1 Monday, 27 August 2007
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Coric not present]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Registrar, kindly call the case,
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good day, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-04-74-T, the Prosecutor versus Prlic et al.
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar.
11 Today we are Monday, the 27th of August, 2007. I would like to
12 greet the representatives from the Prosecution, the Defence counsel, the
13 accused. I believe Mr. Coric is not in the courtroom today, and I hope he
14 gets better very soon.
15 We should resume our hearing by hearing a witness and his
16 testimony. Prior to that I need to hand down a decision, and I shall give
17 the floor to the registrar who has an IC number to give us, I believe.
18 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Several parties have
19 submitted lists of documents to be tendered through Larry Forbes. The
20 list submitted by 2D shall be given Exhibit number IC 642; the list
21 submitted by 4D shall be given Exhibit number IC 643; and the list
22 submitted by 2D shall be given Exhibit number 644 with respect to Witness
23 Antoon van der Grinten.
24 Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, registrar.
1 This is the oral decision I shall read out slowly so there are no
2 mistakes in the translation. This decision was handed down after
3 Mr. Karnavas took the floor last week following statements made by an
4 accused during a Status Conference.
5 This Trial Chamber was not made aware of what Mr. Seselj might
6 have said. Therefore, this Trial Chamber has no reason whatsoever to
7 question the integrity of Mr. Karnavas and reckons that he is entirely
8 capable of fulfilling his duties as Defence counsel to Mr. Prlic.
9 Last Thursday in the transcript, line 23 of page 22145 [as
10 interpreted], Mr. Karnavas spoke in very abusive language about
11 Mr. Seselj. This Trial Chamber cannot accept this type of language, and
12 according to Rule 45 of our Rules of Procedure and Evidence warns him not
13 to use such language again. The Trial Chamber orders that the particular
14 passage in the transcript be redacted from the transcript according to
15 Rules 54 and 81(C) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
16 As this Trial Chamber, the Prlic Chamber has no authority over
17 Seselj leaves the matter with the Seselj Trial Chamber who is fully
18 competent in the matter and that Chamber can then take the necessary
19 measures, the measures it will deem fit.
20 So much for the tenor of this decision, which reminds all and
21 everyone that the Trial Chamber does not question Mr. Karnavas's
23 JUDGE TRECHSEL: [Interpretation] Just a small correction I would
24 like to make. It's page 21455, and not 2145.
25 MR. STEWART: Your Honour, may I -- I believe it's Rule 46 and not
1 Rule 45.
2 MR. KARNAVAS: And let me just state for the record when
3 Mr. Seselj attacks lawyers, when he attacks Prosecutors, when he attacks
4 members of the registry, it seems that the Trial Chamber or the Presiding
5 Judges do nothing. They don't reprimand him. They don't cut his mic off.
6 They don't do anything. So we're sitting here defenseless, and I
7 understand that the two Judges or three Judges on the panel were not
8 there, were not privy to the remarks that Mr. Seselj makes. However, you
9 were the Presiding Judge in that hearing. You're also the Presiding Judge
10 here. Ultimately, you have a vote to cast in this case. So if the
11 Trial Chamber feels that I used language which I feel was quite
12 appropriate in my description of Mr. Seselj because he is what exactly I
13 claimed he is to be, then I suggest that the Trial Chamber in the future
14 exercise its discretion which it has under the Rules to reprimand
15 Mr. Seselj and cut him off whenever he is being abusive towards the rest
16 of us.
17 As I've noted, we, the Defence lawyers as everybody else, are not
18 his punching bags and I know that Russia is behind him and therefore he
19 feels entitled to say whatever he wishes, and this Trial Chamber or some
20 other Trial Chamber may think that it's okay to let him go as he wishes,
21 but I dare say all we're doing is aiding and abetting Mr. Seselj in his
22 little game which he stated quite clearly on the record, and that is his
23 intent to destroy the integrity of this Tribunal, this institution, and I
24 don't think it's appropriate.
