1 Tuesday, 29 May 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 2.16 p.m.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, please call the case.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon,
7 everyone. This is case number IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et
8 al. Thank you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
10 Mr. Registrar.
11 On this Tuesday, 29th of May, 2007, would I like to greet all the
12 parties, the Prosecution, the Defence counsel, the accused, as well as all
13 the other people present in this courtroom, but I would first like to hand
14 the floor to the registrar for some IC numbers.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you very much, Your Honour. 1D has
16 submitted a response to the OTP objections regarding 1D exhibits tendered
17 through Witness BC, and this list shall be given Exhibit number IC 580
18 under seal.
19 Several parties have submitted lists of documents to be tendered
20 through Witness Philip Watkins. The list submitted by the OTP shall be
21 given Exhibit number IC 581 under seal. The list submitted by 1D shall be
22 given Exhibit number IC 582 under seal. The list submitted by 2D shall be
23 given Exhibit number IC 583. The list submitted by 3D shall be given
24 Exhibit number IC 584 under seal. The list submitted by 4D shall be given
25 Exhibit number IC 585 under seal. That's everything for now,
1 Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much,
3 Mr. Registrar.
4 Mr. Scott, last week we noticed on the intranet site of the
5 Tribunal the mention to the effect that a commission for disappeared
6 people in Bosnia would have found 16 bodies out of which 13 would belong
7 to BiH soldiers, by people -- soldiers that had disappeared on the 9th of
8 May, 1993 in Mostar. The press agency indicated that those 13 people were
9 identified through -- through rings and watches that were on them. At
10 this point, can you tell me if the Prosecution knew of this or was aware
11 of this?
12 MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours, and all
13 those in the courtroom.
14 Your Honour, I'm afraid I must say that we were not aware of it
15 other than through news accounts ourselves. I think we had heard of it
16 before it came on the internet, but it was also through -- it was also
17 indirectly. So I don't want to stand up and say that the OTP had had some
18 sort of inside track on this some weeks and weeks ago. I think we heard
19 about it last week.
20 Your Honour, I think it's fair to say that the Prosecution for
21 years has tried to locate these particular -- what we suspect to be the
22 bodies of these people who went missing, and there's been a huge effort by
23 both the ICTY and, I think, local authorities to do that, and all the
24 leads previously have not come to anything. It does appear from this
25 information, just in general terms, it's quite possible that there could
1 be the connection to the 13 people who went missing from the Vranica
2 building and then later found in the mechanical faculty building, but we
3 already started inquiries for more specific information and that's already
4 been put into motion since last week, and I will report further to the
5 Chamber, if the Court desires, when we have more information.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. The second topic is
7 the question regarding the witness that is about to testify. Last week
8 we've indicated that the Prosecution would have five hours and the Defence
9 six hours, and then we noticed at the last minute in fact that there was
10 going to be a witness that was going to be called back on Thursday. So
11 the witness that is going to be called back will testify during two days,
12 today and tomorrow, and the SLO informed you by e-mail of this last week.
13 We learnt, and I thank the Prosecution, that they wanted to raise a topic
14 with this witness, a topic that was not in the written statement of this
15 witness, the destruction of the Old Bridge in Mostar, and the Judges that
16 evoked this question deem that this is a topic that is interesting to
17 raise through this witness, so the questions will only -- the questions
18 will only talk about his written statement [as interpreted].
19 I also believe that Mr. Kovacic wanted to intervene.
20 Mr. Kovacic.
21 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. Good
22 afternoon to everyone in the courtroom, and particularly the Trial
24 Your Honour, you have already in fact said something that I was
25 about to raise. What I wanted to do was to remind you, as you've just
1 said, that on the 24th of May the Trial Chamber gave us the amount of time
2 we would roughly have for the incoming witness, that is to say five hours
3 for the Prosecution and six hours for the Defence. However, later on, as
4 you yourself already said, there was some changes, and an additional
5 witness was interpolated for one day, and then in the e-mail towards the
6 end of the week you recalculated the time.
7 Now, Your Honour, you have given us an explanation for that
8 revised decision by which you have reduced our time for the
9 cross-examination; however, in the meantime this morning there was another
10 change that took place because the Prosecution, as things now stand,
11 informed the Defence teams and the Trial Chamber that the witness will be
12 heard under Rule 92 ter. And to all intents and purposes, in view of the
13 fact that the Prosecution retains the right for examination, I think that
14 this is making unlawful use of 92 ter, because from the point of view of
15 the Defence, of course, according to this calculation, that is say three
16 hours for the cross-examination and for the six accused, they have as much
17 time as the Prosecution does, so that the time they put in the statement,
18 they will have time to present the statement and additional time to
19 examine the witness.
20 Now, I'd like to remind you of a previous ruling whereby you gave
21 instructions to the Prosecution about how to go about examining and
22 dealing with witnesses under Rule 62 ter -- 92 ter, and when a statement
23 is being introduced you said that all we need to do is to verify and see
24 if the witness actually gave the statement and signed it, and the
25 Prosecution might have a little time to present certain documents along
1 with the statement.
2 Now, in its letter, the Prosecution has told us that they have an
3 additional plan afoot. That is to say they will be examining the witness
4 directly. They will have an examination-in-chief of the witness, which
5 means that they will use two mechanisms, the 92 ter for introducing the
6 statement, but also examination-in-chief of the witness as well. So
7 they're going to benefit from those two mechanisms.
8 Now, I consider that that is reason of -- or, rather, that the
9 reasoning in Rule 92 ter -- the reasoning behind it is to enable each
10 party to introduce the statement previously given, but it certainly is
11 not -- the reasoning behind that provision is certainly not to allow for
12 both things to take place, that is to say a statement which apropos has
13 hearsay evidence and direct testimony as well, because the reasonable
14 behind 92 ter was to precisely allow the opposite side, in this case the
15 Defence, to challenge those assertions and allegations made in the
16 statement. So in actual fact, the Defence finds itself in a position
17 where it will have to refute and challenge four categories of proof and
18 evidence which we're going to deal with through this witness, the first
19 category being one that we would have to test during cross-examination
20 because it contains elements from a previously given statement which the
21 Prosecution means to introduce through Rule 92 ter. The other category is
22 the witness testimony, live testimony in court, and we heard that there
23 will be three hours of live testimony, and the third category is the
24 documents which the Prosecution will be using when examining the witness,
25 and they will be tendering those documents into evidence ultimately, and
1 the fourth category comprises the documents which either the witness
2 himself has prepared or other members of the same institution have
3 prepared and dealing with the same events in the same period of time, and
4 the Prosecution did not intend to use those documents.
5 So I consider that in conformity with the standard of proceedings
6 for the Defence, these are very closely defined four categories which we
7 challenge, and it is my proposal in the end that once you hear - because
8 I'm just guessing at the moment - but once we have heard the witness and
9 once we have seen which documents the Prosecution wishes to present and
10 tender or, rather, those they do not wish to present and tender, that you
11 have a rethink and reassessment of the time afterwards and decide whether
12 the Defence teams might need more time accorded to them.
13 Now, I fully understand that we have reached a point -- or,
14 rather, that we were under time constraints, all of us together, after we
15 found out that on Thursday we would be having another witness coming in,
16 in the meantime, but as has been the case on previous occasions at times,
17 I see no reason that if we feel after hearing the testimony that if this
18 is necessary that we accord additional time to the Defence at some point
19 in future. And I'd like to mention that perhaps the positive element in
20 all this is that this testimony -- that this witness resides in the
21 Netherlands and he works in The Hague, so that does not mean any
22 additional difficulties in terms of travel arrangements and so on because
23 the witness is in fact here.
24 And one more fact that I'd like to mention is this, for us all to
25 have the same picture: I think, Your Honours, saw the statement of before
1 1992 which the Prosecution wishes to tender under Rule 92 ter. I'd just
2 like to remind you that a significant portion of that statement relates to
3 the events in Gornji Vakuf at the time when Gornji Vakuf is not in the
4 indictment. So in my opinion it is a totally irrelevant portion of the
5 statement, and therefore I'm asking whether it merits being introduced
6 under 92 ter, Rule 92 ter. And also, the statement deals in part with the
7 events in Bugojno. Bugojno is not in the indictment at all. It doesn't
8 figure there at all. And so the question arises whether the Trial Chamber
9 will allow just the partial admission of a statement because most of it is
10 irrelevant. That's the first point. And secondly, we don't have an
11 instrument by which to portions of the statement; there is no Rule
12 governing that issue So even if you allow it in under Rule 92 ter, you
13 must specify which portion -- I don't think that would be possible. You
14 wouldn't be able to say which portion is admitted and which isn't because
15 that would go against the grain of the logics of the statement, as it was
16 recorded and as given by the witness.
17 And now finally, my question is this: After we see exactly what
18 the Prosecution wishes to accomplish today, and for illustration purposes
19 let me just say that this morning we received from the Prosecution six or
20 seven documents which were disclosed previously, I think on the 10th of
21 May unless I'm very much mistaken, but which were not translated. Of that
22 number, only one or two were in Dutch, in fact. But anyway, we weren't --
23 had not had time to have them shown to our client in B/C/S. So that is
24 another obstacle.
25 And I'd like to conclude with this proposal: Once we hear the
1 examination of the witness, I should like to ask the Trial Chamber to
2 decide and see whether the Defence does indeed need additional time so
3 that it would be proportionate to what the Prosecutor is introducing
4 either through Rule 92 ter or through the examination-in-chief. Thank
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Your proposition, which is
7 written on line 10, page 6, is precisely what the Chamber was going to
8 take into account, but I will hand the floor to Mr. Scott for a brief
10 MR. SCOTT: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Your Honours, I have to observe that it seems that we're -- a
12 great effort is being made to create more problems rather than less. Rule
13 92 ter was created very -- for very clear purposes, and that was to allow
14 evidence to be taken more efficiently, and the point of Rule 92 ter is to
15 take evidence more efficiently in less time, not more time, and yet the
16 impression I have from some of the comments by Mr. Kovacic and others is
17 that somehow the use of 92 ter actually expands or makes things more
18 difficult, and I think quite the contrary.
19 The Rule quite plainly provides, as we've discussed before, the
20 use of the Rule in whole or in part. Now, what does that mean? The
21 Prosecution submits and this has been the Prosecution practice in other
22 Chambers and other Chambers have followed this practice and we would ask
23 this Chamber to follow the same practice, is that -- and in particular at
24 this stage of the trial.
25 The Chamber has heard a great deal of evidence on some -- on
1 various parts of the case. Let's say Mostar, for example. A witness
2 comes in and let's just choose a round number of something like 60
3 paragraphs of a statement. Most of those statement -- most of the
4 paragraphs deal with what we've come to call the crime base, perhaps in
5 Mostar. Now, the Prosecution does not want to forego that evidence. It
6 would like to and believes that that evidence should be received into the
7 record, but at the same time does not see any particular point in taking
8 precious courtroom time or the Judges' time to go through all that
9 evidence viva voce, which could take another couple of hours.
10 92 ter is specifically, in part, a response to that exact
11 situation, whereby the Prosecution can stand up -- the witness comes into
12 the courtroom. The statement can be put in. Those parts -- most of the
13 statement can be -- most of the evidence can be taken by way of statement,
14 and then precious courtroom time can be dedicated to only those most
15 important parts, perhaps the new parts, or the most important parts, a
16 meeting with one of the accused, a conversation with one of the accused,
17 and we take that time and focus on that and then also address documents
18 and exhibits that go with that witness.
19 Now, I don't know. For some reason that seems eminently
20 reasonable to me and what the Rule contemplated, and was clearly what the
21 Rule contemplated at the time that rules committee considered, at which I
22 was present. So I don't understand the-- all the problems, quite frankly.
23 The Chamber well knows, and it's no secret, that the time and --
24 for the remainder of the Prosecution case is limited, and we would propose
25 that this Rule should be used more rather than less and that witnesses can
1 come in, some of their evidence can be submitted in writing. Other parts
2 of their evidence can be the focus of more courtroom discussion, as other
3 Chambers have done that. I know it was used extensively in the Krajisnik
4 case that way I know it's been used in the Milutinovic case in that way to
5 good effect. So I don't see any reason why the problems in this
6 particular courtroom or Chamber should be different than the successful
7 use of the Rule in other cases and Chambers.
8 The bottom line, Your Honour, is that the total amount of time
9 taken would be less not more. This witness was scheduled to be a
10 five-hour witness. If we can do it now through 92 ter and otherwise as a
11 three-hour witness then I don't understand what the complaint is. We have
12 reduced the total amount of time to take the witness. That seems to me
13 like a benefit. Thank you.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Scott. Thank you
15 very much to use this article, state this article and use it very -- or
16 very useful Rule, rather. The Defence will also be able to use the same
18 We've already indicated that the Prosecution -- that the
19 Prosecutor may ask additional questions under Rule 92 ter, and I believe
20 that the Prosecutor wishes to use all the documents that are presented to
21 put questions on these documents, and I believe that in fact the written
22 statement is an advantage because it saves us time. And as you know, the
23 Chamber may admit as a whole or in part documents, and if the Defence
24 believes in the end that some portions should be withdrawn, the Defence
25 can always ask the withdrawal of some passages, portions, portions that,
1 for instance, do not appear in the indictment. You've stated Gornji Vakuf
2 and Bugojno.
3 So furthermore, at this stage we have decided that the
4 accusation -- the Prosecution will have three hours, the Defence will in
5 turn also have three hours, one hour which will be given to Mr. Praljak
6 and 25 minutes for each counsel or each accused.
7 As Mr. Kovacic stated, if after the examination-in-chief we
8 realise that additional time should be granted, we will inform you of this
9 and then we will give you additional time. Of course, this will all
10 depend on documents since we do not know what will come out of the
11 questions put to the witness. We will see things better when we end the
12 examination-in-chief, but for now we will grant the Prosecution the three
13 hours already indicated, and if additional time is needed, it is, of
14 course, possible to call the witness back, as you've indicated yourself,
15 Mr. Kovacic, because he is not too far away.
16 Very well. Now I will ask the usher to bring the witness in since
17 we've already spent 25 minutes.
18 Yes, Mr. Stewart.
19 MR. STEWART: Well, Your Honour, could I just say something
20 because the practice in the Krajisnik case was mentioned and I do still
21 retain some recollection of that matter. It's true, of course, that 92
22 bis was used quite extensively, as it was bound to be in a case of that
23 size, but, actually, the particular technique that was used as the case
24 developed for time saving was the use of Rule 89(F) in a slightly
25 different way, which was to take a witness fairly quickly through matters
1 which were in a written statement or perhaps just to introduce very
2 quickly certain elements of a witness's statement -- evidence that were in
3 the written statement to save time and short circuit that and get very
4 quickly to the heart of the matters where the Defence could reasonably ask
5 that the matter should be led conventionally as far as possible without
6 leading questions. That did save a lot of time, but it leads to this,
7 which ties in with what we understand to have been the central point in
8 Mr. Kovacic's submissions just now, which is that it is then very unfair
9 and artificial if one doesn't allow for the fact that the evidence which
10 has been adduced in that way very quickly by means of Rule 89(F) is in
11 substance the equivalent of what might have been quite extensively oral
12 examination-in-chief so that a corresponding and satisfactory allowances
13 made in the time for the Defence in cross-examination, otherwise it works
14 very unfairly. And there was more than one point in Mr. Kovacic's
15 submissions, but a central point in his submissions, which we endorse and
16 which is entirely sensible, and Your Honours did apparently have that in
17 mind, so we don't really understand why the Prosecution are so upset about
18 it, is that what when we get to the point of seeing how this combination
19 of different techniques of presenting evidence has worked for that
20 particular witness, the Court will assess as apparently you're going to do
21 what is required and we frankly don't see anything objectionable about
22 that. It makes completes sense.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much,
24 Mr. Stewart. Let's call the witness in. Thank you for reminding us of
25 the Krajisnik -- of the way Article 89 -- Rule 89(F) was used in the
1 Krajisnik case, which still, of course, exists notwithstanding Rule 92
3 [The witness entered court]
4 WITNESS: RUDY GERRITSEN
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. I would
6 like to check if you hear me. If that's the case, could you please tell
7 me if you hear me?
8 THE WITNESS: I hear you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like you to stand up
10 because I will ask you to read a solemn declaration. Could you please
11 give us your full name and your date of birth.
12 THE WITNESS: I am Rudy Gerritsen. My date of birth is the 9th of
13 May, 1954.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Could you please tell us what is
15 your current rank in the army?
16 THE WITNESS: I'm a lieutenant colonel.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Have you ever
18 testified before an international tribunal regarding events which took
19 place in the former Yugoslavia, and, if that's the case, in which case,
21 THE WITNESS: I testified two times before and -- in two cases,
22 and the names I haven't in my memory at this moment.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. But you've testified
24 it in a case because I recognise it was in the case Hadzihasanovic and
25 Kubura. I would like to ask you to read the solemn declaration.
1 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
2 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, sir. You may sit
4 down, Colonel.
5 Let me explain to you the procedure before this hearing begins,
6 this hearing in which you are called as a witness. You are going to be
7 answering questions put to you by the Prosecutor. You must have met him
8 during the weekend or at least this morning. The Prosecutor will show you
9 documents which he probably mentioned during the proofing session, and
10 after that the Defence counsel, as well as the accused, will put questions
11 to you.
