looking at before, it was roughly

16 to the west of the -- due west of the city.

17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. When that tank

18 fired, did you see it yourself with your own eyes?

19 A. Affirmative.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Back to the document, because if

21 I took it out, I wanted to establish a correlation between that report and

22 the tank. It is said in the document that there was artillery fire on

23 the -- on the ABiH positions. In Mostar, did you know where those ABiH

24 positions were?

25 A. Essentially we -- as -- as was mentioned earlier or what was

Page 18291

1 considered in -- as the starting point was where the headquarters were.

2 We could make out where the majority of the fighting seemed to -- to be

3 occurring, and -- and as the day went on, it did tend to move towards the

4 east bank slightly. It certainly wasn't an accurate observation, but from

5 memory that's what -- what we could see. So you could see where --

6 obviously where the tank rounds were going in. Very -- reasonably

7 localised along the -- what -- more or less the Bulevar area. It's a very

8 loose area. Unfortunately I've got some photos of it, but they're in New

9 Zealand.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You are a navy major. Well, in

11 the navy, you also have guns. You can shoot guns from ships. So you must

12 be experienced with firing.

13 When a tank fires, is it randomly, or does it aim at

14 particularly -- particular objectives that were assigned to the tank on

15 the basis of a preliminary plan or based on observations by the leader of

16 the team in the tank, or is it through a radio relay? Is he given the

17 coordinates for shooting the firing charge that way? So based on that,

18 when the tank would fire, would it fire at specific objectives or was it a

19 bit sort of randomly?

20 A. The -- the tank rounds were -- were fairly localised, as I said,

21 so they appeared to be, and I would expect them to be at a -- at a known

22 target, either from an observer or from a higher command order. Like they

23 weren't -- the rounds weren't landing in a large pattern. The fighting

24 was -- there was pretty much a focused area of fighting.

25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: If I may assist in the question. Would you agree

Page 18292

1 that while artillery fire often is ordered to cover a certain surface, the

2 tank is used to hit spots?

3 A. Yes, that's --

4 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours. Your Honours, my

5 apologies indeed. This objection may not be entirely appropriate, but I

6 think it's my duty to raise it. I don't think it's a good idea for Judges

7 to be asking leading questions simply because of facts of human nature.

8 And when one is asked something by a Judge, one is prone to confirm

9 whatever the substance is of Judge's leading question. Therefore, I think

10 it might be a wise idea to avoid this in future.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Ms. Alaburic, how was there a

12 leading question by the Judges?

13 MS. ALABURIC: [Interpretation] Well, the very fact that the

14 questions -- that the question begins by asking, "Would you agree with"

15 something. This implies the Judge's own position, that this would be the

16 case, and based on experience, we can conclude that when asked such

17 questions by one of the Judges the witnesses are more likely to agree

18 simply because it seems like an appropriate thing to agree with a Judge.

19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: A clever observation, Ms. Alaburic, of course.

20 Funny also to a certain extent. I've seen a bit of laughter. You're

21 quite aware of the fact, of course, that this was just assuming up

22 question because the substance of the answer had entirely been given by

23 the witness in answer to Judge Antonetti's question, and it was just

24 assuming up of an answer that was given.

25 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may, and I don't want to belabour the point,

Page 18293

1 but frankly I don't believe that a foundation has been laid with respect

2 to this gentleman as to whether he's competent to even answer that

3 question. He was in the navy. He is an officer, but he was an engineer,

4 as I understand it. He might have had some training before going to

5 Bosnia but that training was limited to observation. So I am not

6 suggesting the gentleman is not an expert; however, I believe a foundation

7 would need to be laid such as, what is your actual training with respect

8 to tanks, and so on and so forth. So -- but in any event, I don't -- I

9 believe Ms. Alaburic is correct and -- but in any event --

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, well, I was sure

11 you were going to see this, because I asked him as a marine -- as a navy

12 officer did he have any officer in firing in artillery fire, and he didn't

13 say no. So we could put the question again.

14 MR. KARNAVAS: I agree, Mr. President but he didn't answer that

15 part because if you look at your question, and I -- and I paid very close

16 attention to it, there was a -- an assumption that you made, and of course

17 the gentleman didn't say, "Yes, I have a lot of experience," he went to

18 answer your question. So maybe he does have the experience, but he didn't

19 actually answer the question, but I agree that you did try to lay the

20 foundation.

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] He's going to answer.