25 However, I do take the Court's remarks seriously, and in the
1 future I will restrain from using the language that I did use. However, I
2 am unapologetic in my description of Mr. Seselj.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. A small mistake on
4 line 24. I believe it's -- it's 21455. To respond to what Mr. Karnavas
5 has just said, the Trial Chamber in charge of the Seselj case will take
6 the appropriate decision.
7 This Trial Chamber wish to specify that as far as the upcoming
8 witness is concerned, we have planned to hear him for two and a half
9 hours. The Prosecution will have two and a half hours, and the Defence
10 teams will have the same time. If, of course, the Prosecution oversteps
11 that time, the Defence team will have extra time. As we have two days in
12 which to hear this witness, we have some time ahead of us to discuss the
13 issue of this witness.
14 I would like to move into private session for a few minutes. I
15 would like to have both parties' opinion on protective measures to be
16 applied to a particular witness. Registrar, please.
17 [Private session]
11 Pages 21563-21567 redacted. Private session
6 [Open session]
7 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're now in open session.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
9 [The witness entered court]
10 WITNESS: MARITA VIHERVUORI
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Good afternoon. If you can hear
12 me, could you please give me your first name, last name, and date of
13 birth, please.
14 THE WITNESS: Marita Vihervuori, born 6th of January, 1943.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Do you have a job at the moment?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which -- what job do you have?
18 THE WITNESS: I am -- I am a journalist. I'm writing for Finnish
19 newspapers and also for Austrian press agency.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Very well. Witness, have you
21 already testified before an international court on the events which
22 unfolded in the former Yugoslavia or is it the first time you come to
24 THE WITNESS: This is the first time.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] I would like you to take the
1 oath and read what is on the piece of paper which the usher is showing
3 THE WITNESS: I solemnly declare that I will speak the truth, the
4 whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
5 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you. You may sit down.
6 Just some information about the way in which this hearing will
7 unfold over the next two days. We will be hearing your testimony today
8 and tomorrow. You will first be asked to answer questions which will be
9 put to you by the representative of the Prosecution, whom I'm sure you met
10 today or yesterday, and after the first part of this proceeding -- of
11 these proceedings the Defence counsel on the left-hand side, each
12 representing one of the accused, there are six in all, will put questions
13 to you. Sometimes the accused might put questions to you also.
14 In addition, the four Judges before you can at any moment ask you
15 questions, but we would rather put the questions to you right at the end
16 or only during the examination-in-chief or the cross-examination of one of
17 the parties if it is a burning issue. Then we feel that it is better to
18 put the question straight away rather than waiting for the end of the
19 examination-in-chief or cross-examination.
20 If at any point in time you don't feel well, please don't hesitate
21 to let us know so we can stop the hearing.
22 We have a break every hour and a half so that you can have some
23 rest but also to change over the audiotapes, because as you know, or maybe
24 you don't know, this trial is being recorded and broadcast to the outside
25 world. That is why there are six cameras in this courtroom.
1 If at any point in time you would like to put a question to the
2 Bench, please don't hesitate to do so.
3 In very general terms this is how your testimony will unfold.
4 I shall now give the floor to the Prosecutor, whom I would like to
5 greet again, and I shall give him the floor right now.
6 MR. KRUGER: Good afternoon, Mr. President, Your Honours,
7 everybody else in and around the courtroom.
8 Examination by Mr. Kruger:
9 Q. Good afternoon, Witness. Madam, I would like to start with a few
10 biographical details. Could you tell the Court what your academic
11 background is?
12 A. Well, I have degree in history and politics from University of
13 Helsinki. In American terms, it would be Master of Arts. I don't know
14 what is in European terms, but as it called Magister.
15 And then I have studied after that in University of Munich, and
16 also later half a year in University of Vienna.
17 Q. Could you tell the Court from what time or from when have you been
18 working as a journalist?
19 A. Well, I have been working as a journalist actually all my life.
20 Already in student time I was a redactor [phoen] -- it was student
21 magazine which was the history students for all Finnish universities, but
22 -- and then afterwards for day -- for several magazines, but I started to
23 work for dailies - it means in news business - '87.