12 The four Judges before you will also be able to intervene at any
13 point to put questions to you, but since not long ago we prefer to
14 intervene at the very end unless it is -- there is a point that we would
15 like to raise that's extremely important or a point regarding documents.
16 And if you need to take a break for any reason, personal reasons, please
17 let us know. Since you've testified already, you know how these things
18 go. This is your third time. And as you know, we take breaks every 90
20 So without further ado, I shall ask the Prosecution to give a
21 brief summary under Article 92 ter.
22 MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honours. Good afternoon to
23 Your Honours and to everybody else in and around the courtroom.
24 I would begin with the 65 ter summary, and I'd like to emphasise
25 for Your Honours and for my colleagues on the Defence that this summary is
1 prepared and is confined to issues linked to the indictment and none
3 In this case the witness served as an ECMM monitor in Gornji Vakuf
4 between the 18th of July, 1993, and the 15th of September, 1993. Within
5 the AOR there were two local commanders in Bugojno and Gornji Vakuf and
6 they were subordinate to the operational zone commander who was Zeljko
7 Siljeg, whose headquarters were in a factory in Prozor. There was also a
8 unit of military police based in Prozor.
9 The witness felt that Zeljko Siljeg had no authority Croatian
10 Defence Council military police in Prozor. The witness felt that Zeljko
11 Siljeg was always well-informed because he was never surprised when told
12 about things happening within his AOR. On the 31st of July, 1993, ECMM
13 members were requested to go to the Croatian Defence Council headquarters
14 in Prozor. Zeljko Siljeg introduced the witness to General Slobodan
15 Praljak, and introduced him as the overall commander of the Croatian
16 Defence Council troops in Bosnia. It was clear by his manner that he was
17 Zeljko Siljeg's superior.
18 Slobodan Praljak said that the main focus of the Croatian Defence
19 Council would be a cease-fire. There would be freedom of movement for
20 UNPROFOR. He wanted to know what the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina
21 thought of the Geneva peace talks. On the 11th of August, 1993, ECMM
22 representatives talked to the chairman of the humanitarian committee in
23 Prozor, Ljubica Beljo, regarding the Muslim population from Prozor that
24 had been put into one place. On the 16th of August, 1993, the mayor of
25 Prozor, Mijo Jozic, told them that the Muslims had been gathered in one
1 place for their own safety. Later on, on the 19th of August, Zeljko
2 Siljeg gave them permission to visit Muslims detained in the school in
3 Prozor. The inmates were not POWs. The witness thought that this was
4 part of ethnic -- an ethnic cleansing campaign of the Croats. ECMM
5 representatives managed to talk to some detainees and were told that they
6 were being used for forced label to dig trenches on the front line in
7 Gornji Vakuf. They said that beatings had been occurred in the school but
8 when the new commander arrived the beatings had decreased. 400 Muslim men
9 aged between 16 and 60 years had been transported to other detention camps
10 in Capljina and Ljubuski. The guards were Croatian Defence Council
11 soldiers and not military police. They also visited the area of Podgrad.
12 There was only one road into this area --
13 THE INTERPRETER: Kindly slow down for the interpreters who don't
14 have the text. Thank you. Please slow down.
15 MR. FLYNN: Sorry. There was only one road into this area which
16 had a barrier on the road entrance. They were told that there were some
17 1.700 Muslims living there with 30 to 70 in each house. They said that
18 they had only flour to eat.
19 The witness was told by a woman that she was raped by Mario Dolic.
20 They were also told that Croatian Defence Council soldiers would come at
21 night and rape the women. There were only women, children, and elderly
22 men in the area.
23 On the 20th of August, 1993, the witness went to the village of
24 Duge. There were 700 to 800 people living there, 20 to 30 in each house.
25 These people came from Prozor and surroundings and had nowhere to go.
1 Their men had been taken away. On the 1st of September, 1993, the witness
2 met with Zeljko Siljeg and asked him about the movement of Muslims that
3 had occurred. He said that he knew that they had been moved to Muslim
4 territory but it was an operation by the military police and that they had
5 acted independently of the Croatian Defence Council. The witness thinks
6 that it was a deliberate and planned ethnic cleansing of Muslims from
8 That concludes the 65 ter statement, Your Honours.
9 Examination by Mr. Flynn:
10 Q. Colonel Gerritsen, good afternoon. Did you ever provide a written
11 statement to the investigators of the ICTY regarding the I just mentioned?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. Did you give this statement on the 9th of April [sic] 2002?
14 A. Yes, that's correct.
15 Q. And at the time you provided this written statement, did you
16 answer the questions of the investigator truthfully?
17 A. Yes, I did.
18 Q. And did you answer the questions freely and without any form of
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And was that interview conducted in English?
22 A. In English.
23 Q. And at the conclusion of the interview, was your statement read
24 back to you?
25 A. That's right.
1 Q. And did you then sign and initial that statement in the English
3 A. I signed it.
4 MR. FLYNN: At this point, Your Honours, could I ask that the
5 witness be shown Prosecution Exhibit number 10030, with the ERN number
6 02192545 to 3556.
7 Q. Colonel, could you turn to the first document on this booklet
8 that's been handed to you under tab reference 10030.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Do you have that?
11 A. I have that.
12 Q. Is this the statement which you gave to the ICTY?
13 A. This is the statement.
14 Q. And is that your signature on the document and are those your
15 initials on each page of the statement?
16 A. That's my signature.
17 Q. And when you travelled here to The Hague a few days ago I think
18 yesterday you met with myself and an investigator. You remember that?
19 A. Yes, I remember that.
20 Q. And at that time you were given an opportunity to review the
21 statement. Isn't that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And I think upon reviewing the statement you had some very few
24 additions or corrections to make to the statement. Isn't that correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. Is it true to say that you had one correction and one addition in
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And I think -- and the Prosecution has notified the Defence of
5 this, i think that as far as the only correction that you wanted to make
6 was on page 8, paragraph 7, instead of the use of the word "concentration
7 camp" you wanted that changed to "ghetto."
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. And in addition during the course of proofing, you added to your
10 statement the fact that you -- when you had met General Praljak in Prozor
11 on the 31st of July, 1993, that the discussion turned to the subject of
12 Mostar and the bridge in Mostar, and that General Praljak made certain
13 comments about that; is that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. And do you stand over everything you said in your statement and
16 your amended statement, and if you were to give the evidence again today
17 de novo from the start, would you say everything you have said in the
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, for the -- for the record is it a correct -- I think it's
21 indicated on page 1 of your statement that you are a member of the ECMM
22 and you arrived in Bosnia-Herzegovina in July of 1993?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. And we see from the statement that you were assigned to the area
25 of Gornji Vakuf and that your period of duty began on the 18th of July,
1 1993. Can you tell when it came to an end?
2 A. The 15th of September at Gornji Vakuf. I went to Tomislavgrad.
3 Q. And just for the record, could you tell us, when using the name
4 Gornji Vakuf what was that area of responsibility what towns, village --
5 what towns did that include?
6 A. It includes Prozor and Bugojno.
7 Q. And when you arrived from -- from Croatia you went to Zenica. Did
8 you have a briefing in Zenica before arriving in Gornji Vakuf?
9 A. Yes, I had, from Jean-Pierre Thebault, and my colleague monitors.
10 Q. And did you have an opportunity of examining previous reports and
11 articles concerning your area of responsibility?
12 A. I had.
13 Q. Now, you were assigned to Gornji Vakuf. What did you understand
14 your role as monitor to entail, just for the record?
15 A. We made daily reports and within several headlines. Each daily
16 report was the same from the headlines concerning the military paragraph
17 and assessment, humanitarian, and several other -- others.
18 Q. And that will be part of your duties, but in terms your role as a
19 monitor, what did you understand that to be?
20 A. To monitor. And that's important to understand. We were not
22 Q. And in the course of monitoring, would this involve meeting
23 various actors within your area of responsibility?
24 A. Yes. We met several kind of men and women, priest, Imams,
25 military commanders, majors from the villages and towns, and normal
2 Q. And before we come to that, just going back to when you arrived in
3 Gornji Vakuf, is it correct to say that the other team members working
4 from Gornji Vakuf were a gentleman by the name of Skat-Rordam and there
5 was also a Mr. Peter Hauenstein?
6 A. Yes, Skat-Rordam from the Danish army; Peter Hauenstein, Canadian
8 Q. You mention the reporting. To whom did you make these reports?
9 A. We sent these reports through Capsat, a satellite medium, through
10 Zenica, and from Zenica they made a total report from all team members and
11 they send it to Zagreb. From there to the capitals of Europe.
12 Q. And did you prepare these reports working alone or were you
13 working in tandem with your colleagues?
14 A. Together with my colleagues. Most of the times when I -- most of
15 the time I worked with Peter Hauenstein. He was a Canadian, and he -- his
16 English, of course, was very well, and he -- he wrote the biggest part of
17 these statements.
18 Q. And --
19 A. Reports.
20 Q. And if you didn't actually write the report per se, would you --
21 would you in all situations be familiar with its contents before it was
22 dispatched to the regional centre?
23 A. Yes. I was always familiar. We always discussed what should be
24 in the reports. I also wrote some paragraphs mostly every day. The only
25 thing he did was to correct my English.
1 Q. Now, the Trial Chamber will have seen examples of -- of ECMM
2 reports over the last number of weeks and months, but just so that we're
3 on the one page and we know what we're talking about the same document, I
4 wonder, would you turn to Exhibit number 9653. Do you have that in front
5 of you?
6 A. I have that in front of me.
7 Q. And the top of the page is dated the 18th of July, 1993.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And can I ask you, is this an example of what your daily report
10 would look like?
11 A. That is example. The first daily report I have written together
12 with Captain Ron [phoen].
13 Q. And if you look at the headings, it says it's from V2 Gornji
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is V2 is a code word for your team?
17 A. It's a code word for my team, that's correct.
18 Q. And it went to CC Travnik?
19 A. CC Travnik, yes.
20 Q. And if we look at, for example, paragraph 3, military activity,
21 where it says, "Today an UNFOR patrol was denied passage into Pajic Polje
22 until UNPROFOR could -- would escort some Croat casualties." Is this the
23 type of information that you gathered on a daily basis?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. And on what basis would you draft these reports? What or who were
1 your principal sources of information?
2 A. That was our own monitoring. That's the most important part, what
3 we saw by ourselves. And the other part is information from BritBat, also
4 located in Gornji Vakuf.
5 Q. Did you ever have the opportunity of seeing written reports from
7 A. No. We always went to the operation room from BritBat and there
8 we gathered our information and we got the information from discussion
9 with Graham Binns, a company commander of the Prince of Wales Own Regiment
10 of Yorkshire.
11 Q. And once the report had been sent to Travnik, where would it go
12 from there?
13 A. To Zenica.
14 Q. And what would Zenica do with it?
15 A. Make an overall overview from the several reports which came to
16 Zenica. For instance -- for example, Tuzla also sent their report to
17 Zenica, and it was all put together in -- in a shorter way and then sent
18 to Zagreb.
19 Q. And would a copy of that be sent to -- to your AOR so you would be
20 aware of what was going in other AORs?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Could you just for the record turn to Exhibit 9654.
23 A. 9654.
24 Q. Yeah.
25 A. I have it in front of me.
1 Q. And it's a document dated the 21 of July, 1993.
2 A. July, that's right.
3 Q. And it's from RC Zenica to HQ Zagreb?
4 A. And all team members.
5 Q. With copies to all team members. Is this the type of roll-up
6 report that you're referring?
7 A. This is the type, yes.
8 Q. And if you turn to the second page, for example, it talks about CC
9 Travnik, Zenica, the situation in Gornji Vakuf is still tense. Heavy
10 fighting is going on around Bugojno, where BiH seems to gain terrain.
11 Would this have been information you would have supplied to them?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And if you go back to the first page, I'm just wondering, under
14 paragraph 2, it's not your area, it's CC Mostar area, but there on the
15 second paragraph it makes a reference to exchange of prisoners, and I'm
16 wondering was this an issue which you dealt with within your AOR, the
17 exchange of prisoners?
18 A. We dealt with exchange not in my time I was in Gornji Vakuf. We
19 didn't have had an exchange of prisoners.
20 Q. Did you attempt --
21 A. Exchange of prisoners we had, yes. I -- yep.
22 Q. And did you --
23 A. But --
24 Q. Sorry?
25 A. It was always one way, not an -- an exchange at the same moment.
1 We had an exchange at the same moment with casualties but not at the same
2 moment with prisoners. It was always one way.
3 Q. And do you know who within the HVO, who within the hierarchy of
4 the HVO would have had overall or ultimate responsibility in terms of the
5 exchange of prisoners?
6 A. The operational zone command Siljeg and his superiors above him.
7 Q. And do you know anything about his superiors above him? Do you
8 know who exactly would have been in charge?
9 A. Well, I met General Praljak, and at that time he was obviously the
10 commander of Siljeg.
11 Q. Okay. And we'll come to that in a moment. Now, you've told us
12 that Gornji Vakuf AOR included Prozor, Gornji Vakuf, and Bugojno. Were
13 you given a detailed briefing or background information on arrival or
14 prior to arrival by your colleagues as to what the situation was on the
16 A. He tried to do Skat-Rordam, his best but there was a lack of time
17 because the first day I arrive the classes started in Bugojno. So later
18 on I -- I would have -- show more, show more, but that came at the time.
19 Q. And just for the record, can you tell me what -- what the position
20 was on the ground in Bugojno on your arrival?
21 A. I arrived on a Sunday. We got on Sunday meeting the message that
22 the fighting started in Bugojno. Next day I -- I went to Bugojno and the
23 fightings were going on.
24 Q. And what was the position in Gornji Vakuf, briefly?
25 A. ABiH was attacking and trying to -- conquering the city of Bugojno
2 Q. And what was the position in Prozor?
3 A. In Prozor, HVO was in command and at that time in Prozor there
4 were no fightings.
5 Q. Now, we were speaking a little earlier about what your -- what
6 your duties why and what your role would involve. Would I be correct in
7 saying that your daily routine would involve you meeting various
8 individuals for the purpose of information gathering?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 Q. Were those individuals be both military and civilians?
11 A. Yes.
12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I think there seems to
13 be a mistake in the transcript so perhaps we could clear that up straight
14 away otherwise we won't be able to use it. In line 16, page 25, the
15 question was [In English] [Previous translation continues] "... and what
16 was the position in Gornji Vakuf, briefly." Then we have the answer, army
17 of BiH was attacking and trying to conquer the city of Bugojno. So we
18 don't know what we are talking about Gornji Vakuf or Bugojno.
19 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry for -- for this mistake.
20 MR. KOVACIC: There is similar mistake 30 line above that. I
21 didn't want to intervene but --
22 MR. FLYNN: It needs to be corrected.
23 THE WITNESS: I come --
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please have the witness specify
25 what he's talking about.
1 MR. FLYNN:
2 Q. Just go back to Bugojno for a moment and could you just explain
3 the situation on the ground?
4 A. In Bugojno?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. In Bugojno BiH was attacking to conquer Bugojno with the aim to
7 conquer Bugojno.
8 Q. And what was happening at the same time in the region of Gornji
10 A. In Gornji Vakuf there was also some fighting and shelling mostly
11 on a daily -- on a daily basis from HVO to Gornji Vakuf.
12 Q. And farther south then if we move towards Prozor, was there any
13 fighting going on there?
14 A. Most of the time not. That was only in the period I have been
15 there for two months. One attack on tanks, two 54s from HBH [sic], and
16 that's mainly it. And in the surroundings of Prozor the HBH attacked a
17 village called Uzdol. That was the 15th of September. That was mainly
19 Q. Now, I was asking you, your daily routine would have involved you
20 meeting with both military and civilian personages and personalities
21 within your AOR; is that correct?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And in paragraph 6 of your statement you mention Colonel Zeljko
24 Siljeg, and you describe him as the operational zone commander; is that
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. And was he -- was he one of the principal HVO commanders within
3 your AOR?
4 A. He was.
5 Q. Now, how soon after did you actually start your duties of
6 monitors? Did you start them immediately?
7 A. I started them immediately, the 19th of July.
8 Q. Now, I don't propose to focus on the events which occurred in
9 Bugojno or in Gornji Vakuf, but would it be correct to say that the
10 initial focus of your task was directed towards what was happening in
11 Bugojno and Gornji Vakuf?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And would it be correct to say that towards the end of July the
14 battle, the fighting, was moving southwards?
15 A. Was moving southwards and my attention, and also from my colleague
16 monitor, of course, was also drawn to Prozor.
17 Q. And if we turn to Exhibit 92 -- 9626.
18 A. I have it.
19 Q. It's a document dated the 29th of July, 1993. Do you recognise
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Is this a daily report for that date?
23 A. Yes, that -- that is the daily report signed by Hauenstein,
25 Q. Are you one of the authors of this report?
1 A. Yes, Gerritsen has signed it.
2 Q. And we see that the H positions -- the HV positions are -- still
3 remain in Pajic Polje. Prozor continues to see a build-up of troops.