22 Yes, Mr. Witness, you followed this exchange. This is a forensic

23 issue which may be futile to you, but everything that is said here is

24 relevant. So back to it. You were a navy officer. Did you have any

25 personal experience in New Zealand in the navy forces of your country of

Page 18294

1 artillery fire from a ship? You have some knowledge and expertise, but

2 based on that could you make any observations as to what was happening in

3 Mostar when there was -- when there were tank rounds?

4 THE WITNESS: Your Honour, my -- my training in the navy when I

5 first joined was all associated with the control -- control mechanisms

6 behind anti-aircraft artillery and guided missiles. Later as I was a

7 commissioned officer, I was responsible for all weapon systems on board a

8 frigate. However, the -- the tanks, specific knowledge of tanks, is -- is

9 minimal. However, having said that, the basics are the same. If the

10 bullet lands in the one place, you assume it's being aimed at that

11 location.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] You said that the basics were

13 the same. Can we conclude from that that when there is firing from a ship

14 or from a tank the same basics apply? You have to have the coordinates of

15 the objective. You have to have the degree of angle for the gun. Do you

16 find the same basics?

17 A. The same basics certainly apply. In this particular case the

18 range was exceptionally short, so those calculations were probably a

19 little bit simpler.

20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Yes. We have a

21 specialist who is going to put a question to you.

22 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] I had intended to ask this

23 when my turn came, but I'd like to ask permission from the Trial Chamber

24 to go ahead and ask it now because this is a very important question, and

25 if you won't allow me to ask the question then you can ask it, and this is

Page 18295

1 my question: At what time --

2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Does this question have

3 something to do with the questions of a technical nature that were put or

4 not?

5 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Yes, of a technical nature.

6 Yes, a technical question. In view of point 25 of the witness statement

7 where it says that, "While we were observing, one tank --" Judge Trechsel,

8 it is the time I'd like to refer to. When the witness arrived in that

9 place whether he found the tank already there or whether the tank came

10 afterwards. And if there wasn't a tank, why the tank arrived afterwards.

11 So these are very important questions, whether the operation was prepared

12 or not, because the witness says --

13 JUDGE TRECHSEL: That is not the issue, Mr. Praljak. The issue is

14 that we have the direct -- first interrogation direct, then cross, then

15 redirect, and that's it.

16 MR. KARNAVAS: No. The procedure in this Tribunal is that the

17 parties are allowed to ask follow-up questions from the Judges'

18 questioning, and then the Prosecution is usually given the last word, and

19 I think that General Praljak wishes to ask a question based on a question

20 that was raised by Judge Antonetti, and so therefore it would fit within

21 the proper mode of a follow-up based on information elicited from the

22 Trial Chamber. So I think in this instance --

23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: What is the Prosecution's view on this? I'm very

24 sorry if I've misstated the law.

25 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, I just -- I think the basic point here is

Page 18296

1 that this has gone on and on, and you can't go on, on a free for all,

2 forever. If there is any follow-up questions to the question put by the

3 president, it was not this question. The question put by the president

4 was talking about targeting, use of a tank for direct -- what's called

5 direct fire, as opposed to indirect fire, and Mr. Praljak is now going off

6 on a whole different angle about who -- when the tank showed up, and

7 that's not proper follow up to the Judge's question under any scenario,

8 Your Honour.

9 MR. KARNAVAS: Let me just briefly respond to that, because again

10 and I'll try to be as -- let me take a deep breath first because I think

11 this is misleading on the part of the Prosecution.

12 Your Honour, you wanted to ask about the tank. The question is

13 when did the tank -- when did the tank arrive.

14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas.

15 MR. KARNAVAS: The gentleman wishes to ask that question to

16 clarify it, because I think it's relevant to your question. Your

17 follow-up questions afterwards had to do with what was being targeted. So

18 in fairness to General Praljak and for the purposes of understanding the

19 record, I think when that tank arrived it arrived at the 8th? At the

20 9th? At the 10th? At what point in time? Now, the gentleman may know or

21 he may not know, but I think that's relevant, and I think that's what the

22 gentleman wishes to ask. And I think we just should be able to ask the

23 question.

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, this tank, was it there

25 before you arrived or was the tank brought in after your arrival? This is

Page 18297

1 a very simple question. No point in wasting too much time on this.

2 Did -- was it there before or after?

3 THE WITNESS: Both the tank that we were positioned alongside and

4 the tank that was doing the majority of the firing were there when we

5 arrived.