24 Q. Now, from 1987, for which dailies have -- did you start working in
1 A. I started first for Aamulehti. It is the second biggest daily in
2 Finland and is in Tampere, and then couple of months later in summer
3 Turun Sanomat. Turun Sanomat is the third biggest newspaper in Finland,
4 and printed in Turku. I also write now and then for Helsingin Sanomat,
5 which is the biggest one in all Scandinavia.
6 Q. Now, madam, during the period before you started working for
7 newspapers as a journalist, did you have occasion to travel within the
8 Balkans or through the Balkans?
9 A. Oh, yes. I was first time in Yugoslavia personally '64, but my
10 Yugoslavian friend was already before in Finland. Then after '64 I was
11 still '73 every year in Yugoslavia and '73 I was even living there more
12 than three months, but then afterwards between -- I started in daily
13 and '73 Yugoslavia was me more a transit land and I was visiting of course
14 my old friends but I was not any more studying it systematically like
16 Q. After 1987 when, if at all, did you start travelling to the
17 Balkans again and for what purpose?
18 A. Well, then I was working for daily news, and from beginning of '88
19 till 2001, former Yugoslavia was my most important place to work because
20 there was something happening all the time, and so I could say that there
21 was some years when I was more in former Yugoslavia than Vienna. Only
22 long break was in the time of Gulf War from middle of January till middle
23 of April, I was in Amman, and in Damascus.
24 Q. And in which year was that, 1990 --
25 A. 1.
1 Q. 1991. Now, madam, did you ever write or publish any books as a
2 result of your association with the former Yugoslavia or the territories
3 of the former Yugoslavia?
4 A. Yes. I have published about Yugoslavia you could say three books,
5 or two and a half, how you will. I made a book in English translation.
6 It is -- would be "Welcome to Hell," and it's really a thick book. It's
7 big and more than 800 [indiscernible] pages, and it's telling the story
8 what happened in Yugoslavia and why it happened.
9 Then I wrote later, and it is even in -- published in German, the
10 "Memoirs of My Dog". It's also political book and is also partly in
11 Yugoslavia and telling this story from a little bit ironical point of
13 And then third one what it could be told only half a book. I was
14 taking part writing all the capitals of former Yugoslavian states for
15 geographical book which is long series from -- I think it's originally
16 French book, The Big LaRousse or something like that round the world and
17 because there were -- because there was the whole Yugoslavia in that book,
18 they ordered me to make these follower states and it was published in
19 three languages; Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish.
20 Q. Now, madam, during the period that we are going to focus on mainly
21 during the course of your testimony it, that period is 1992 to -- through
22 1993. Could you give the Court an idea of the extent of your grasp of the
23 political affairs and the political personalities involved within the
24 former Yugoslavia or the territories comprising the former Yugoslavia?
25 A. Well, I didn't know all the personalities personally, but because
1 I was following all the elections, all the so-called free elections, I had
2 met many of these personalities. From the higher personalities I have
3 been interviewing Milan Kucan, Franjo Tudjman twice, Ibrahim Rugova
4 several times and been in press conferences with Izetbegovic, Karadzic,
5 and so on, and but it's later only the Serbian politician I knew better
6 was Djindjic.
7 Q. Madam, just before proceeding, during this period I see in some of
8 the documentation that we will be looking at that it seems that two
9 people -- or that you had two colleagues with whom you travelled a lot
10 during this period and the names are here. Marja --
11 A. Mirja.
12 Q. -- and Erich. Can you tell the Court who these people are.
13 A. Mirja Kesavaara is a good friend of mine and she is photographing
14 for me and she is also assisting me in many things because very often in
15 news when there's something very hot news as in former Yugoslavia where I
16 cannot divide my personality, so I could cover two things when I send her
17 somewhere. And Erich Rathfelder is a German journalist who was writing --
18 he was redactor from Tageszeitung in Berlin first, but then later a free
19 journalist who was writing of course to Tageszeitung, but several other
20 German newspapers and also the Tagesanzeiger in Zurich.
21 Q. Thank you. Just for the interest, is it correct that your dog
22 Musti also travelled with you throughout this period?
23 A. Not throughout this period because I'm not that crazy. But let's
24 say that it happens now and then, a pet things that were not calculating.