4 UNPROFOR reports much movement of soldiers and equipment. S in paragraph
6 A. Paragraph 1.
7 Q. At the Makljen check-point there was a large amount of HVO troops
8 moving to the north?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Was the Makljen check-point an elevated position situated between
11 Prozor and Gornji Vakuf?
12 A. Yes, kind of in the middle of it.
13 Q. So as the fighting was intensifying, do you remember, on the 31st
14 of July, were you and your colleagues summoned to the HVO headquarters in
16 A. The 31st of July, yes.
17 Q. And when you arrived there, who -- whom did you meet?
18 A. Siljeg and Praljak, General Praljak.
19 Q. Did Colonel Siljeg introduce General Praljak to you?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And in what way did he introduce him to you?
22 A. He introduce him to me as General Praljak.
23 Q. Did he say what position he occupied?
24 A. Yes. He was commander from the HVO. I do not exactly know. I
25 think from the whole of troops in Bosnia.
1 Q. Was he introduced -- did you understand from what he said that he
2 was superior to Colonel Siljeg?
3 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I have really been
4 tolerant, but the last four or five questions were evidently leading
5 questions. They are the kind of questions used as examples of leading
6 questions at seminars with our colleagues.
7 MR. FLYNN: I disagree, Your Honour, because in the statement it's
8 clearly indicated that this witness met with General Praljak, so I'm
9 merely supplementing what's contained in the statement. This is not a
10 witness who is giving evidence strictly viva voce. If it were viva voce I
11 would certainly agree.
12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely irrelevant, Your Honour.
13 This is absolutely irrelevant. If there is a statement, this still does
14 not give the Prosecutor the right to put leading questions.
15 Secondly, there is no need to put questions about things that are
16 already in the statement. So I move that the Chamber instruct my learned
17 friend to put questions according to the rules. In this case, they cannot
18 be leading questions. And, Your Honours, I sat quietly through four or
19 five such questions, but enough is enough, and if my colleague does not
20 agree that it's a leading question, let him look at the record.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Flynn, you should not be
22 asking leading questions, but I will note that at line 14, page 29, you
23 asked what position General Praljak occupied. That's not a leading
24 question. The witness said [In English] the HVO.
25 [In French] Therefore, the witness has answered your question, and
1 it's not a leading question. So please be very careful, Mr. Flynn. This
2 is a 92 ter procedure. We already have received the written statement of
3 the witness. Please only ask questions if they have an added value, so to
4 speak. If it's not the case, don't put these questions.
5 MR. FLYNN:
6 Q. In your -- in your statement you described a number of issues in
7 general terms that you discussed with General Praljak. Can I ask you, did
8 you raise with him any humanitarian concerns which you may have had
9 concerning the treatment of prisoners --
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Flynn, here again
11 Mr. Kovacic could have stood up. In order to avoid any problems, you
12 should have said the following: You dealt with a number of issues with
13 Mr. Praljak. He would have answered yes. And then you ask what kind of
14 issues, and then he says, well, for example, humanitarian issues. That's
15 much easier that way. I know that you're trying to save time.
16 MR. FLYNN: Indeed.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I take note of that fact.
18 MR. FLYNN: And indeed my understanding of the 92 process was to
19 supplement what the witness has said in his -- in his written statement
20 and then to put documents with it to corroborate it. But I'll rephrase
21 the question.
22 Q. Can you tell it us what subjects were discussed during your
23 meeting with General Praljak?
24 A. Humanitarian, political, and military subjects.
25 Q. Did the subject of war crimes and behaviour of troops on the field
1 come up?
2 A. They also came up.
3 Q. What other subjects did you raise with the general?
4 A. Well, we -- we spoke also a few words of -- of German language. I
5 do not exactly know other kind of subjects, and I should have -- a subject
6 more specifically. We also talked about, I remember, logistics, and
7 heading of HBiH [sic] to Gornji Vakuf and maybe later to Prozor. Also was
8 discussed the matter of harbour for the Muslims, south, these type of
10 Q. And when you were discussing this issue of the harbour with the
11 general, did he say anything else to you that may have stuck in your
13 A. Well, let me first put one thing right. It was a meeting with
14 UNPROFOR and two members of the ECMM, Peter Hauenstein and me, and we all
15 put our questions. So if I specifically asked a specific question, I'm
16 not sure but I heard the answers from this point of -- I got on with the
17 answering of the question in specific to the field of the harbour. I do
18 not know at this time how it ended. We also talked about Mostar and about
19 the bridge in Mostar. General at that time has -- well, he was former
20 director of theatre he told us, and he also made his gestures as a theatre
21 man, broad, loud, and kind of friendly.
22 Q. Can you remember what -- speaking about Mostar, can you remember
23 what he may have said about the bridge in Mostar?
24 MR. KOVACIC: Just a moment, please.
25 [Interpretation] Your Honour, it seems to me that the witness is
1 reading a statement in responding, when he's answering, but can we clarify
2 that? Is he reading his answers or not? And, if so, I'd like to have
3 that on the record.
4 A. Yes. Witness, when you answer the questions put to you, you have
5 to look at the Prosecutor and to look at the Judges. Please do not read
6 your written statement except if the Prosecutor wants you to read a
7 specific portion of that statement.
8 THE WITNESS: I did not read my statement. The statement I know
9 so far is from heart. I only looking to the monitor where I can see what
10 the Prosecutor is saying and the other people in this room so I had -- I
11 have a better understanding of what is told to me and asked to me.
12 Anything else was by heart, but I will look into the room as much as
14 MR. FLYNN:
15 Q. So, Colonel, going back to what you had mentioned you said, and
16 I'll just remind you of it, we also talked about Mostar and the bridge in
17 Mostar. Who --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who was the one who brought up the issue of the bridge?
20 A. I do not know. The -- the general told us about destroying, for
21 instance, Gornji Vakuf and also of destroying of the bridge of Mostar. It
22 was -- and afterwards we had a discussion with UNPROFOR, Graham Binns, and
23 with my colleague, Peter Hauenstein, because the words that were used I
24 couldn't -- my English is not that well, but there were also -- were used
25 more other words than only destroying and -- and that kind of discussions
1 they conclude that it -- more serious days were coming. The general also
2 told us that five minutes before shelling Gornji Vakuf UNPROFOR will be
3 warned so we could take shelter.
4 I must say, afterwards in my memory one time UNPROFOR was warned
5 and the shelling in Gornji Vakuf was at the same amount as before.
6 Q. And -- sorry.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Flynn, about the destruction
8 of the Old Bridge in Mostar, you were told earlier on that this issue
9 should not be raised.
10 MR. FLYNN: I can't tell the accused what to say -- or the witness
11 what to say, Your Honour. And this is all he has to say on the issue.
12 And it was --
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Flynn, if memory serves me
14 right, the Mostar bridge was destroyed in November. Here we are talking
15 about a meeting that took place on the 31st of July. Therefore,
16 General Praljak can't be talking about the destruction of a bridge that's
17 going to happen several months later.
18 Mr. Kovacic.
19 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I really don't want to
20 take up too much time, but my colleague said that the witness volunteered
21 that. I'm reading page 33, line 1. He says: [In English] "So, Colonel,
22 going back to what you had mentioned, you said, and I'll just remind you,"
23 leading, this is my comment, "I will just remind you of it. We also
24 talked about Mostar and the bridge in Mostar."
25 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
1 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] So it's not the witness who put the
2 question, but it is contained in the question. I didn't want to
3 intervene. I knew that you would, but --
4 MR. FLYNN: [Microphone not activated] Your Honour.
5 MR. KOVACIC: Please don't interrupt me, and read the transcript.
6 I was reading the transcript word by word.
7 [Interpretation] To continue, Your Honour, I want to protect my
8 colleague in one portion because at the beginning when you gave your
9 ruling, and that was on page 3, lines 13 to 16, when you gave your
10 instructions there was a mistake in the transcript. You'll look at it
11 later on. I'd like you to do so. But from the first part of your
12 sentence there, it would appear as if you said that he was asking about
13 the bridge, and it was only from the last part of the sentence, and
14 something's missing there, is this portion, and you clarified that. "The
15 questions will only talk about his written statement."
16 So there was a mistake in the transcript and, therefore, a
17 misunderstanding. So I don't hold it against my learned friend. But he
18 cannot say that he did not expressly ask the witness about the bridge.
19 And then you, Your Honour, told him not to ask the question. And it's all
20 nonsensical if we look at the period of time involved. And this morning,
21 when we were informed of this addition, no mention is made of the Old
22 Bridge anywhere but of the Mostar bridge, and you, Your Honours, know that
23 the -- there were some 12 or 14 bridges in Mostar. I never know whether
24 it's 12 or 14. That's one point.
25 And secondly, when the witness is speaking about this in context,
1 he talks about the destruction in Gornji Vakuf, in Mostar, and he says,
2 "the bridge." Which bridge? Thank you.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. Thanks, Mr. Kovacic.
4 Please proceed, Mr. Flynn.
5 MR. FLYNN: I mean, if it's the instructions of the panel I'm not
6 to talk about the bridge, I won't talk about the bridge. My next question
7 would have been which bridge it was because he has never said which
8 bridge. But I'll move on.
9 Q. You mentioned that the -- the general spoke about Gornji Vakuf and
10 the shelling of Gornji Vakuf; is that correct?
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. Can you remember anything specific what he may have said about
14 A. That -- that he has -- had the intention to destroy Gornji Vakuf.
15 Q. Can you just turn to Exhibit 9638, please. Do you have that in
16 front of you?
17 A. 31st of July.
18 Q. Is that the daily report for the 31st of July?
19 A. Yes. Yes.
20 Q. Now, if you turn to paragraph 3, Military Activity.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And go halfway down the page -- halfway down the paragraph you'll
23 see it says, "HVO appeared happy to level it," referring to Gornji Vakuf.
24 Is that correct?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. So what was your understanding when General Praljak made reference
2 to this? Was it that he would not leave it standing?
3 A. Well, I didn't quite understand the word "to level." That's my
4 problem with the English. It was for me destroy --
5 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, but -- thank
6 you, Your Honour. I don't understand. I checked in the indictment, and
7 there's no shelling as far as Gornji Vakuf is concerned in the indictment
8 or what we're discussing now. So we don't have this overview, although it
9 seems to relate to Gornji Vakuf. So I don't see where we're going. To
10 seems we're going to discuss issues much broader than those contained in
11 the indictment instead of reducing the time.
12 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one brief point.
13 Your Honour, this witness in the statement deals with Gornji Vakuf, and as
14 I said, it's not indictment. Now, in addition to the statement the
15 Prosecutor is asking him specific questions about that. These events in
16 Gornji Vakuf, in the summer, are not part of the indictment. They are not
17 contained in the indictment, because the situation is quite the opposite.
18 It was the Croats that were attacked there by the BH army. That's why
19 it's not in the indictment. But the essence of the matter is as follows:
20 If the Prosecutor raises this question, then, Your Honour, we have a lot
21 of evidence and very interesting material as far as Gornji Vakuf is
22 concerned. So I propose that either the Prosecution ceases to put
23 questions about Gornji Vakuf or we should be given additional time because
24 we have a lot to say about Gornji Vakuf in order to put the Defence case.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Flynn, if we look at the it
1 indictment you will see that there's nothing about Gornji Vakuf. So what
2 is your -- what is the purpose of your questions? What do you want to
3 establish, except that General Praljak intended to level Gornji Vakuf?
4 But even if that was established, in what way would that be of any assist
5 tans to us.
6 MR. FLYNN: It shows the character of the gentleman who has a high
7 position in the HVO. Now, I made it very clear at the outset to the
8 witness that I was not going to dwell on issues related to Gornji Vakuf
9 and Bugojno. But this in terms of the discussion with General Praljak
10 showed the frame of mind -- shows the frame of mind General Praljak was
11 in, shows his disposition to level a village or a town.
12 Now, I'm not -- I'm not asking you solely to -- I would not be
13 asking the panel solely to focus on Gornji Vakuf, but I believe I'm
14 entitled to ask the question in the overall context of the meeting which
15 took place because it demonstrates the general's disposition to destroy a
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, but here again, Mr. Flynn,
18 you know that in military terms, the warring factions have the right to
19 attack a town if there are military objectives within that town. So if
20 you're going along that avenue, you would have to ask more specific
21 questions. The warring factions are entitled to attack a city or a town
22 if the enemy has a stationed forces in that particular city or town. So
23 if you want to deal with that particular issue, you would need to ask
24 supplemental questions. You can't just ask that specific and limited
25 question, even more so since you've noticed that the witness who is an
1 English is not perfect has said that he had some duties about one word in
2 that record. If I remember correctly, that was the word level.
3 Yes, Mr. Kovacic.
4 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I, of course,
5 completely agree with your instructions and guideline, yes, guidelines to
6 the Prosecution, but my friend of the Prosecution mentioned another
7 argument, that that was a position taken by one of the accused. I think
8 that by saying that, this brings in subjectivism and, therefore, mens rea
9 is called into question. But I'd like to follow on from that and say, of
10 course questions have to be asked now and again for one to be able to
11 conclude about mens rea. We all know that. We're all aware of that. But
12 as far as I know through practice and what I was taught, the mens rea of
13 an accused is always linked to actus reus, that is to say, a specific
14 event, so that the accused at the time had such-and-such an opinion about
15 something and then we can conclude and observe about mens rea.
16 In this case we're talking about the 30th of July, 1993, and the
17 place is Gornji Vakuf, and there's no indictment against my client or any
18 of the accused in this courtroom as far as that is concerned. So even if
19 there is a mens rea, it is once again irrelevant.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. We get the point.
21 Mr. Flynn, please proceed and remember that what's important for
22 the Judges is what's in the indictment, and when we come to subjective
23 issues you have to be very careful.
24 MR. FLYNN: Very well, Your Honour.
25 Q. During the course of this meeting that you attended, do you
1 remember if Colonel Siljeg actively participated in the discussion?
2 A. Most of the time not. It was more a monologue of General Praljak.
3 Q. And so at the conclusion of the meeting what was your opinion as
4 to who was calling the shots in this area? Who was the overall commander?
5 A. Praljak.
6 Q. Now, while the fighting was going on in Gornji Vakuf, were there
7 preparations being made by the HVO to defend Prozor?
8 A. Yes. We could witness that at Makljen check-point, for instance.
9 Q. And if we turn very briefly to Exhibit 9657.
10 A. The 2nd of August, 1993.
11 Q. And do you -- is this a document which you authored?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And under General Situation, we have Prozor and Makljen
14 check-point still remain in HVO hands. Under Military Activity as
15 reported the BiH launched a full scale attack in the GV area last night.
16 Is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. So at this stage, was the ABiH moving southwards?
19 A. Was moving southwards, yes.
20 Q. Could -- now look at Exhibit 3909, please.
21 A. The 3rd of August, 1993.
22 Q. Again, is this the document which you participated in preparing?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if we look under General Situation, the last sentence, it
25 says, "Prozor remains actively with continued movement Makljen
1 check-point is still in HVO hands and still is being prepared heavily for
2 defence." Is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. If we turn to the humanitarian paragraph, do you see what's
5 written there?
6 A. Yes I --
7 Q. It says, "The GV BiH brigade commander stated that the only reason
8 that they did not capture the Makljen check-point was that HVO used Muslim
9 civilians as shields apparently. The HVO lined up 50 Muslim civilians
10 between HVO positions and the attacking BiH." Is this something you're
11 familiar with?
12 A. I'm familiar with that.
13 Q. Were you able to from your enquiries learn anything more than is
14 contained there in the report about --
15 A. No. No. That was stated by ABiH.
16 Q. Did you raise the issue with HVO authorities on or after that date
17 the 3rd of August?
18 A. Yes, these kind of questions we will always raised in the position
19 with HVO commanders.
20 Q. Did you mention the matter to Colonel Siljeg?
21 A. Must be.
22 Q. But you cannot say for certain?
23 A. No. If there is no file, I'm -- I'm not certain.
24 Q. Are you aware -- I just want to stay with this subject for a
25 moment. Are you aware from any background information which you received
1 on arrival or from what your colleagues may have told you if -- if ECMM
2 had ever received similar information previous to your arrival concerning
3 the use of forced labour like this?
4 A. I'm not -- I'm not aware of that.
5 Q. So skipping forward a little for the moment after the 3rd of
6 August, you say -- you said in your statement, your ICTY statement in the
7 middle of page 9 of the English version that you had a meeting on the 19th
8 of August with Commander Siljeg. Is this correct?
9 A. This is correct.
10 Q. And if we turn to Exhibit 4307 --
11 A. This is the 19th of August.
12 Q. And if you turn to the second page. When you met with Colonel
13 Siljeg, what -- what was the subject of your discussion?
14 A. We are permitted to visit the Muslim prisoners being held at the
15 technical school in Prozor.
16 Q. Whether you say "Muslim prisoners," what type of prisoners were
18 A. At a certain moment we have the opportunity to visit them. I
19 don't know if this is the date, but -- this is not the date I presume, but
20 at a certain moment we have visited these prisoners, and they appeared to
21 be civilians.
22 Q. Well, we're talking about now the 19th of August, and in your
23 report at page 2, is it stated that V2 was permitted to visit with 167
24 Muslim prisoners being held at the technical school in Prozor?
25 A. Okay.
1 Q. Is that correct?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. And these prisoners, were they civilian prisoners or were they
4 military prisoners?
5 A. They were civilians.
6 Q. And the report indicates that the men were between age 16 and 60,
7 and it indicates that --
8 A. Oh, yes. Yes.
9 Q. -- you received some information that they were being used as
10 forced labour by the HVO to dig trenches on the front lines in the Gornji
11 Vakuf area.
12 A. They told us so, yes.
13 Q. And there was an allegation that some had died as a result of this
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Did they mention how many had died?