6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The tank was

7 positioned there before you got there. This is what you say, line 3, page

8 39; is that right?

9 A. I've lost my copy, but, yes, that is correct, and earlier I

10 mentioned the tank we were next to we passed. We had to get around the

11 back of it to get to our location.

12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I have no further

13 questions.

14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

15 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] Your Honours, please. In

16 paragraph 25 of the statement, it says: "While we were watching, an HVO

17 tank stopped immediately next to us." So if they were observing and the

18 tank stopped, then it's that tank that came afterwards. "There was an HVO

19 tank right beside us while we were observing," was the sentence. And it

20 is quite right for Judge Antonetti to see, for example, how far the tank

21 was, one and a half kilometres or what the distance was. And now why --

22 if the tank was there, why didn't it take part in the operation straight

23 away? Why didn't it shoot straight away?

24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, in light of your

25 statement at line 25, I think there is a discrepancy which General Praljak

Page 18298

1 has noted.

2 In your written statement, you seem to indicate that this tank has

3 parked alongside where you stood. In other words, this would mean that

4 the tank arrived afterwards, whereas a while ago you said -- but in any

5 event, we're talking about two tanks. Which tank are you talking about,

6 was it the tank that remained there all the time and which was brought in

7 afterwards, or are you talking about the other tank, the one that fired

8 the shots? Now, in paragraph 25, which tank does this relate to?

9 A. Sorry, Your Honour, I haven't got that in front of me, but both

10 tanks were in position when we arrived on site.

11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Maybe there is another problem in translation.

12 I -- I suppose that this statement was taken in English. So this is the

13 original text, and here it says: "We --" I'm quoting from point 25 on

14 page 5, the second -- third sentence: "We managed to find a route or

15 route that enabled us to come in from the northern direction to a position

16 about West Mostar to the north. We had binoculars and were able to

17 observe the open hostilities occurring in the city. There was an HVO tank

18 right beside us while we were observing."

19 There is no mention here of the tank driving up. So maybe it was

20 not well translated or it was misread in the Croatian, but there is no

21 foundation whatsoever for the question that Mr. Praljak has now put.

22 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, with your permission,

23 while we're on the subject of the tank, and I think it is an important

24 question, the question that the witness was asked before was left out.

25 What time did he arrive at that location? Because you see from the

Page 18299

1 statement that he came in a round about route. So knowing the territory,

2 he couldn't arrive before 12.00 noon or 1.00 p.m. So perhaps it's

3 important to know when he arrived.

4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] At what time, then, was it? At

5 what time did you get there?

6 A. The gentleman is probably correct. I can't recall the exact time,

7 but because we had been -- had so many problems trying to get into the

8 town through our normal route and then a second alternate route, I seem to

9 remember it was before lunchtime, but not a great deal before lunch.

10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Therefore, before noon, before

11 1.00?

12 A. Before noon.

13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. That's all we can

14 say about this matter, i.e., paragraph 25.

15 If there are no further questions, then I'd like to thank you,

16 Witness, on behalf of the Trial Chamber, for having come to testify at the

17 request of the Prosecution. I wish you a safe journey home, and I would

18 like the usher to escort you out of the courtroom.

19 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Your Honours. Thank you.

20 [The witness withdrew]

21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott, the witness you had

22 scheduled for this week have now finished their testimonies. Everything

23 is under control for next week, I believe, is that the case?

24 MR. SCOTT: Yes, Your Honour. That completes the evidence for

25 this week and the witness has scheduled for Monday appears to be on

Page 18300

1 schedule with no problems.

2 MR. KARNAVAS: I just have a brief request, Your Honours. With

3 respect to Alija Lizde, that was the previous witness, the Prosecution

4 filed a letter or a memo or something to the effect regarding our

5 submissions, our evidence. I would like until tomorrow to respond to

6 that. I should have it later on in the afternoon, but I would like

7 tomorrow morning.

8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Would you like extra time to be

9 able to respond, is that it?

10 MR. KARNAVAS: Yes, that's correct, Your Honour.

11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Your request has been

12 granted, Mr. Karnavas.

13 I'd like to thank all the people present in the courtroom and

14 invite you to come back to our next hearing, which will be on Monday at a

15 quarter past 2.00.

16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 10.46 a.m,

17 to be reconvened on Monday, the 14th day of May,

18 2007, at 2.15 p.m.