25 She was in Slovenian war because we were thinking it was an independence
1 fire, and she was there in April 1990 -- April 1993, because we were
2 actually originally bringing some aid to send to our Bosnia and we're
3 already out of Bosnia when something happened and we had to go back.
4 Q. Okay. Now, madam, if we could turn back to June 1992, is it
5 correct that you travelled to Mostar towards the end of June 1992?
6 A. Yes, it is correct. I know that Bosnian war was already older,
7 but it was not possible to go to Bosnia because there was this occupied
8 Serb territory surrounding it. So the first spot where -- where I could
9 get was Mostar. It was also not very easy because Magistrale was broken
10 you have to go over island of Pag and so. But I had gotten a message
11 from -- that Mostar should be free from siege, and it was through and they
12 told me that I was the first foreign journalist in Mostar after breaking
14 Q. Now, I see in the record that the transcript hasn't exactly
15 captured what you said. If you say Mostar should be freed from who?
16 A. It was surrounded from Serbs. It was a siege. It was the system
17 in that war that towns were surrounded like Sarajevo or Vukovar.
18 Q. So when you arrived in Mostar, had it already been freed or
20 A. Yes. It was liberated.
21 Q. And what was the atmosphere that you encountered there?
22 A. Well, the atmosphere was very many ruins, but everybody was
23 friendly, released. There was nothing to eat, nothing to drink, but --
24 but what I noticed, for instance, I was in the Old Bridge and everywhere,
25 and the Croats and the Bosniaks they were fighting with each other. They
1 was in the centre even a graveyard where they were buried together. It
2 was a very good atmosphere, a very released atmosphere. Of course, it was
3 also sad because churches and mosques were not totally destroyed but full
4 of holes.
5 Q. Madam, if I could just clarify. You say the Croats and the
6 Bosniaks they were fighting with each other.
7 A. Not against.
8 Q. With each other against --
9 A. Against Serbs.
10 Q. Thank you, madam. Could you gauge the level of cooperation of
11 the -- the relations between the Bosniaks and the Croats at that stage?
12 A. It was good, and it was also in this some soldiers which I met.
13 Anyway, one of them told that he was actually from Croatia, not a Bosnian
14 Croat. It means that they all were fighting against Serbs, because at
15 that time Serbs were the aggressor.
16 Q. Now, I'm not going to ask you in detail, but during the fall of
17 1992 or autumn, November, did you travel to Prozor and Gornji Vakuf?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Could you perhaps briefly tell the Court about this?
20 A. Well, we wanted to get to central Bosnia, and we went to -- and
21 somebody told us that we should go through Mostar. We were in Posusje.
22 There was one Croat who told me that we were making a suicide and told us
23 we should go to Tomislavgrad. In Tomislavgrad -- near Tomislavgrad, we
24 found a new road. Later, I heard from Mr. Prlic that Croat had been
25 building it through the forest. It may be very true, but at that time
1 UNPROFOR troops had been in Bosnia maybe one month and they were preparing
2 that road because this road was later the main road with which the aid,
3 humanitarian aid, was brought to Central Bosnia. Of course it was not --
4 not a motor road. It was a sand road, it was a narrow sand road through
5 forest. But it was extremely important, and so we more than accident --
6 accidentally learned to know this connection.
7 Q. Now, you mentioned that "I heard from Mr. Prlic that Croat had
8 been building it through the forest." When did you hear this from
9 Mr. Prlic?
10 A. April '93.
11 Q. And on what occasion was that?
12 A. While I was making an interview and we were talking about the
14 Q. Okay. We'll get back to that.
15 Now, madam, Gornji Vakuf, did you also visit Gornji Vakuf during
16 this period?
17 A. Yes. And we get back from -- from Central Bosnia on the road to
18 Central Bosnia, Gornji Vakuf had nothing special, but when we got back
19 there was cattle market, and so the British Warrior tanks couldn't move
20 because of cows and because of market life. It means that it was actually
21 very normal in Gornji Vakuf at that time.
22 Q. This visit to Gornji Vakuf and to Prozor, this was prior to the
23 announcement of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan; is that correct?