17 A. Oh, I do not know how many.
18 Q. After you had had the meeting with these -- these people, did you
19 go back afterwards to express your concerns to Siljeg that there were
20 people being used as forced labour on the front lines?
21 A. Yes, we did several times.
22 Q. And were you able at any stage to independently confirm the
23 allegations of these individuals?
24 A. No. These type of questions we got the answer most of the times
25 that they would investigate, and we got no results.
1 Q. Can you tell us at the time that you visit these prisoners who was
2 actually guarding the prisoners?
3 A. As far as I can recall now, HVO members.
4 Q. And these HVO, their commander was Colonel Siljeg?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Now, moving on in your ICTY statement at foot of page 10 in the
7 English version you say --
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please wait a moment. I'd like
9 to ask a point of clarification, because you mention the paragraph related
10 to the visit to the prisoners.
11 There's a sentence here, Colonel, that reads as follows in
12 English: "[In English] We believe they are classed as civilian in terms
13 under the Geneva Convention."
14 [Interpretation] What allows you to write these words? On what
15 basis can you write this?
16 THE WITNESS: Because they were not military personnel, and, in
17 terms of the Geneva Convention, civilians can't be POWs.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well, but according to you
19 can civilians be detained as part of an administrative temporary
21 THE WITNESS: Well, when we asked for that, the -- these people
22 were imprisoned for -- for their own safety, and these kind of answers
23 we've got.
24 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Witness, are you then saying in this report that
25 these are persons sheltered voluntarily rather than against their will?
1 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not saying that. They were detained not on
2 a voluntary basis. They were detained against their will.
3 JUDGE TRECHSEL: So you are not saying here that the detention is
4 in conformity with the Geneva Conventions?
5 THE WITNESS: It is not in conformity with the Geneva Conventions.
6 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
7 MR. FLYNN: I note that it's time for the break and I'm wondering
8 if Your Honours wish to take the break at this time.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Scott wants to take
10 the floor first.
11 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour. I apologise for delaying the
12 break but hopefully it's best to resolve this now. I think I've learned
13 in this trial perhaps more than any other about the importance of
14 translation and what's sometimes in the transcript or not in the
15 transcript. I'm not clear about the court's instruction in connection
16 with the topic of the Old Bridge, and that's I think why Mr. Flynn and I
17 both might be a both -- a bit at sea about this.
18 Earlier today on page 3 of the transcript this is what came --
19 this is what is said on the transcript in English. I don't know if it's
20 correct. I'm just simply reading what's on the face of the transcript.
21 It says, "We learnt, and I thank the Prosecution, that they wanted to
22 raise a topic with this witness, a topic that was not in the written
23 statement of this witness, the destruction of the Old Bridge in Mostar,
24 and the Judges that evoked this question deem that this is a topic that's
25 interesting to raise through this witness."
1 And so I certainly heard that at the time it --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] It's a mistake. We never said
3 that it was a question that would be interesting to -- to discuss. We
4 said that, according to the Judges, this matter should not be raised.
5 It's precisely the opposite.
6 MR. SCOTT: Then at least I hope the Trial Chamber will understand
7 our confusion because I read exactly from the transcript what we heard.
8 Thank you.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] My attention had been drawn to
10 that fact, but for me it was so straightforward that I did not believe
11 that it was necessary for me to correct this thing. But you're absolutely
12 right. I should have then corrected that sentence in English. We have a
13 translation problem here.
14 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I completely agree with
15 you. I also warned that the sentence was not clear and that's why my
16 colleague referred back to the transcript. But the colleague -- my
17 colleague did quote part of that incorrectly, written sentence, but failed
18 to quote the last part of the sentence, and we saw that something was
19 amiss and wrong but I didn't know what it was. So, when it comes to a
20 quotation one should always have the sense to read the whole sentence.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine. We'll have a 20-minute
22 break now.
23 --- Recess taken at 3.47 p.m.
24 --- On resuming at 4.08 p.m.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Before proceeding, I
1 would like to hand the floor to the registrar because he wishes to give us
2 a number.
3 THE REGISTRAR: I've received a list submitted by 6D in relation
4 to the documents they want to tender with Witness Philip Watkins, and that
5 list shall be given Exhibit number IC 586, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
7 Mr. Flynn, you have the floor.
8 MR. FLYNN: Thank you, Your Honours.
9 Q. Colonel Gerritsen, before the -- before the break you had told us
10 about your meeting with Colonel Siljeg on the 19th of August and your
11 visit with the Muslim POWs in the technical school in Prozor, and you
12 expressed your concerns to Colonel Siljeg when you found out about the
13 fact that they had been used as forced labour on the front line. Did the
14 position improve? Did you get any information to suggest that this was no
15 longer the position, that prisoners were no longer being used on the front
16 line as heretofore, or did it still continue?
17 A. It did continue.
18 Q. And moving on, in your ICTY statement, at the foot of page 10, you
19 make reference again to -- to sighting Muslim POWs being used by the HVO
20 to dig trenches. Is that correct?
21 A. Yeah, that's correct.
22 Q. This was on the 26th of August. If you could turn to Exhibit
24 Again, do you recognise this document?
25 A. Yes, daily report, 26th of August.
1 Q. And you're one of the authors of the document?
2 A. I'm one the authors with Hauenstein.
3 Q. And turn to paragraph 4. In your note there under Humanitarian
4 Activity where you say "V2 observed again HVO in Trnovaca using 25
5 POWs/civilian internees to dig trenches in the area of the front line."
6 Is this what you're referring to?
7 A. That's what I'm referring to, yes.
8 Q. And it's also noted in your report that, "V2 has made strong
9 protests to the HVO in Prozor on this matter to no avail."
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. So you were getting no response from the HVO?
12 A. No.
13 Q. And how often would you -- would you raise this issue with the HVO
15 A. I think these kind of issues, also humanitarian, each time we met
16 each other.
17 Q. Can you tell us did you try through other means to influence the
18 HVO to stop the use of forced labour on the battlefield?
19 A. No. The own mean we have is our daily report, which was sent by
20 Travnik, Zenica, to Zagreb.
21 Q. Could I ask you to turn to Exhibit 4549.
22 A. 4549.
23 Q. At the top of the page it says from V2 Gornji Vakuf, daily report,
24 27th of August, 1993.
25 A. Okay.
1 Q. Do you recognise this document?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Did you assist in preparing it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And again go -- go to the paragraph 4 under Humanitarian Activity,
6 item A. You see it says -- you'll see under humanitarian activity it says
7 the church in Prozor have taken on four projects within their area of
9 "A. Conditions (including putting pressure on the HVO to stop
10 using prisoners to dig trenches on the front line) ..."
11 Did you enlist or did you try to enlist the assistance of the
12 church or how did this notation arrive in your report?
13 A. Well, we spoke to the priests in Prozor on a regular basis, and we
14 also discussed the same subjects as the priest as the major -- as with the
15 military commander in Prozor. So this is correct and not -- not -- not
17 Q. And did you get any feedback from the church in Prozor as to
18 whether or not they had any -- had any positive response from the HVO?
19 A. No, not that I remember.
20 Q. Could we then skip to September --
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Could I --
22 MR. FLYNN: I beg your pardon, Your Honour.
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Excuse me, Mr. Flynn, as we have the document in
24 front us.
25 In the same paragraph, 4, D -- in D we find: "Exchange of
1 minorities between Prozor and Bugojno ..."
2 Could you tell the Chamber what this refers to? Is this a
3 programme of population exchange?
4 THE WITNESS: Well, that -- that's -- you're right, difficulty
5 this subject is, because we are not allowed to -- we are not propose to
6 allow ethnical cleansing, and this could be a kind of ethnical cleansing
7 when you exchange minorities, because here is meant the minority in
8 Bugojno, which was Croat minority, and in Prozor was Muslim minority. And
9 as far -- at this time I say it's not correct.
10 JUDGE TRECHSEL: But would --
11 THE WITNESS: With our help.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: But what you're saying is -- here is that this is
13 a programme which was carried through by the church in Prozor.
14 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
15 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
16 MR. FLYNN:
17 Q. And just --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Just a second, please.
19 Colonel, a follow-up question. You mentioned a Muslim minority of
20 Prozor. I believe there must have been an imam in Prozor. The Catholic
21 church had a role to play that is very honourable. They had four projects
22 and that was very honourable, of course, but why did you not go to see the
23 imam in order to try to coordinate the religious action on both sides?
24 THE WITNESS: We visited the imam in Prozor as much as possible.
25 We were not always allowed to go to the imam, and we also discussed with
1 him the same matters as we did with the priest in Prozor, and most of the
2 times the same subjects. The -- we were not allowed to talk with the imam
3 on several occasions by the military police of Prozor.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] But, sir, why did you not state
5 in your report that you had also met the imam and so on and so forth?
6 THE WITNESS: These reports are written on a daily basis, and when
7 we didn't met the imam that day, we didn't mention it in -- we didn't
8 mention it in our daily report that we didn't met the imam. We only
9 mentioned the people we have met. So on the 27th of August -- 27th of
10 August, we didn't met the imam of Prozor.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Thank you very much.
12 Please proceed, Mr. Flynn.
13 MR. FLYNN:
14 Q. And staying with this subject of forced labour, could I skip
15 forward to the -- to the 9th of September, 1993. Do you remember, did you
16 or your colleague have occasion to visit the POW detention facility in
17 programme on that date?
18 A. On the 9th of September?
19 Q. Yeah.
20 A. I have not a date -- exactly the date in my memory. I should
21 have --
22 Q. If we can --
23 A. -- a look at the daily report.
24 Q. If we can turn to Exhibit 9661, please.
25 A. This is the daily report of the 9th of September. And we have
1 visited that day the POW camp at Prozor.
2 Q. And in the body of the report it says: "The camp is not a
3 military detention camp but a detention camp for civilian internees."
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Why was there a need to hold civilian internees?
6 A. I do not know. They just did on both sides, and it could be a
7 reaction of what all happened in Bugojno. It's a possibility. Maybe
8 there were threats. The real reason we never heard. The only reason when
9 we heard of that was that it was for their own security.
10 Q. And you report mentioned there were 228 civilians imprisoned --
11 imprisoned in the camp. When you say "imprisoned in the camp," do I take
12 it from that they did not have freedom of movement?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. And it goes to say that almost every day they're digging trenches
15 in the area of Trnovaca. The next sentence, and I'm not sure there's
16 something missing from it: "At least four detainees during the digging."
17 Do you know what was meant to be said there? It doesn't exactly make
18 sense as drafted.
19 A. For the digging. Which paragraph?
20 Q. The same paragraph we're looking at.
21 A. Okay.
22 Q. Paragraph 4, around six is lines down where it says: "They are
23 digging trenches in the area of Trnovaca." You say, "At least four
24 detainees have during digging." Do you recollect what was meant to be
25 said there?
1 A. I still can't find it.
2 Q. Okay. If you turn to paragraph 4?
3 A. 4, six --
4 Q. Paragraph 4 and go down one, two, three four five --
5 A. Slashes? No --
6 Q. Go down six sentences.
7 A. Oh, yes. No. That's not the correct sentence. I see, but --
8 Q. Do you know what was meant to be said there?
9 A. No, I do not remember.
10 Q. And the paragraph goes on and it says: "In the absence of the
11 camps guards the internees mentioned that they thought between 40 to 60
12 people had been killed working on the trenches."
13 Now, was this complaint different to the complaint that you
14 received earlier on the 19th of August?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And were you -- were you able in any way to confirm what you were
18 A. No. The only confirmation we had was what we saw -- we saw on
19 several occasions people digging trenches, but we couldn't speak to those
20 people who were digging trenches at that specific moment.
21 Q. Did you get a list at any stage of those people who were alleged
22 to have been killed?
23 A. No. Although we've got several lists in my stay, overall stay, in
24 the area of Gornji Vakuf, and we passed all this -- most of them to ICRC
25 and to RC Zenica, but I do not remember a specific list for those people
1 who died during digging trenches.
2 Q. So you weren't able to make any independent inquiries because you
3 didn't have names.
4 A. That's correct, but these kind of inquiries we didn't make at all.
5 We just asked questions and --
6 Q. Okay. So you're saying it didn't fall within your mandate?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Now, looking at your ICTY statement again and turning to page 12,
9 I see that on the 13th of September you report that you had seen civilians
10 in civilian clothes digging trenches, guarded by the HVO. Do you remember
11 stating that in your statement?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And if we could turn to the Exhibit 9629. Again it's a daily
15 A. The 13th of September, yes.
16 Q. The 13th of September. Again this is the daily report from Gornji
18 A. Yes, with MacIver.
19 Q. MacIver. By this stage had you received a new colleague?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And his name was Mr. MacIver?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. A Canadian, I believe?
24 A. A Canadian, yes.
25 Q. And if we look the -- the statement in the -- if you look at your
1 report under paragraph 3, Military Activity, you state, "In our AOR the
2 preparations for future action are continuing. Again today, the V2
3 observed civilian labour digging trenches in forward HVO positions." Can
4 you remember where it was that you saw the -- the civilian labour digging
5 the trenches?
6 A. No. We saw it on several locations and most of the time we saw
7 the neighbourhood of Makljen check-point.
8 Q. And were you able to approach the prisoners on this occasion to
9 enquire under the circumstances they were forced to work, how many of
10 them, who they were, et cetera, et cetera?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Why was that?
13 A. Because it is too dangerous to go into the field because of mines,
14 and I think they would not be pleased when we walked just through these
15 people. So you take a risk which we couldn't take.
16 Q. Now, we've referred to a number of instances where either you
17 received reports of people being used for forced labour or you witnessed
18 it yourself, and you told us on a number of occasions that you made
19 reports, you made complaints or you brought it to the attention of the HVO
20 authorities. At any stage after either obtaining the information or
21 receiving it yourself or lodging any kind of process, did you ever get a
22 positive response back from the HVO?
23 A. The positive response was that they would investigate sometimes,
24 but we never got a result.
25 Q. And by way of contrast, did you have similar issues with POWs on
1 the ABiH side, Croat prisoners, that you had to raise with the ABiH
3 A. Yes, we had.
4 Q. And what kind of a response did you receive from them?
5 A. The same.
6 Q. Nothing positive.
7 A. Nothing positive.
8 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down for the transcript, thank you.
9 MR. FLYNN:
10 Q. Now, given the apparent BiH success to the north and the movement
11 of its army southwards, can you tell us how Muslims were being treated in
12 the -- in the town of Prozor by Croat authorities? Did they have, for
13 example, freedom of movement?
14 A. No, they had not, and I think over the time it was more or less
15 deteriorating. At a certain moment they were gathered.
16 Q. And --
17 A. After that, they were expelled to another region.
18 Q. And can you tell us who was it who was looking after the interests
19 of the Muslim population living in Prozor during the period of your tenure
20 in -- in the AOR of Gornji Vakuf?
21 A. Well, we took a look at that as Victor 2. Also, of course, the
22 imam of Prozor. I think one way or another sometimes also the priest did
23 their best. Well, that's mainly it, I think.
24 Q. And is it correct to say that in your ICTY statement that on the
25 10th of August, 1993, you spoke with the imam at Prozor -- in Prozor at
1 his house. Do you remember that?
2 A. Yes, I spoke on several occasions with the imam at Prozor.
3 Q. And if we could turn Exhibit 9619.
4 A. The 10th of August.
5 Q. The 10th of August.
6 A. Daily report, Hauenstein Gerritsen, yes.
7 Q. You say under the third paragraph the report states, second
8 sentence: "Most of the Muslim population is under house arrest and V2 has
9 been forbidden to talk to them. It is not clear how many Muslims still
10 remain in this area. However, three weeks ago it was about 5.000."
11 Is that correct what --
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. And where did you get this information that Muslim population was
14 under house arrest?
15 A. From the imam and also from other sources. We also visited at a
16 certain moment Podgrad and we could see that house arrest by ourselves,
17 and the imam was always under house arrest.
18 Q. In fact, if we turn to page 2 of that report, under Humanitarian
19 Activity paragraph 4, four subparagraphs down, is it correct when you
20 write: "The imam in Prozor to whom we talked to for about five minutes
21 before the local police stated all the Muslims in the area had been
22 gathered in the eastern part of the town. In one case there is up to 60
23 Muslims living in one house. He himself was under house arrest and must
24 report to the police station three times each day."
25 A. Well, that's correct, and he has said 80 Muslims in one house, but
2 Q. And who as it that the -- the -- who was it specifically that the
3 imam was having this difficulty with? Was it --
4 A. It was the military police of Prozor. They were gathering -- not
5 gathering, but -- to -- they got the imam.
6 Q. And you state in your ICTY statement that the military police were
7 not under the authority of -- of Colonel Siljeg. Is that correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Do you know under whose authority they were?
10 A. No.
11 Q. And what kind of a relationship did ECMM have with him?
12 A. A bad relationship we had.
13 Q. What --
14 A. We tried to communicate, but it was difficult to communicate
15 with -- the people from the military police were rude to us.
16 Q. How would you describe the manner in which they carried out their
17 job, their functions?
18 A. Well, I would say very badly. They are not the kind of police we
19 know of and, well, it's just -- I'm searching for the right word, but that
20 difficult -- but they are not kind people. Rough, harsh, not
21 well-educated. That was our opinion. They -- there was always a type of
22 woman in that house, kind of whorehouse, in our opinion. It was a strange
24 Q. So you told us about the fact that you learned that the Muslims
25 had been arrested, and the imam had told you that they had all been
1 gathered in the eastern part of the town. Was this a new development or
2 had you seen it happen before?
3 A. This was in Prozor a new development, a new development for me.
4 Q. Mm-hmm. Did it give you cause for any concern?
5 A. Yes, of course, because being held in a ghetto from a historical
6 point of view isn't always a -- well.
7 Q. And did you try to get confirmation as to what the imam had told
8 you, that these people had been gathered in one part of the town? Did you
9 try to get independent confirmation?
10 A. Yes. We asked to visit these people, and later on we visited, as
11 I said before, Podgrad and later on Duge.
12 Q. At this time did you have any relationship with the chairman of
13 the humanitarian commission, and did you make any inquiries from them?
14 A. Yes. Once we met a representative of a humanitarian commission in
16 Q. And if you -- if you turn to Exhibit 9630.
17 A. The 11th of August.
18 Q. The 11th of August. Again, are we looking at the daily report for
19 this date? "Subject: Daily report, 11th of August, 1993. From V2 Gornji
20 Vakuf to CC Travnik." Is this the daily report for that date?
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. And paragraph 4, Humanitarian Activity, there's a notation that V2
23 met with the chairman of the humanitarian commission, and on paragraph 5
24 again it says -- sorry, the next page, it says: "She stated --" the V2
25 met with the chairman of the humanitarian commission in Prozor. She
1 stated that food stocks have been arriving in Prozor without difficulty."
2 Is that correct so far?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And later in the paragraph, "She also confirmed that the imam had
5 stated what we had reported in yesterday's daily report." So she
6 confirmed with you that these people had been moved; is that correct?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And we see as we look farther down that the V2 was once again
9 restricted from seeing the imam in Prozor, and you commented that, "We
10 will bring this up again with local military authorities." Who did you
11 normally bring it up with?
12 A. With Colonel Siljeg.
13 Q. Why did you feel that Colonel Siljeg could do anything if he had
14 no authority, as you indicated in your ICTY report?
15 A. Well, because of the fact that he was the man to talk with on all
16 subjects, and if you want to achieve something you could achieve it most
17 likely by him. We also raised these kind of subjects with the mayor of
18 Prozor and the priest.
19 Q. Mm-hmm.
20 A. And the -- well, we -- we tried everything, of course.
21 Q. And in the last part of that report that you're just looking at,
22 under Assessment you say: "Concern is expressed over the fate of the
23 Muslims in Prozor." Now, up to this all you had known was they were moved
24 to the eastern part of Prozor?
25 A. That's correct.
1 Q. What was concerning you?
2 A. Well, in this war we had all reasons to be concerned when people
3 are gathered -- well, you could expect that from -- as I said before, from
4 the history that it is not well for these people to be gathered. It's
5 always for a reason, and we had the conviction that it was not for their
6 own safety.
7 Q. And did you protest, did you make any protest to the HVO
9 A. Yes, we always did.
10 Q. And if we turn to Exhibit 9631, we see on the 13th of August you
11 visited with the HVO authorities. Again, are we looking at a daily report
12 for that date?
13 A. The 13th it of August, yes.
14 Q. Under paragraph 4.
15 A. 4.
16 Q. "V2 once again protested to Prozor authorities over the
17 restriction of access to Muslim leaders in the community. They promised
18 that this restriction will be lifted."
19 Did you take the opportunity of discussing the issue of -- as to
20 why the people had been moved to the east of Prozor on that occasion?
21 A. It's possible that we did that on that occasion. Well, we did it
22 on several occasions, but was probably also on this occasion.
23 Q. And if you turn --
24 A. Is it not on the report?
25 Q. Not on this one. If you turn to --
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. If you turn to Exhibit 9627.
3 A. 9627. The 16th of August.
4 Q. Yes. And on that day did you have a meeting with the mayor of
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And --
8 A. Jozic.
9 Q. And did he tell you anything about the Muslims that had been
10 moved? Under Political Situation, there is a notation that "V2 met with
11 the mayor of Prozor --"
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. "-- and he stated that most of his efforts are directed to day to
14 day crisis management. He said the biggest problem was dealing with the
15 influx of detainees --"
16 A. Okay. Yes. I see. Well, he stated there that they are also
17 being moved to get more places for the Croat refugees. Isn't it?
18 Q. Well --
19 A. Well, I guess also an argument. Probably it's here.
20 Q. Well, if you read the paragraph, it's -- did you prepare this
22 A. Yes, I did. With Hauenstein, of course.
23 Q. And he says at the middle of paragraph 2: "They are trying to
24 care for all, including Muslims." And he refers to 70 per cent Croats and
25 30 per cent Muslims. At this point, had there been a large influx of
1 Croat DPs into Prozor? Displaced persons.
2 A. Okay. Displaced persons, yes. I'm not sure. There were of
3 course displaced persons, but I do not know the exact influx.
4 Q. Well, you conclude the paragraph by stating: "He," the
5 mayor, "feels the greatest responsibility is the safety of all civilians
6 in Prozor."
7 A. Of course, yes.
8 Q. Were you reassured by that comment? Were you --
9 A. One way or not I think so, but it depends on the circumstances of
11 Q. What do you mean by that?
12 A. When circumstances are deteriorating, the people, also the mayor,
13 could have possibility to -- could have difficulties, I mean, to implement
14 his wishes as he has expressed here. You are never sure in wartime. But
15 I think overall he tried to do his best, Jozic. As far as I know him.
16 Q. Do you ever remember mentioning in your ICTY statement to the
17 investigators that you didn't believe that the men were being kept for
18 their own safety?
19 A. Oh, yes.
20 Q. But that you believed it was part -- part of an ethnic cleansing
21 campaign of the Croats?
22 A. Yes. What -- the question is, was the mayor of whom we are
23 talking now responsible for the ethnical cleansing.
24 Q. No, but my question to you was when he had indicated that he feels
25 for the -- the greatest responsibility is the safety of all the citizens
1 in Prozor, was this a genuine intention on his part to provide for all the
2 safety -- for the safety of all the citizens of Prozor?
3 A. Well, I think he -- as a Croat he is more in favour in wartime for
4 the Croats of course, but a certain concern for the Muslims he had as
5 well, I think.
6 Q. Mm-hmm. I'm looking again at this daily report of the 16th of
7 August. You'll see at the bottom of the page there's a notation: "V2 was
8 once again restricted from talking to the imam in Prozor. We will once
9 again protest. However, the imam did manage to tell us that all Muslim
10 men between the ages of 16 to 60 who remained in Prozor have been gathered
11 up and taken away."
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What did he mean by that, "taken away"?
14 A. That they were imprisoned or expelled.
15 Q. Did you know to where they had been taken?
16 A. Well, I think these are the same - I'm not sure - as the people
17 who are detained in the Prozor POW camp. Or not. I'm not sure.
18 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do apologise for
19 interrupting. I do my best not to. But in the past two questions, one
20 after another, my learned friend has asked the witness what the person he
21 was talking to thought when making a certain statement. I think that's
22 speculation. The witness told us what he talked to said and that's what
23 he wrote in his statement. Now, what the person thought, I don't think
24 there's any point in going into that.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. I noted your
2 Mr. Flynn.
3 MR. FLYNN:
4 Q. If we turn back, Colonel, to Exhibit 4307 for a moment, please.
5 And this was the 19th of August, 1993, that you've already spoken about.
6 And if you turn to page 2, we see the reference to the prisoners held in
7 Prozor technical school whom you visited. And then in the next paragraph
8 it stated: "We have also been informed that the Muslims in Prozor have
9 been moved into three areas of the region: Podgrade, Lapsunj, and Duge."
10 Can you tell us who gave you this information? From whom did you obtain
12 A. I think it was from the imam of Prozor.
13 Q. And when he was referring to the Muslims in Prozor, was he
14 referring to those Muslims who had earlier been moved into the eastern
16 A. Yes, these are the same.
17 Q. And if we continue on through that particular paragraph we're
18 looking at, is it correct to state that you managed to visit one of those
19 places on the date you got the information?
20 A. Later on we visited Podgrade and Duge. So two of them.
21 Q. And in relation to Podgrade, is it correct when it is noted here
22 in the report that it states: "In Podgrade there was 1.760 old men,
23 women, and children"?
24 A. That's correct.
25 Q. "The houses in the area filled were the minimum of 30 occupants
1 each. Conditions are poor but there is sufficient food. There are
2 indications that the HVO soldiers come into the area at night and rape the
3 women they wish. All the men between 16 and 60 are gone. They," meaning
4 the Muslims, I presume, "are very frightened concerning their future."
5 That what you learned in Podgrade?
6 A. That's what I learned there, yes.
7 Q. Did you know where did you make inquiries as to where the men had
8 been moved, the men between 16 and 60?
9 A. These men had been moved, in our opinion, or at least part of them
10 to the POW camp.
11 Q. A POW camp where?
12 A. Prozor.
13 Q. Do you know of -- how many had been moved on that occasion?
14 A. No. When we visited it, it was -- the number of POWs in that camp
15 was lower down that school. It was a school, I think.
16 Q. According to your report you mention 167. Is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. And you also --
19 A. Okay. That's up here, yes.
20 Q. And you also received information that some other men had been
21 moved to Capljina and Ljubuski.
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Do you know under whose orders they had been moved?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Did you make any inquiries afterwards?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Well, if you could turn to Exhibit 9621. On the 20th of August
3 did you visit the village of Duge?
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. On the 20th of August did you visit the village of Duge?
6 A. Yes. Yes.
7 Q. And 9621 is this your daily report of 20th of August?
8 A. Yes, this is my daily report.
9 Q. Authored by you and Mr. Hauenstein who appears to have returned?
10 A. That's correct.
11 Q. And is it correct what is stated in paragraph 4 that you visited
12 the Muslim community in Duge and you found the identical conditions as we
13 found in Podgrade yesterday?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Next paragraph states that the third location, Lapsunj, was not
16 visited. "The HVO stated they would not allow V2 access until such time
17 as they provided a report of the Croat villages surrounding the area of
18 Bugojno." Is that correct?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Did you make inquiries as to what was intended for the Muslims who
21 were in these three locations?
22 A. What was intended?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Okay. We did not -- we spoke about these things with the mayor,
25 with the imam, but I shouldn't call it inquiries.
1 Q. Mm-hmm.
2 A. That's too much for our questioning, I think.
3 Q. Did anybody tell you that the movement of the Muslims to these
4 three locations was merely a temporary movement and that they would be
5 allowed to go back to their homes in Prozor?
6 A. Oh, yes. Most of the time when we talked with several people
7 about these kind of subjects it was always temporary, because there would
8 always be a time after the war.
9 Q. But I'm not talking about after the war. I'm talking within a
10 couple of weeks of that time.
11 A. No. At that time no one want to bring back these people to their
12 own houses where they came from.
13 Q. Was there any --
14 A. And, of course, the matter of ethnical cleansing, but they never
15 told us that their object was ethnical cleansing. We could only guess.
16 Q. Would it have been possible for the Muslims who were held in these
17 three locations to return to their houses? Were they free and vacant?
18 A. No, not at that time.
19 Q. Can you tell us why they weren't free and vacant?
20 A. Because of the patrol of military police and HVO, I think, as
21 these Muslims told us when we visited Podgrade and Duge, because the
22 guards who were on the roads to Podgrade. And all these things were
23 telling us that they were a kind of imprisoned. They could freely move --
24 Q. Did you ever --
25 A. -- in that area of Podgrade and Duge but not outside that area.
1 Q. On this issue of whether they could go back to their homes or not,
2 do you remember ever mentioning to the ICTY when you gave your statement
3 that -- that Croat families had moved into houses there?
4 A. That Croat families -- Croat families. Okay. Yes. Croat
5 families, I witnessed by myself, went into the houses later on in
7 Q. In Podgrade?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now --
10 A. I do not know the date.
11 Q. Staying on this subject of the Muslims of Prozor, is it correct
12 that you stated to the ICTY -- at page 11, that you spoke to the imam
13 around this time and he had heard a rumour that the HVO had been moving
14 Muslims from Podgrade to another town?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. If we could turn to Exhibit 4598, please.
17 A. The 28th of August.
18 Q. This is your report of the 28th of August, and is this authored by
19 you and Mr. Hauenstein?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And if you turn to paragraph 2 at the top of the page, is it
22 correct that you visited to the imam and that he provided what you
23 described as "some additional disturbing news." The HVO have been moving
24 Muslims from Podgrade throughout the day.
25 A. From the Humanitarian Activity paragraph 2.
1 Q. Top of page 2 on my copy. It's one, two, three -- it's the fourth
2 paragraph under Humanitarian Activity.
3 A. Oh, the fourth.
4 Q. Oh, page 2.
5 A. Yes, that's correct.
6 Q. And the number of Muslims mentioned was 1.760.
7 A. Sixty, yes. Even more specific.
8 Q. On learning this information did you go to the location where the
9 Muslims were -- were held to see whether or not you could confirm it?
10 A. No, we didn't. To the new location?
11 Q. I'm sorry?
12 A. I didn't understand the question.
13 Q. When you learnt -- when you learned the Muslims had been moved --
14 A. Mm-hmm.
15 Q. -- did you make any efforts to confirm this fact?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you visit the location where they had been held?
18 A. Yes. We went to Podgrade.
19 Q. Mm-hmm?
20 A. And at a certain moment I don't know when but we saw the moving of
21 these people. They were gathered into a truck to be brought to another
23 Q. And --
24 A. And we saw empty Podgrade.
25 Q. And could you tell us who was -- who was in charge of this move in
1 terms of the authorities? Who was handling the move?
2 A. As far as I can recall now, I think the HVO.
3 Q. Did this development give you any cause for concern?
4 A. Yes, of course, because it's -- it could be ethnical cleansing.
5 Q. And were you able to find out from either the military authorities
6 or the civilian authorities such as the mayor as to what was happening?
7 A. Yes. This was confirmed by several people.
8 Q. When you say several people, who do you mean?
9 A. The mayor, the -- Siljeg --
10 Q. And --
11 A. -- priest. All were in the end well-known of the fact that
12 these -- these Muslim people were expelled.
13 Q. Did you in fact meet with Colonel Siljeg on the 1st of September,
14 1993, to discuss the issue?
15 A. I do not exactly know the date, but we discussed this issue with
16 Siljeg, yes.
17 Q. If you could turn to 9636. Again if you could just confirm that
18 this is your daily report and authored by you?
19 A. The 1st of September, yes.
20 Q. And if you turn to paragraph 4, Humanitarian Activity. We see
21 that there's a notation that "the HVO representative of Prozor Colonel
22 Siljeg confirm the expelling of 2.000 plus Muslims to Muslim territory
23 near Konjic and Jablanica. They are moved on a voluntary basis. The
24 military police is responsible for this action and they are acting
1 Is that what you were told by Colonel Siljeg?
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. And just in terms of the language used in this paragraph, you say:
4 "The hope representative Colonel Siljeg confirm the expelling of the 2.000
5 plus to Muslim territory and says they were moved on a voluntary basis."
6 I think you can see the contradiction there in terms. Did
7 Colonel Siljeg use the word "expelling," or is that your word?
8 A. Colonel Siljeg was talking Croat, of course, and we always spoke
9 through an interpreter, and I think it's possible that the word
10 "expelling" is from me.
11 Q. Mm-hmm. And was this your belief, that they had been expelled?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Did you make any inquiries to try and find out whether it had been
14 a voluntary movement and confirm what Colonel Siljeg had told you?
15 A. It was obvious -- it was obvious for me that it was not on a
16 voluntary basis because of the fact that we visited Podgrade and Duge
17 where we talked to these people, and these Muslim people who we talked to
18 had a different opinion, and they were not saying that they were there in
19 Podgrade and Duge on a voluntary basis and that they wanted left -- leave,
20 that they wanted to leave Prozor.
21 Q. So it was your opinion that this was an expulsion?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Did you follow up on what had actually happened to these people
24 who were expelled? This was a large group of people, 2.000 plus Muslims.
25 Did you make any inquiries as to what had become of them?
1 A. Well, sometimes we -- we asked for that and if anyone knows
2 something about them. The only thing I've heard later is how they had to
3 walk the last few metres to Muslim territory, and there should be shooting
4 as well for -- on some occasion and some were killed. But that could not
5 be confirm. That's what I heard on an occasion.
6 Q. And do you remember, did you hear who was shot at them -- who shot
7 at them? Sorry.
8 A. No.
9 Q. Did you make any effort to contact the authorities in the ABiH
10 area they were moved to?
11 A. No. These kind of -- because it was another material, these kind
12 of questions should be made by RC Zenica.
13 Q. Do you know how many people were shot that you mentioned?
14 A. Just a few we heard.
15 Q. So this it brought you up to the first week in September. I think
16 you've mentioned earlier that during various dates in September that you
17 saw the use of forced labour, and did it come about that in the middle of
18 September you moved from one location to another and you moved from Gornji
19 Vakuf to Tomislavgrad?
20 A. I moved to Tomislavgrad, yes, the 15th.
21 Q. And who was -- who was the monitor that took over from you when
22 you left?