24 A. It was all prior. It was all before. It was all before.
25 Q. Okay. Now, your personal experience from what you observed during
1 that period, what was your personal experience of the relations between
2 the Bosnian Croats and the Bosniaks at that stage?
3 A. They were very good. And it was a very important time. When we
4 were in Split before we started, there was in the newspaper, I think it
5 was Nedeljna Dalmacija, the title, "Turbe shall fall before the first snow
6 is going -- going on the ground". And the first snow came when we were
7 still in Posusje, it was a cold day. But we went there. And Turbe was
8 very important place, because if Turbe had fallen, then Travnik, Vitez,
9 and the road to Sarajevo would have been free for Serbs. So the Croats
10 and the Muslims together -- or Bosniaks together, we were defending Turbe
11 and they succeeded. They got so-called defence victory. Turbe didn't
13 We were living in Hotel Vitez, which was headquarters of HVO
14 forces. We were visiting Turbe. There it was Bosniak who was leading us
15 through the city, but a Croat drove us to Travnik. It means that there
16 were -- it was very good cooperation.
17 Q. Now, this cooperation that you had observed which was good at that
18 period, did you at any stage come to the conclusion or make an assessment
19 that this cooperation was deteriorating?
20 A. What's deteriorating?
21 Q. Getting worse.
22 A. No. No, not at that moment. Of course I knew there were radicals
23 on both sides and somebody was making a Greater Serbia and somebody was
24 dreaming of a Greater Croatia. And of course I knew in that time when I
25 was actually in Syria and Jordan and Iraq, Tudjman and Milosevic had met
1 in Karadjordjevo, it was '91, but this highest level was not to feel in
2 the lower level where the people were defending their homes.
3 Q. Do you know when the Vance-Owen Peace Plan was announced?
4 A. I suppose 2nd of January, 1993.
5 Q. Did this have any impact as far as you could see on the relations
6 between Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks?
7 A. Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
8 Q. Could you tell the Court about this?
9 A. Well, it was to see even if later the Bosnian Vice-Prime Minister
10 Zlatko Lagumdzija that it was not meant ethnical but it was interpreted
11 ethnical. When I saw the plan I knew at once that it shall be interpreted
12 ethnically, and I think as far as I know from his story that it was based
13 very much on that so-called Sporazum from Croatia which was made 1938,
14 which never was get in power because the war and Hitler little bit mixed
15 the cards, but anyway it based -- it was not based on census '91, and so
16 it was very, well, positive paper for Croats, and it was not very good for
17 Muslims. And Serbs, well, they had very much anyway under their control
18 than Vance-Owen was promising them, so it was somehow in that paper
19 already included that there shall come some quarrel.
20 Q. Now, if I could refer you to Exhibit P 08 -- 8575. P 08575. And
21 in the binder that's being given to you it's the second last document.
22 Now, madam, if you could first turn to beyond the English
23 translation the fifth page. That's the original version which appears to
24 be in German.
25 A. Mm-hmm.
1 Q. Do you have that before you?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Do you recognise this document?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Now, is this the article that you wrote, "The Croats are sitting
6 on three chairs"?
7 A. Yes it is, and I suppose I was writing it about sometimes in May
8 1993. This 5 is --
9 Q. So we see a date in the top right-hand corner saying 27/5/95?
10 A. But it cannot true. I have -- well, it -- it must be May '93.
11 Q. Okay. Can --
12 A. Because if you read it, it's also told the Geneva negotiations
13 they were beginning, 093.
14 Q. Thank you, madam. At the top, handwritten, it seems that this is
15 for Frau Mag Schreiberhuber?
16 A. Mm-hmm.
17 Q. Who is this?
18 A. Hermine Schreiberhuber is the vice -- how you tell leader of
19 foreign policy in Austria press agency.
20 Q. Why did you direct this to her? Was this just the practice at
21 that stage?
22 A. Well, no. I directed it to her so that it is not landing to
23 rubbish basket.
24 Q. Now, madam, I'd like to refer you to -- well, first if we can look
25 on the first page of the English version in the first three paragraphs
1 there is each time reference to an Ivan Drnis.