23 A. Dave MacIver, the Canadian.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. FLYNN: I believe that's it, Your Honours. I don't have any
1 further questions. There were quite a number of exhibits in the booklet,
2 but we made a decision that, given the fact that some items were outside
3 the indictment, we were not going to put these. So I don't have any
4 further questions.
5 There is one correction that I would like to make. At the very
6 outset when I was asking the witness if he remembered having giving a
7 statement to the ICTY, I believe I may have mentioned the 9th of April,
8 2002. That was the date of the statement. In fact, I should have said
9 the 7th of May, 2002. I'd like to make that correction. And that's it.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I think
11 that it would be better to have our last break now so as to allow the
12 Defence to prepare.
13 It's five past 5.00. We will resume in 20 minutes.
14 --- Recess taken at 5.03 p.m.
15 --- On resuming at 5.23 p.m.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The hearing is resume. We will
17 now proceed to the cross-examination stage. Considering the questions put
18 by the Prosecution, we believe that three hours is sufficient for the
20 I'm now going to give the floor to the Defence. I'd like to
21 remind you that General Praljak should be granted one hour out of these
22 three hours, one hour to put his questions to the witness. Let me now
23 give the floor to the one who is going to start. Yes.
24 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
25 Cross-examination by Ms. Tomasegovic Tomic:
1 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. Good afternoon to everyone
2 in the courtroom. I don't have any of my own documents, but I shall be
3 using just two documents that you have in the Prosecution binder. And
4 would you find document P 03263 to start off with. And may we have that
5 document on e-court. It is P 03273.
6 And we'll take a look at that together. It is a report, Gornji
7 Vakuf, for the 7th of July, 1993. And I'd like us to look at point 4,
8 Humanitarian Activities. And in point 4 under humanitarian activity it
9 says as following: "The team visited the imam of Prozor today. He was
10 extremely frightened and told us that almost all Muslim men between 16 and
11 60 have been arrested by the HVO. He would also like to see the entire
12 Muslim population moved to a Muslim controlled area."
13 Tell me now, please, did you know about these wishes expressed by
14 the imam that the Muslims be moved to an area controlled by the Muslims?
15 A. Yes. No, because it's not -- it's a report from the 7th of July,
16 yes. I did not know of.
17 Q. I know that this report was written before you arrived in the
18 Gornji Vakuf area, but unless I'm wrong, I think you told us earlier on
19 that you knew what the situation was like before and that you were
20 informed of the reports that had been written. So that's why I asked you.
21 If you don't know, that's fine. We can move on.
22 A. I don't know.
23 Q. Tell me now, please, do you know under whose control Jablanica and
24 Konjic were in September 1993 and the end of August 1993? Who controlled
25 those two towns?
1 A. No. I must guess.
2 Q. I'd like to go back to the last document you were looking at
3 before the break, and it is P 09636.
4 A. 9636. Okay.
5 Q. I am going to focus on point 4 and draw your attention to that
6 paragraph, which was the one the Prosecutor asked you to look at as well.
7 It refers to the deportation of 2.000 Muslims to the territory of Konjic
8 and Jablanica.
9 The Prosecutor, after focusing on that paragraph, asked you a
10 question. He asked you whether you agreed with the statement made by
11 Mr. Siljeg whereby the Muslims would go voluntarily, and you said you
12 didn't agree with that, and that was on page 72 of the transcript, because
13 the Muslims from Podgrade and Lapsunj told you that they were not moved to
14 Podgrade and Lapsunj of their own free will, voluntarily. However, from
15 this document we can see that it wasn't the fact that the Muslims were
16 moved from Lapsunj and Podgrade but from Jablanica and Konjic. And from
17 that I deduce that this movement to Jablanica and Konjic was not something
18 that you had discussed. You had discussed their moving to Podgrade and
19 Lapsunj. Am I right in saying that?
20 A. I agree with you so far.
21 Q. In your statement, which you said you signed and is one of the
22 documents, on page 11, that's in both in the Croatian and in the English
23 version, in Croatian it is the last paragraph, in English it is the first
24 paragraph, you describe the situation and say the following: "On the 28th
25 of August, 1993, we talked to the imam, and he told us that he had heard
1 rumours that the HVO was moving the Muslims from Podgrade to Rama, and he
2 said that the same thing was happening in Duge and in Lapsunj as well. We
3 drove to the entrance to Podgrade, and we saw a large truck parked next to
4 the ramp. We stopped the car, went up to the truck and saw that it was
5 full of women, children, and elderly Muslims. It was a green military
6 truck, and I can't say whether it belonged to the military police or to
7 the HVO because there was no difference in the vehicles those two sides
8 used. I don't remember who was driving the truck."
9 Do you remember saying that or words to that effect?
10 A. Yes, I do.
11 Q. From that I deduce that you do not know who did this moving of
12 persons, whether it was the military police and whether it was voluntary
13 or not. You don't know who actually carried it out.
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. Last week here in the courtroom -- you don't need that document
16 any more, so you can forget about the binder.
17 As I was saying, last week in the courtroom we heard Mr. Philip
18 Watkins. I assume you know who Mr. Watkins is. Is that right? Do you
19 know him?
20 A. Yes, I know.
21 Q. Mr. Watkins answered questions linked to the isolation of the
22 Muslim population in the areas of Podgrade, Lapsunj, and Duge
23 municipality, the subject you talked about today. And for the record,
24 this was recorded on the pages of the transcript 19124, 19127, 19129, and
1 During that examination or when asked, he said that a the
2 isolation of the Muslim populous occurred after two massacres of the
3 Croatian population, one of which was in the village of Uzdol, and that in
4 his opinion it wasn't unreasonable to place the Muslim population,
5 including the imam, in isolation for their own safety, in order to avoid
6 retaliation or revenge being taken against them. Would you agree with
7 that observation made by Mr. Watkins?
8 A. I would not agree because of the fact that Uzdol happened on the
9 15th of September and the expelling was before that date.
10 Q. Very well. Now, tell me, please, today we heard you say, and
11 we've heard this earlier on, this is something that Mr. Hauenstein on the
12 3rd of October 2006 told us about when he was testifying here, as did Mr.
13 Watkins, too, they spoke about this situation with the imam, and that the
14 military police would have prevented you from talking to him, from
15 contacting him, and everybody said what you told us here this afternoon as
16 well, and that is that as a rule when the military police prevented you
17 from having contacts, after that you yourself would contact the
18 individual, whether it was Mr. Siljeg or someone else, it depended, from
19 the operative zone or the brigade, and that after that you would be
20 allowed access. Is that right?
21 A. Well, it -- I agree for -- I'm sure for one -- I know one case.
22 I'm well aware of such -- such a case, yes.
23 Q. Tell me, please, there's something that I don't find logical here.
24 You told us that Mr. Siljeg did not have control over the military police.
25 How, then, do you explain this situation? If they didn't allow you to
1 contact the imam and then you contacted Mr. Siljeg or some other person
2 from the brigade, and after that you were given permission to contact the
3 imam. From this I make the logical conclusion that the military police
4 nonetheless obeyed Mr. Siljeg.
5 A. Well, it's possible that they are obeying Mr. Siljeg. It's also
6 possible that they negotiated about that. I do not know.
7 Q. When Mr. Hauenstein was examined here, he spoke about the military
8 structure as he knew it on the territory of Prozor and Vakuf, and this was
9 recorded on the pages of the transcript 7836 and 7843. He said on that
10 occasion that in Prozor the situation was such that there was the military
11 police and that its commander was superior to it. I'm paraphrasing this.
12 And up above its commander was the commander of the operative zone. He
13 was the superior to them. Which means he told us something different than
14 what you told us here this afternoon.
15 Is it possible that Mr. Hauenstein was better informed about the
16 situation than you because he spent much longer there, as far as I
17 remember. He spent much longer on the ground. You were there for under
18 two months yourself.
19 A. Well, I think we were both informed well. He stayed there for six
20 months in that area. Hauenstein, I mean. Well, in my advantage, as you
21 can call it -- as you may call it that way, is that I stayed in that area
22 during the clashes, and on some events which were treated today he wasn't
23 there. But I think for the preparation to the 18th of July where the war
24 started in Bugojno between the Muslims and the Croats, he was better
25 informed than me, because I wasn't there before that period.
1 Q. Tell me, please, and I'd like to go back to your statement now, in
2 the Croatian version it is on page 11, and in English it is on page 10,
3 paragraph 3, and in it you say the following. You describe the 20th of
4 August, 1993, and your tour of Duge, and somewhere in the middle of the
5 paragraph you say: "We reported that there were regular police patrols in
6 the area. It must have been the military police, because they were the
7 only police force in the area at that time. They told us about these
8 patrols. However, we did not see them."
9 Do you remember that portion of your statement, having said that?
10 Just give me a yes or no answer, please.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Mr. Hauenstein, when he was here on the 3rd of October, and this
13 was recorded on page 7863 of the transcript, lines 10 to 12, said that he
14 had contacts with the civilian police in Prozor. Now, I am interested in
15 knowing the following: Is it possible that only you did not know that the
16 civilian police existed, whereas it did exist at that time but you did not
17 have knowledge of that, since Mr. Hauenstein had meetings with that police
18 force? At least that's what he says.
19 A. It's my turn now?
20 Q. Yes, yes. Please go ahead.
21 A. Well, I've been -- I have been with -- I had meetings with the
22 military police in Prozor as well together with Mr. Hauenstein, so I do
23 not understand this question that I should not know of the existence of
24 the military police in Prozor. I --
25 Q. No. I asked you about the civilian police. He said that he met
1 with the civilian police. Not the military police, the ordinary civilian
2 police force?
3 A. The ordinary civilian police. Okay.
4 Q. Yes, yes, yes.
5 A. Yes, yes, yes. I'm not aware of that. It's strange -- it's
6 strange for me.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Colonel, the Defence counsel is
8 asking you whether you met with the civilian police. Your answer was that
9 as far as you were concerned, there was only military, military police.
10 Whilst looking at the documents earlier on, I noticed that in one of the
11 documents it is stated that you went to Bugojno and that there at 1400
12 hours you met with the civilian police. You explained that there was
13 lunch from noon to 2.00, and that 2.00 p.m. you met with the civilian
14 police. In other words, there was a civilian police. It existed in
15 Bugojno. Then how come the -- how do you explain there was no military --
16 or civilian police in Prozor?
17 THE WITNESS: I can't explain. It's correct that we talked
18 several times with the civilian police in Bugojno, and in my point of view
19 the police which I met in Prozor was military police. That's the only
20 thing I can say about that.
21 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Tell me, please, do you have any information, specific
23 information -- or, rather, do you know how many members of the military
24 police had in Prozor? How many military policemen were there in Prozor?
25 A. No. The total amount I do not know. The only amount I know of is
1 which I have seen at the house of the military police in Prozor, which
2 were, approximate, five. More I haven't seen together.
3 Q. Tell me, please, do you know whether and how many -- any military
4 policemen were killed or died in Prozor and, if so, how many?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Tell me, do you know whether they had a crime department and if
7 they conducted any investigations into crimes committed? Do you know that
8 they did this and, if so, how many investigations they undertook and
9 things like that?
10 A. No. I know nothing about that.
11 Q. Do you know whether they had a traffic department and what the
12 traffic department did, if they had one?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Can I then conclude that your assessment that they didn't do their
15 job properly was based on the fact that in your opinion they were
16 uneducated people with -- who behaved badly? Am I right?
17 A. Yes, that's my opinion.
18 Q. I have just one more brief question and that would conclude my
19 cross-examination, and it is this: Tell me, please, and this is something
20 that Mr. Hauenstein talked about and I'm going to ask you, the sexual
21 abuse situations in the hotels, the Muslim women when they were isolated
22 in the villages, Mr. Hauenstein told us that the situation was as follows:
23 That at night from the forest, from some forest paths, various people
24 would come in, forcefully abduct the women and take it out on them. Did
25 you gain that impression? That was something that Mr. Hauenstein told us
2 A. You are talking about Croat woman -- no, Muslim woman? When they
3 were isolated in the villages. Okay. In Podgrade you mean?
4 Q. Yes, for example, Podgrade.
5 A. Mr. Hauenstein told us that the situation was as follows: That at
6 night -- yes. From the forest path various people would come in, yes.
7 That's the same I stated.
8 Q. And that that occurred at night mostly. That's what
9 Mr. Hauenstein told us, too, that this happened during the night.
10 A. Well, these happenings were told us by the Muslim people in
11 Podgrade and Duge, and we didn't witness these facts personally. So it
12 was declarations from the people in Podgrade and Duge.
13 Q. Yes, I understand that and that's quite clear. But I asked you
14 whether this happened during the night, because that's how Mr. Hauenstein
15 described these events, that they happened during the night. And we have
16 it on page 7856 of the transcript up to 7858.
17 A. That's what I said, the people in Podgrade and Duge.
18 Q. Now, to me it would be logical that if somebody jumps out of the
19 woods at night in order to do their dirty business that they would be
20 fully conscious that they ought not to be doing that and that they would
21 be in hiding so as not to be discovered, because if that was something
22 that was allowed, then they would have no need of doing it at night,
23 coming out of the woods. He would do it in broad daylight in a public
24 place. Am I right in that logic?
25 A. I think daylight or night-light is not the issue, but okay. It's
1 not logic for me. The only logical thing for me is that it was not
2 allowed. I agree with that.
3 Q. We have already heard from you that over there during the day
4 there were patrols patrolling the area, and those who attacked could have
5 known that there were patrols. So would it be logical that they waited
6 for night-time, under cover of darkness, so that the patrols wouldn't see
7 them and that then they could carry out what they intended to?
8 A. I think all kind of thing are possible. I don't know what they --
9 how they did it, and the only thing I can say what I heard from the people
10 in Podgrade and Duge, and that's in my statement.
11 MS. TOMASEGOVIC TOMIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
12 This concludes my cross-examination.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Fine.
14 Next counsel. Mr. Ibrisimovic.
15 MR. IBRISIMOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, we have no
16 questions for this witness, and we cede our time to the other Defence
17 teams. Thank you.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Ibrisimovic.
19 Mr. Karnavas.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Good afternoon
21 Mr. President. I do have some questions for the gentleman.
22 Cross-examination by Mr. Karnavas:
23 Q. Good afternoon, sir?
24 A. Good afternoon.
25 Q. My name is Michael Karnavas. Together with Suzana Tomanovic we
1 represented Mr. Jadranko Prlic. You're shaking your head. Now, let me
2 ask you one question. Did thinks name come up when you were in theatre?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did anyone say they had to consult with Dr. Prlic at any time?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. I need to slow down a little bit. Help me out here. You
7 arrived in theatre sometime in July; correct?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Prior to arriving you had a two- or three-week orientation,
10 training, what have you; correct?
11 A. Correct.
12 Q. Now, you had been in the military for a long time so more or less
13 you -- as I understand it, you were in logistics?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. And when you got in theatre it was slightly different than you had
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. In fact, when you got there a real war was going on.
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. And it was probably the first time in your career that there you
21 were as a trained military officer --
22 A. That's not correct.
23 Q. Well, hold on.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. As a military officer in a white uniform, unarmed, being in the
1 middle of a real war.
2 A. In a white uniform, yes. But in a green uniform, I've seen war
4 Q. You've seen war before, but also you had access to weapons that
5 you could fire back at.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. And my whole point was: There you were, exposed. You were
8 there as a monitor just to -- to observe.
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. All right. Now, in reading your statement, I notice that you had
11 notes that you took contemporaneously as you were in -- in theatre; right?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. And you consulted your notes as you were preparing for your
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Because you wanted to be -- to be as accurate as you possibly
17 could be.
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. All right. Now, on page 5 of your statement, and I see that the
20 statement that I'm referring to was taken on March 20th and on April 9th,
21 2002. So I take it they met with you twice. And on page 5 there was
22 something that sort of caught my attention, and what I'm referring to is
23 the one part where you say that: "I was --"
24 MR. FLYNN: Sorry, just to interrupt you. Just a point of
25 information. I think you may be referring to the ABiH statement and not
1 the HVO statement.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: Well, be that as it may it's's a staple the officer
3 gave and I'm going to ask about something. May I ask the question and
4 then you can object all you want?
5 MR. FLYNN: I thought you were referring to the exhibit that was
7 MR. KARNAVAS: No.
8 MR. FLYNN: I apologise.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: But thank you.
10 Q. You say in your statement: "I was considerably less naive about
11 the intentions of the Muslim leadership by the time I left Bugojno." Now,
12 that's on page 5 of that particular statement, and it's in reference to
13 apparently the Muslim leadership had indicated to you that they were
14 investigating allegations that had been raised by the Croats, by Father
15 Janko, with respect to certain crimes.
16 Now, my question is this: When you say, "I was less naive," and I
17 hate to put you on the spot, but --
18 A. Oh, no. No problem.
19 Q. -- you would be able to tell us because you chose those words.
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So, how naive were you, or what exactly were you told --
22 A. What I was saying there that's the question.
23 Q. No. What were you told when you got there, because obviously they
24 must have told you something before coming into theatre or was this sort
25 of innocent naivete about the good intentions of mankind, and there you
1 were in the war only to find out that at least some people or a group of
2 people were less than honourable or less than honest in whatever they said
3 and did?
4 A. Well, and -- let me put it another way. It's hard in war, that's
5 what I experienced myself, to stay as honourable as it should be, you
6 know? It's hard working to believe in all the concepts mankind has.
7 Q. Okay?
8 A. You know.
9 Q. All right. I read your two statements. I read your testimony it.
10 The first time, I believe, you testified in the Kordic case; you were a
11 Defence witness. Correct?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And then the second time you were a Prosecution witness in the
14 Hadzihasanovic case.
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. Okay. So on both occasions -- on the one occasion you were
17 initially questioned by the Defence. On the second occasion you were
18 questioned by the Prosecution essentially about things that you saw and
19 did in theatre while you were with ECMM; correct?
20 A. Correct.
21 Q. And I take it you were under oath as you are today and whatever
22 you said then and say today is to the best of your knowledge true, honest,
23 and complete.
24 A. That's right.
25 Q. All right. Now, in one of your statements you indicated that when
1 you got there it was the Muslim army that was the attacking army; is that
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. And that they were on the winning side.
5 A. In the area of Bugojno, yes.
6 Q. Where you were.
7 A. Yep.
8 Q. Okay. All right. Now, when you say they were on the winning
9 side, what exactly did you mean by that?
10 A. In military terms that they gained ground.
11 Q. Okay. So I take it their objective was to gain ground?
12 A. I think not the only objective. As military people, the objective
13 should be made on a political level, and the military people are just an
14 arm of the politicians, and I'm not totally aware of the aims of the
15 politicians in Bosnia, so that's a problem. I could only monitor, what my
16 job was, that the Muslims, the ABiH, was gaining ground.
17 Q. Okay. Taking territory?
18 A. Taking territory.
19 Q. Okay. And is it fair to say that usually in a war that's one of
20 the objectives?
21 A. That's one of -- could be.
22 Q. Could be. Right. Exactly. But in this particular war, at least
23 what you were able to see and glean from and conclude was that the Muslim
24 army was the attacking army where you were, that they were on the winning
1 I take it that on the other side you had the Croat army; right?
2 You know, the HVO.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That's what I mean. And they were on the losing side.
5 A. At that time, yes.
6 Q. At that time. So they were retreating or losing territory?
7 A. Yes, they did.
8 Q. In between -- sandwiched in between the two armies, I would
9 imagine -- because this was not done in some open field where the boys
10 just got together to play, in between you had civilians. You had
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. And that's where you found -- that's where you had unarmed
14 civilian population.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And so they were caught in the middle, more or less?
17 A. In a lot of cases, yes.
18 Q. In a lot of cases. Would it be fair to say that those people that
19 are caught in the middle between two fighting armies would at least be
21 A. Of course.
22 Q. Would want to leave?
23 A. Yes, they left.
24 Q. Okay. Well, we're going to get there step-by-step.
25 A. Yes, I know.
1 Q. Because I understand that at least one organisation, UNHCR, their
2 mission, their belief, you know, was to keep the population there in the
3 middle of the war.
4 A. Oh, yes, from the UNHCR. Okay.
5 Q. And so at least that's what it would appear, that in order to move
6 anybody out of a particular place would constitute "ethnic cleansing."
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. So a term that has taken a meaning all of its own as a result of
9 the civil war that occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
10 A. Hmm.
11 Q. But it would be fair to say that if civilians picked up and left
12 because they were in the middle of a fighting area, would you call that
13 ethnic cleansing or would you call that perhaps good old common sense:
14 Get out of the way?
15 A. Yes. In a fighting situation, of course.
16 Q. All right. And you as a monitor there were not able to assess
17 them because, first, you weren't there to do that; right?
18 A. That's right.
19 Q. You were there to simply monitor?
20 A. Monitor.
21 Q. And even if you wanted to, you didn't have the capabilities?
22 A. No.
23 Q. All right?
24 A. No materiel and personnel.
25 Q. Now, Uzdol, as I understand it you went there?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. You went there after the incident?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. You and I believe it was the --
5 A. The 15th of September.
6 Q. Right. And you were, in fact, invited by the mayor of Prozor.
7 A. Jozic.
8 Q. Were you able to conduct -- I don't want to say investigation
9 because that has sort of a real technical definition or perception, you
10 know, but you wanted to see what happened; right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you find the mayor?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did he talk to you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Was he open?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did he want to share with you what had happened to the Croats at
20 A. Yes. It was the same.
21 Q. Okay. Because But after all, he had invited you, right?
22 A. Yes. That was the same.
23 Q. All right. No problem -- did you by any chance want to see any of
24 those people that had left Uzdol, assuming that any one of them, you know,
25 had survived?
1 A. I have seen only dead people.
2 Q. Okay. And when you saw the dead people, did you see them in situ,
3 where they actually had been killed or --
4 A. A few of them, and some in Prozor and -- the most of them were
5 already gathered in Prozor.
6 Q. All right.
7 A. And some of them were still in Uzdol.
8 Q. Now, you've been in battle before. You're military trained. You
9 were there to observe. Do you think, do you think by any chance they
10 might have transported dead bodies and put them there to make it look like
11 it had happened, or were you convinced, based on your knowledge,
12 experience, and having witnessed what -- what had indeed happened, were
13 you convinced that indeed that situation occurred as it was described to
14 you or as you saw it?
15 A. No. But --
16 Q. [Overlapping speakers] In other words.
17 A. That specific situation Uzdol, I don't think it was all set up.
18 Q. All right?
19 A. That -- that's not my opinion.
20 Q. All right. Now, did you have -- with you were -- was a reporter
21 or some journalists?
22 A. Yes, Kate Adie. Isn't it?
23 Q. I can't recall the name.
24 A. Yes, Kate Adie.
25 Q. And I know they were there and I know they were there when you
1 were there, and I take it since you were there at the behest of the mayor
2 they were -- they also allowed the journalists to have a walkabout, take
3 photographs, videotape, do interviews.
4 A. They did.
5 Q. Okay. Now -- I might -- go ahead.
6 MR. FLYNN: I'm sorry.
7 MR. KARNAVAS: That's all right.
8 MR. FLYNN: Perhaps you're leading somewhere. I just can't see
9 it, but what --
10 MR. KARNAVAS: You weren't here last week.
11 MR. FLYNN: What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,
12 and given that I have not -- I have kept away specifically from Bugojno
13 and Gornji Vakuf, because it does not form part of the indictment. To my
14 knowledge, Uzdol doesn't form part of the indictment either. Perhaps you
15 have a point to make but I'm just wondering when you'll get to it.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: I'll just make it very briefly, Your Honour. We
17 had one particular witness - I don't wish to name the witness, but he was
18 in closed session - indicated that a few days later went there. The mayor
19 would not cooperate. The mayor wasn't going to do anything. Was unable
20 to confirm anything. Indeed, his report ended going up even further up
21 the chain and being reported in essence nothing had happened in Uzdol, and
22 here we have somebody there at the behest of the same individual who had
23 invited this other person, was able to see it, is confirming it, which
24 goes to perhaps why the Croats at times thought that one particular
25 organisation may have been less than balanced in their reporting. So I
1 think -- and my learned friend wasn't here at the time, but I think the
2 Trial Chamber knows exactly what I'm talking about. If not, I can deal
3 with that -- I'm told the initials are Witness BC. So -- and I thought
4 that this was well within the range of topics because Uzdol was mentioned
5 earlier. So -- but I'll move on. That's all I needed for that.
6 Q. Now, I don't have much time, that's why I'm covering a lot of
7 ground. I don't mean to be rude.
8 A. No, no, you are not. You are not.
9 Q. Okay. All right. Now, you said in one of your -- in one of your
10 statements, and I sort of thought about this, it sort of caught my
11 attention, that the Muslims played their cards well.
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. In fact, you went on to say they were playing the media well as
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. You're saying mm-hmm; that means yes?
17 A. Yes, that means yes.
18 Q. Now, I take it that you're giving to give us some fuller
19 explanation of that because I think I know what you mean. But could you
20 kind of tell us in your own words what do you mean by they played the
21 media and they played their cards well? What do you mean by that?
22 A. Well, I think it was one of their aims to get -- to do it well in
23 the international community. For instance, we always ask why in Gornji
24 Vakuf the civilian people from the Croats were left -- were not left, were
25 gone, were evacuated, and the Muslim civilian people stayed in Gornji
1 Vakuf, and I think it was possible to evacuate these people as well. And
2 there was a war going on, and Gornji Vakuf was shelled on a daily basis.
3 These kind of facts gives me that meaning.
4 Q. The impression.
5 A. The impression, yes. And opposite the Croats, well, they made the
6 same mistakes. That's obvious for me. But I think you spoke about me to
7 be naive. Well, one way or another.
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. One way or another, well, I think it's my opinion that the Croats
10 were also a bit naive in -- in not the right way but prepare the
11 international community, the -- to --
12 Q. Let me help you out here.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. In other words --
15 A. My English is not that well.
16 Q. But I think we're on the same wavelength. In other words, I think
17 what you're trying to tell the Trial Chamber is that on the public
18 relations front?
19 A. On the -- yes, that's right.
20 Q. The Muslims were able to play the media?
21 A. Better.
22 Q. And play the internationals like a violin?
23 A. Okay. That's right. That's very beautiful, a violin, but okay.
24 Q. They were able -- and when you say naivete, you say when you
25 scratch the surface, at least when you initially went there you might be
1 led into believing whatever you were told by them, but the longer you were
2 there the more you were able to see --
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. -- some of the games that they were playing; correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. You also indicated that the -- at least in Bugojno the Muslim army
7 was much more organised or better organised than the Croat, the HVO. We
8 have to make a record so you have to say yes or no.
9 A. Hmm, hmm. It's difficult to answer.
10 Q. I'm just going by what you're saying.
11 A. Because a losing army -- is not a total army in Bugojno, just a
12 brigade, you know.
13 Q. Right.
14 A. But a losing brigade is always not well-organised, you know.
15 Q. They're retreating.
16 A. Because they're retreating.
17 Q. Losing ground.
18 A. So it's difficult to answer. But at that time it was my opinion
19 that the Muslim army was better organised, yes.
20 Q. And that you also said that they -- that they were -- that they
21 were more sophisticated than the HVO.
22 A. Well, only the people I talked to. As a -- a sum --
23 Q. Okay. All right. Okay. Now, I want to go back a little bit to
24 what we were talking about earlier, the public relations game, and then
25 also perhaps using -- using civilians as part of their cards. You
1 indicated earlier that the -- that the civilians in Gornji Vakuf, that
2 they were kept there. The Muslim civilians. You're shaking your head.
3 That means yes.
4 A. That means yes, yes.
5 Q. And as I understand you, and correct me if I'm wrong - I don't
6 want to put any words in your mouth - that it was your understanding that
7 they were being kept there by the ABiH.
8 A. They were not allowed to go out.
9 Q. To leave. Okay. Well --
10 A. That's my opinion.
11 Q. Just --
12 A. Just my opinion.
13 Q. That's what we're talking about. You're here to share your
14 opinion. You were there. I wasn't. The Trial Chamber wasn't. But one
15 could conclude, in other words, that it was the ABiH that was preventing
16 them from leaving because earlier we said that if you're in the middle of
17 a war zone --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- and if you have any sense you're going to get out of there?
20 A. Yeah.
21 Q. And then they were being kept there against their will by the
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. Now, I notice one other thing. I've got to slow down a
25 little bit because we're tiring the interpreters out.
1 A. Okay.
2 Q. I am, not you. So let me take a pause, let them catch up.
3 In reading your statements and reading your testimony, I also got
4 the impression that the Muslim army, the ABiH, was sort of inviting or
5 trying to cajole, if you would, the Croat civilians to stay in various
6 pockets. Am I correct in that? Did I draw the right conclusion?
7 A. I must read that.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. Was sort of finding or trying --
10 Q. To cajole, to keep them, to keep the Croats in certain villages?
11 A. What's the meaning of "cajole"?
12 Q. Okay. Were trying to convince them to stay.
13 A. Okay. Trying to convince them.
14 Q. So there would be pockets of Croats?
15 A. Oh, they did in Bugojno. Yes.
16 Q. Yeah. Okay. And, I take it, this way, as far as the public
17 relations front would be for those of us who might have been naive in
18 reading the papers, see, the Muslim intention coming out of Sarajevo is
19 they are trying to protect the Croatian people and maintain the status
20 quo, unlike the Serbs or the Croats. That would be one.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You're -- okay. The other one, however, and I thought that I
23 gleaned this from -- from what you were trying to say and might have even
24 said it, that the other reason would have been that by keeping the Croats
25 there in these pockets the -- they would need supplies.
1 A. Oh, yes.
2 Q. Ah. And then --
3 A. It's a possibility.
4 Q. It's a possibility.
5 A. But a logical one.
6 Q. A logical one. And one that you drew from being there; right?
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. -- Mr. Karnavas, I'm sorry. It seems to me
8 that this was not covered by direct, so I think you should not ask leading
9 questions all the time as you do. Wouldn't you agree?
10 MR. KARNAVAS: No, I wouldn't agree with you, Your Honour. I
11 think -- I think.
12 JUDGE TRECHSEL: That's your duty, but nevertheless I think I'm
13 right here.
14 MR. KARNAVAS: I Well, don't think you're right here. The
15 gentleman was there. I'm asking him about his impressions.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: No, I'm --
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, sir. Let me make my record and you can
18 reprimand me all you want, but he was allowed to testify about his
19 impressions in the field. That's a wide -- that's a wide area. One of
20 the impressions was what the intentions were of the parties. The
21 Prosecution on numerous occasions asked him what he perceived, what he
22 believed, what he thought the intentions were, and my question is: Why
23 should we be afraid of this kind of testimony? Am I not here to get the
24 truth to you? I'm trying. Now, I can bring the gentleman back on direct
25 examination, but I don't see how else I can lead him into this area and
1 then ask him to explain to us what he thought, what he saw, what he
2 believed, what his impressions were, because the Prosecution did that.
3 It's the same period of time, same location, same everything. He was --
4 so he was asking what the Croats -- I'm asking what the Muslims. Same
5 thing. I don't -- I really don't see it. I'm not trying to be
7 JUDGE TRECHSEL: You have just said, Mr. Karnavas, you could bring
8 him back.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: But I have to lead. I have to get it -- I have to
10 get it --
11 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Exactly, and I'm not saying you can't ask him
12 what you're asking him. But I think you should ask him as if you had
13 brought him in direct, and that is to say by not putting leading question
14 after leading question. That's all. And that's what the Chamber has
15 recently ruled and I think you should abide by it.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: I understand what they have ruled. I thought I was
17 in the same area. If I have transgressed, I apologise. I'll try. Do
18 keep in mind, Your Honour, that I haven't prepped -- proofed the witness,
19 so he may need -- and I have limited time. That's the other problem.
21 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Flynn.
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Mr. Flynn.
23 MR. FLYNN: If I may make one comment, Your Honours. I had kept
24 my powder dry, and I was watching Mr. Karnavas's examination of the
25 witness. And it appeared to me that most of his questions were directed
1 to what his impressions were, what intentions were -- there were relative
2 to Bugojno and to Gornji Vakuf. Now, I purposely kept away from those
3 areas because they weren't part of the indictment, and I feel that the
4 same criteria should apply to Mr. Karnavas. It wasn't part of the
5 evidence, and his cross-examination should focus on the direct -- the
6 direct -- the examination-in-chief and keep away from the areas in which
7 we're not talking about. I don't see that it's advancing the case one way
8 or the other.
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Whose case is? I'm advancing my own. I'm not here
10 to advance the Prosecution's case.
11 MR. FLYNN: Very well. I'm quite happy if you waste your time,
12 but I just don't see it advancing the case. And we're here to save time.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Karnavas, a small reminder.
14 At the beginning of the afternoon you were not present. We found out
15 through the Prosecutor, who had sent e-mails, that he had the intention to
16 put questions about the Old Bridge. The Chamber deliberated and told
17 Mr. Flynn that he should not ask questions on this topic, and then a
18 debate took place in your absence, and the Defence counsel represented by
19 Mr. Kovacic, he raised questions about Bugojno and Gornji Vakuf and stated
20 that even -- that those two places were not in the indictment and this is
21 why the Prosecution should not ask questions regarding those two places.
22 So the Defence deemed that that was what should take place, but
23 you're doing exactly the contrary of what Mr. Kovacic requested. You are
24 now asking -- you're starting a subject that your own colleague did not
25 want to --
1 MR. KARNAVAS: If I may -- if I may respond.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- raise.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Okay. Granted I wasn't here, and I abide by
4 whatever decisions were made prior to my arrival. However, what I am
5 questioning the witness about, about his impressions, go well beyond, well
6 beyond this limited area. What I'm trying to suggest to the Trial
7 Chamber, that here for the first time we have a gentleman who is able to
8 provide us with impressions of what the Muslims were trying to achieve,
9 and if they were trying to achieve it in this particular area, does it not
10 stand to logic that they were also applying that to other air? In other
11 areas they're trying to win the public relations game. In other areas
12 they're using their own people as hostages, in a sense. In other areas
13 they're trying to pretend that they really are concerned about the Croats
14 when they really want to use them for the public relations, and also
15 because they will need to be supplied and they can squeeze and turn off
16 the circuit any time they wish. So this is what I'm trying to show, that
17 there is a wider gain.
18 Now, if I have gone into an area that perhaps my brethren did not
19 want to go into due to the lack of time, it wasn't my intention to go into
20 the specifics but merely to draw from this gentleman the knowledge that he
21 has obtained from the field, from observing as a career officer what his
22 intentions and impressions were, because after all I listened very
23 carefully for the little time that I was here, and I did think that my
24 learned friend on the Prosecution side also asked for impressions.