2 A. Yes, I know. I never in my life have met Ivan Drnis. I was in --
3 several time in Tomislavgrad asking permission for that and that, and
4 always I got it from office from Ivan Drnis with his signature. So I was
5 thinking that the person who was giving it to me was Ivan Drnis, but he
6 was not. He was the press officer of HVO in Tomislavgrad. He has also
7 the name but I have forgotten it. And this fact was made clear first in
8 one press conference in June 1995.
9 Q. Now, madam, if we can look at the third paragraph on page 1 of the
10 English version. Well, third paragraph in the German version as well, and
11 in this paragraph it says: "Already in January when the fighting flared
12 up," and this is from that second line, "Drnis justified the Vance-Owen
13 Plan. The world has given us these areas and so we will control them."
14 Can you comment on this, perhaps?
15 A. Yes. It means that we were trying to get in Central Bosnia and we
16 were telling after these experiences in November we were telling
17 Mr. Drnis, "What are you doing now?" Because there was some fights
18 between Croats and Muslims in Gornji Vakuf and some other areas already, I
19 think in Busovaca and some other areas and we knew about them. We were
20 not yet in Central Bosnia, where we were first under our way to Central
21 Bosnia. That, "What are you doing? That -- your good brothers are
22 fighting with each other." And answer was this: "The world gave these
23 areas to us and we're going to control them."
24 Q. If we look at the second paragraph, the paragraph just above the
25 one we've looked at now, in here it's reported that Ivan Drnis listed
1 areas the HVO wants to bring under its control, and then a little further
2 down: "We have to think of the future, he answered when, we asked him if
3 the power tags was the reason for the fighting in Jablanica. Jablanica
4 provides Herzegovina as well as big parts of Dalmatia with electricity."
5 Could you perhaps comment on this?
6 A. Well, in modern world, energy is one of the most important things
7 for fighting, and in Jablanica there was artificial sea and power plant.
8 It means that they wanted to control energy. And then because of certain
9 nature of Bosnia, which is in different valleys, who is controlling the
10 roads controls also Bosnia, and this only road which was at that time
11 available it was in Croatian, in HVO hands. Of course, the Bosniak had
12 also very many other roads but they were all in Serbian hands. So Bosnia
13 was cut. And I think that this press officer which was not Drnis just
14 told that they want to control the energy. They want to secure the energy
15 because Jablanica was very important actually for Croatia. And of course
16 this road which started in Tomislavgrad.
17 Q. And the reference to Dalmatia or big parts of Dalmatia which also
18 received electricity from this, Dalmatia, in what country does that lie?
19 A. That's Croatia. It's Croatia. It's not Bosnian part but it's
20 real Croatia.
21 Q. Did you read any significance into the statement that, "We have to
22 think of our future," and then it being coupled with power being supplied
23 to Croatia?
24 A. Well, when I went in January to Croatia, I noticed --
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Your Honour. If I may interrupt. I
1 think I'm going to object to the form of the question. If you look at
2 paragraph number two, the Prosecutor correctly indicated that there was a
3 quote, "We have to think of our future." Then if you read on, it appears
4 that the journalist who also is testifying now as a historian and also as
5 a military expert as well as an expert on energy, then seems to be
6 injecting her own comments, her own interpretation and then later on, at
7 the last sentence of that paragraph, says, "Herzegovina has to remain
8 Croatia in any case." Nothing about what this gentleman said. It's pure,
9 pure speculation on her part as to what the gentleman meant whoever he was
10 that she attributed to be Drnis, "We have to think of our future."
11 So I think the way the question was phrased is improper. It
12 assumes facts not in evidence. I suggest that we take it one step at a
13 time, we do it very carefully so we know what is this madam's
14 interpretation of historical facts or military necessities versus what
15 actually took place, keeping in mind we do not have -- we do not have as
16 in the other interview, the tape or some kind of a transcription.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you heard what Defence
18 counsel just said. When the person with whom you were speaking tells you,
19 "We must think of our future," what you're telling us afterwards is
20 basically just you speaking, or is it something that he actually told you?