25 Now, if I'm wrong, I'll sit down. I was nearly completed.
1 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. So please proceed
2 and complete.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Thank you, thank you. And I apologise to
4 Judge Trechsel for my exuberance earlier. I understand the ruling.
5 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Yes. You do that often. You raise your voice
6 very often, Mr. Karnavas, and if you can cut it down a bit and not shout
7 down the Judges, then it is a bit better. Thank you.
8 MR. KARNAVAS: Very well, Your Honour. I don't wish to debate.
9 Q. Now, sir, going back to where we were. The Muslims were also
10 trying to convince the Croats to stay in pockets because that way they
11 could also control the supply lines; right?
12 A. That's right.
13 Q. All right. Explain that a little bit. I don't want to lead you,
14 but give us a fuller explanation. I think I may have another minute or
16 A. Well, it's more -- well, if you have a minority of people, it's
17 obvious that all kind of humanitarian aid is coming in. In the example of
18 Bugojno, aid was brought in for the Croat minority, which was sold out by
19 the mayor of Bugojno.
20 Q. Say that again. I didn't hear you. Say that again. Aid was
21 coming in for the Croats and then the mayor -- and he was a Croat as well?
22 A. No. The mayor in Bugojno was a Muslim.
23 Q. Ah, I see. So aid would come in for the Croats and then the
24 Muslims would use -- would sell the aid. So this is one way, at least you
25 could use Croats, to get good supplies.
1 A. Just an example.
2 Q. It's just an example.
3 A. Mm-hmm.
4 Q. Sir, I want to thank you -- go ahead.
5 A. These things happened.
6 Q. These things happened. Right. But in that example, and other
7 examples as well, is what allow you to form the impressions that you
8 shared with us; correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Okay. So in other words, you're not speculating, you're watching.
11 You're seeing. You're seeing all of these events; right?
12 A. This was my job in the ECMM, yes.
13 Q. Exactly. Sir, I want to thank you for coming here and clarifying
14 some matters, and good luck in your career.
15 MR. KARNAVAS: That's it for my cross-examination, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Ms. Nozica.
17 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I have
18 handed out the documents that I'm going to use. I have given them to the
19 registrar and he will distribute them, one for the witness, and one for
21 Cross-examination by Ms. Nozica:
22 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, sir. We will go into my
23 documents later on, so you don't have to look at the binder straight away.
24 Now, with respect to the questions my learned friend asked you a
25 moment ago and with respect to the objections made by the Prosecution
1 about the situation of Croats in Bugojno, and in view of the fact that
2 events were taking place at the same time in Bugojno as they were Prozor,
3 and you said that quite certainly one set of events was reflected on the
4 other set of events. Would you take a look at document P 0 -- in the
5 Prosecutor's binder, that is, P 0 -- that's the Prosecutor binder. So the
6 other one.
7 A. Oh, the other one. Okay. The Prosecutor's.
8 Q. P 09629 is the number of the document I'd like you to look at.
9 Tell me when you find it, please. 9629.
10 A. The daily report of the 13th of September?
11 Q. That's right. And I'd like to look at the 13th of September,
12 1993, with respect to the situation of the Croats in Bugojno. Number 2,
13 paragraph 2, the Political Situation. I'm going to read it out slowly
14 because it says here that "V2," which is yourself, is that right? That's
15 you, "met with the Bugojno HDZ leadership today and were briefed on the
16 party's political platform. Their platform is as follows: They want
17 normalisation of the community relations with the Muslims --"
18 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry Ms. Nozica. The president has recalled
19 a short while ago that this morning the Defence led by Mr. Kovacic --
20 early afternoon, sorry -- made it quite clear that it would not be correct
21 to put questions on Bugojno because that was not covered by the
22 indictment. And I'm amazed that you start off right away asking questions
23 about Bugojno. I find that a bit contradictory, I must say. Not quite
25 MR. KOVACIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I might be allowed
1 to say something. A moment ago the Presiding Judge, Judge Antonetti, said
2 the same thing. However, the fact is that my objection was overruled, and
3 the fact is that the Prosecution did proceed to question the witness about
4 Bugojno and Gornji Vakuf, and I intervened twice. I was on my feet twice
5 and reminded the Trial Chamber that if this can have any relevance bearing
6 in mind that entire area that we were thereby opening up an area that the
7 Defence will have to examine on later on, and I can find it in the
8 transcript if you want to, but my objection was to Gornji Vakuf, first and
9 foremost, because it was the time that was -- a period of time that wasn't
10 relevant and went in the indictment.
11 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Your Honour, may I be allowed to add
12 something? What Mr. Kovacic said, however the Trial Chamber understands
13 it, was not stated on behalf of all the Defence teams. I consider, and
14 the witness said so himself, that these two events, the one in Bugojno and
15 in Prozor, are closely related. Now, you say that you're surprised. I am
16 showing a document that the Prosecution presented and showed to the
17 witness during the examination-in-chief. That's what I'm referring to.
18 But I'm just referring to other portions of the document, because I
19 consider that it is impossible to view the situation in Prozor isolated
20 from other events if we don't know what went on before and later on in
21 that overall area. And this document was highlighted to confirm what the
22 witness answered in response to a question from my learned friend
23 Mr. Karnavas, because what impressions the witness gave is what is in fact
24 written down in this report. So with your permission, I'd like to carry
25 on with the document.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Okay. I just want to tell you that I was also
2 much surprised in seeing all the material on Bugojno in the statement
3 presented by the -- by the Prosecutor. So this is not unilateral. Don't
4 think that I did not notice in the first place that there was a slightly
5 strange situation with this witness. Please go ahead.
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Sir, may we carry on discussing the document? Have you had a
8 chance to have a look at it? "The HDZ of Bugojno is trying to stay in
9 Bugojno. They want to have a normalised relations with the Muslims. They
10 say that they recognise the constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina and that
11 they want the Croat operation of Bugojno to return to the city."
12 It says: "The main aim of the HDZ is to save Croat lives," and
13 therefore they understand the need to maintain good relationships with the
14 civil war Presidency authority. The city's government has made a number
15 of promises to the Croat minority and then they say that they're sending a
16 message to the Croats in Prozor, not to undertake any drastic action
17 because that could reflect on them.
18 Now, there's a comment of yours, I assume, here, which says the
19 civilian and military authorities of Prozor do not support the
20 reintegration the Croatian minority in Bugojno. They ask, "Where will
21 they live? All the houses have all been burnt. Reintegration is only an
22 empty phrase. Other reasons are More obvious like the use of the Croat
23 minority as hostages to secure humanitarian aid." Again the same
24 authorities express the need for more information on the Jablanica-Konjic
25 areas as they have little access to sources, et cetera, et cetera.
1 So am I right in saying that your answer, and we'll deal with this
2 document some more later on, but your answer, the answer you gave to
3 Mr. Karnavas about the desires of the authorities in Bugojno to have the
4 Croats stay on, not to have them reintegrated in their society, is exact,
5 and that is how it is expressed in your report.
6 A. Well, that is correct. It's still the same after all these
8 Q. Let us now take a look at paragraph 4 of the report relating to
9 humanitarian activity. Paragraph 4. And I'm using this document to draw
10 a parallel to what is happening in Prozor. This is the 13th of September.
11 The penultimate observation in point 4 states: "The Croat minority in
12 Bugojno reports that there are 50 Croats, POWs, living in the mosque at
13 Gornji Vakuf." And shall we look at paragraph 8, Military Assessment.
14 "No change on the military assessment from our previous report," it says.
15 The situation in Bugojno for the Croatian minority is still deteriorating
16 despite the so-called promises of -- made by the local Muslim authorities.
17 V2 expects this trend to continue."
18 Now, sir, I've shown you this document because it fully reflects
19 what your answers said in response to Mr. Karnavas's questions about the
20 politics and policies of the authorities in Bugojno towards the Croatian
21 minority which stayed on there. Can you confirm that based on this
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. I'd now like to ask you - once again in the Prosecution binder -
25 to draw a parallel and take a look at the next document, P 09661. Tell me
1 when you've found it, please.
2 A. I have found the daily report of the 9th of September, 1993.
3 Q. Yes, thank you. Now let's take a look at paragraph 4. This was a
4 document shown to you by the Prosecutor, but they focused on another part
5 of the document. I'd like to look at your observations about prisoners of
6 war in Prozor. And in the third or second -- second or third sentence it
7 says: "Looking at it overall, the conduct towards the prisoners is good.
8 They have enough water and food, and it seems that their living conditions
9 appear to be fairly reasonable. They have the possibility for adequate
10 washing and sanitary facilities. V2 pick up some mail from the detainees
11 and will deliver it as required. The local authorities promised to
12 provide you," that is a the members of the V2 team, "with a list of all
13 POWs and the remaining Muslims in the area."
14 And we have an addition where it says: "The visits -- the V2's
15 visit included a visit to two factories where about 40 prisoners live and
16 work. The living conditions there are very good, and the internees are --
17 have limited free access to the city."
18 All I wanted to do and what I'm doing is to confirm that where the
19 prisoners were held, that the conditions were as you have described them
20 here. Do you agree with that?
21 A. I agree with that.
22 Q. Thank you. I'd now like briefly to go to another area, and P
23 9654, P 09654, is once again a Prosecution document, and it refers to this
24 next area that I'd like to deal with. Tell me when you've found it. P
1 Shall we take a look at paragraph 3 together now. And it relates
2 to an important activity of yours, and a number of reports deal with it,
3 some shown to you by the Prosecutor, others not, with respect to moving
4 the wounded from Bugojno. And this report is dated the 21st of July,
5 1993. And paragraph 2 of section 3 describes the situation, and it
6 says: "Doctors from the French organisation there say that they expect
7 that at least 20 persons will die during the night because they have no
8 water, no electricity, and no food."
9 Can you tell me to the best of your recollections, and we'll take
10 a look at other documents as well, how far you remember this situation and
11 what you can tell us about this dramatic appeal from this report?
12 Anything else you can tell us?
13 A. Yes. This is -- these are people in the HVO war hospital in the
14 Hotel Kalin, and we witnessed that. "We" is the ECMM and UNPROFOR at that
15 time. And the situation was there as described. It's also in our own
16 reports from Victor 2, and that was the situation up there, yes.
17 You asked for my own words. Well, it was a terrible situation.
18 There were there people, wounded people, no electricity, no fuel, and they
19 try -- there was still a doctor and nurse, and they tried to operate and
20 so on and so on, and it wasn't possible. So at the end of this story,
21 it's quite a story, it's -- we evacuated the hospital from Hotel Kalin.
22 Q. Thank you. Yes. You referred to that in a number of reports.
23 V2, yes. The Prosecutor didn't use those reports of yours. But now if
24 you refer to my binder. And you were a participant in that evacuation.
25 2D 00461 is the document I'd like to refer to in my binder.
1 Tell me if you've found it.
2 A. Yes, I've found it.
3 Q. Yes. This is a final appeal to save the wounded from Bugojno,
4 signed by the commander. Colonel Zeljko Siljeg is the signatory. And for
5 the HVO Medical Corps, Dr. Ivo Sandrk signed. And this final appeal was
6 sent to BritBat, Major Binns whom you mentioned, UN British Battalion,
7 Major Binns, and to Captain Holden. This is a very dramatic appeal. I'm
8 just going to ask you whether what he says is exact. He says: "I am
9 addressing you maybe for the last time so that we together try to do
10 everything to save the lives of hundreds of wounded children, civilians,
11 Croatian soldiers from Bugojno. Already tomorrow such help may not be
12 needed. Many of them died due to most simple wounds, and many are still
13 lying in the streets and in front of burnt down homes. Together we were
14 witnesses to the horrors at the war hospital of Bugojno (ex-Hotel Kalin).
15 We saw only motionless human beings as they are slowly dying because no
16 medical assistance could be rendered to them. There is no water,
17 electricity," et cetera.
18 Now, take a look at this next sentence: "Together with the
19 wounded members of the HVO there are also as helpless 12 members of Muslim
20 armed forces." The MOS. Do you know the abbreviation M-O-S and what
21 M-O-S is -- stands for?
22 A. No. Military off the shelf, but that's something different.
23 Q. No. It is the Muslim armed forces.
24 A. Okay.
25 Q. M-O-S, Muslim armed forces. Now we come to the essential
1 portion. "I am asking of you to influence Muslim armed forces command to
2 help and save them as well. You saw at the MOS war hospital, where there
3 is about 150 wounded, that they have everything." And then it goes on to
4 say: "To no wounded Croatian child, civilian or soldiers, from the
5 beginning no medical assistance or almost no medical assistance could be
6 rendered," et cetera.
7 Have you heard of this appeal and can you confirm what it says
8 here? Was that the situation that people really found themselves at that
10 A. I -- this is the first time I see this appeal, and I -- I think
11 it's correct also. In my point of view it's a bit exaggerated because --
12 but then I have to study to it. Hundred and fifty wounded, I do not know
13 of them. I think there were a lot of people. A hundred and fifty
14 wounded, but I am confused by the wounded in Kalin hotel. There was --
15 there were also wounded people in the hospital of the ABiH, which -- which
16 was held by the ABiH in Bugojno. So it's a bit confusing for me. I --
17 because I do not know this, but I think it's -- it's correct. It's
18 correct. But, it's a way of saying I'm not used to. You understand? We
19 were more -- yeah.
20 Q. Yes. Yes, I do understand. You and I both understand that the
21 doctor who was responsible for their lives in such a dramatic moment,
22 which was confirmed by the French non-governmental medical organisation,
23 has the right to use a more dramatic tone, but I'd just like to remind you
24 that these 150 wounded does not refer to the Croatian wounded who were to
25 be evacuated, but it says here, "You saw at the MOS war hospital where
1 there is about 150 wounded." So these 150 wounded -- yes. Just to deal
2 with that dilemma so as to not create problems in the future.
3 Now, I'm going to show you another document, and it reflects the
4 same situation more or less. I don't have much time so I can't go through
5 all the documents, but take a look at the next document, 2D 00466, just to
6 show you that it was an objective representation of the situation and not
7 an exaggeration.
8 There's a document here which -- well, it's the same date, the
9 21st of July, signed by same person, and he says what the situation is
10 like in the hospital. And he says that there are 13 seriously wounded HVO
11 members, 12 wounded MOS men, and 150 civilians who fled the settlement of
12 Gaj. "There is no water or electricity, and for two days already there is
13 no food. The wounded did not have their bandages renewed for two days
14 because --" et cetera. "Access to the hospital is impossible due to the
15 snipers and tank. I have information that we had quite a number of
16 wounded that have not been taken care of in Vucipolje," et cetera. "The
17 brigade commander at Bugojno has issued an appeal for help in manpower."
18 Is that the situation as you remember it?
19 A. Yes, I remember this.
20 Q. All right. Now, I don't want to burden you any more with this,
21 but I'd just like to remind you that on the 29th of July, 1993, or
22 thereabouts with your assistance and the assistance of your team and
23 UNPROFOR, these persons were indeed evacuated can we confirm?
24 A. Yes, that's correct.
25 Q. Now, sir, I'd like to ask you about another evacuation operation
1 that was mentioned in this courtroom, and I'll just ask you whether you
2 recall it. Do you remember the evacuation of a young girl, she was a
3 Muslim young girl, and she was evacuated to Split and she suffered from
4 leukaemia. And let me remind you if you don't know anything about that,
5 that that was an intervention from General Praljak. He intervened that
6 she should be evacuated. Do you remember that event?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I'd now like to ask you to look at the document addressing the
9 matter together. 2D 00464 is the number. Tell me when you've found it.
10 A. I've found it.
11 Q. The date is the 11th of September, 1993, is it not?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Right. The document is from the medical sector, Mostar defence,
14 and it is signed by Dr. Pero Maric. Now, let's see whether this is the
15 case he addresses.
16 He says, "On the 11th of September, 1993, pursuant to an order
17 from the head of the control and inspection service attached to the sector
18 for health, Dr. Ivo Sandrk, and pursuant to an order from General Praljak,
19 I was an escort as a doctor to the sick child leukaemia in remission by
20 the maim of Haris Silajdzija, who is four and a half years old, and his
21 mother Enisa, his younger brother who is two years old, on the locality of
22 the war hospital Rama at Rumboci to Split. The mother and children were
23 transported from Bugojno by UNPROFOR and the European observers." As far
24 as I can see, your name is mentioned there as well. "And we set out for
25 Split at 1430 hours and arrived at 1800 hours. At the Firule hospital in
1 Split they were taken over by Dr. Skrabic."
2 A. Yes, and my registration number is not correct. The last three
3 should be 155, but it's correct.
4 Q. Thank you. We have now corrected this. That's very significant.
5 Sir, my time is running out, so I will move on to one last topic,.
6 MS. NOZICA: [Interpretation] But may we move into private session
7 for a moment, please.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Private session.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 19281-19285 redacted. Private session
25 [Open session]
1 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. We're back in open
3 session. Colonel, you were under oath, meaning that you are a witness of
4 the Court, of the justice. You are not a Prosecutor's witness, meaning
5 that you will no longer have any contacts with the Prosecutor. You will
6 be back here for the hearing that will start at 2.15 p.m. Thank you very
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.04 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 30th day
10 of May, 2007, at 2.15 p.m.