21 Is it you speaking? Are you adding something to what he told you?
22 THE WITNESS: Well, if -- if you look in this article under the
23 top, it's told analyse. It means that it's no interview. It's just a
24 longer-term analyse what I made and I was quoting some -- some persons
25 which were telling -- had told me some things, and this you can see with
1 this points with the direct quotations, but it is an analyse of mine and I
2 have never said that it's something else. It even says here in the paper
3 that it is how I saw the things were.
4 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, based on that, again, I would draw the
5 Trial Chamber's attention to paragraph two. Based on that, I don't mean
6 to be disputatious, you know, though I have been in the past, but if you
7 look at it, and the journalist is perfectly entitled to analyse, but I
8 think the way the question is phrased, and now the way some of the answers
9 are coming, no fault of the witness, it would appear that it is this
10 gentleman that she attributes to Drnis that is actually talking about the
11 power plant, which then allows the Prosecution to later on draw the
12 attention or draw the conclusion which he wishes for the Court that she is
13 saying that during the interview Drnis is actually admitting that they're
14 attacking these areas or the conflict regarding Prozor, Gornji Vakuf,
15 Vitez, Travnik, Busovaca, and so on and so forth are because of the
17 It seems that this journalist, who happens to have other knowledge
18 of which she has not been qualified to testify about yet, but now we know
19 that's her analysis, it's her spin, because obviously from this, the
20 gentleman never answers her question and we don't have a tape so we don't
21 know question, answer, question, answer.
22 So I would appreciate, Your Honour, that if the Prosecutor is
23 going to go down this line he do so in a very classical form. What was
24 told to her so we know facts. Then if she wants to give an
25 interpretation, that's -- that's a different -- and of course, I'll be
1 objecting to that, but because the Trial Chamber can interpret. We want
2 fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. That's what journalism is all about, madam.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. Mr. Kruger, you
4 heard Mr. Karnavas and the answer of the journalist. Now, what's
5 important to find the truth with a capital "T" is not so much her analysis
6 of what the person said, it's what the person actually said.
7 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. And, Your Honour, I won't
8 belabour this point because I think it is of less importance in the bigger
9 scheme of things.
10 Q. I'll step off this document, Madam, but we will be getting back to
11 it at later stage to just touch on perhaps one or two further aspects.
12 Now, after the entry into force of -- sorry. After the
13 introduction or announcement of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, did you again
14 visit Central Bosnia?
15 A. Yes. I started actually this time my trip from Banja Luka and
16 Krajina, and then I had to go back to Croatia, and then I visited second
17 time Central Bosnia, and it was not that easy any more than before,
18 because even they told that hostilities were not any more there. There
19 was some -- not only some, very much shooting in Gornji Vakuf, and we have
20 to drive through Gornji Vakuf. We have to wait on the edge and then we
21 were -- and then the British Warriors were securing the road and then we
22 have to drive so fast as we only do in these streets full of grenade
24 Q. And while in Central Bosnia at this time did you try to interview
25 or did you interview any of the leadership figures?
1 A. Yes. Yes, I did. And this time the most important persons I was
2 first interviewing -- well, February. I don't know. I think in
3 February -- yeah, January, I didn't meet -- not very important. I think
4 the most important person was the commandant in Mostar. I think his name
5 was Kulenovic. Kulenovic.
6 Q. In Central Bosnia did you try to interview Tihomir Blaskic?
7 A. Yes, I tried, but I didn't get him. Oh, yes. The important
8 person at the -- you mean, I suppose is Dario Kordic, but I couldn't take
9 him so seriously.
10 Q. Okay. Dario Kordic, when you interviewed him, madam, how did he
11 introduce himself?
12 A. Well, he was introduced to us as vice-president of Herceg-Bosna
13 and as a colonel, but as far as I knew, he was student of politics in
14 University of Sarajevo.
15 Q. Madam, from your interview with him were you able to gain any
16 picture of his relationship to the leadership of the HVO in Mostar?
17 A. Well, I, of course, don't have any DNA, but anyway it was told
18 that he should be the son of the sister of Mate Boban. It means from the
19 president of Herceg-Bosna.
20 Q. And other that that do you know if he had any links not of a
21 familial but more in his work procedure or --
22 A. Well, he must have mentioned Mr. Prlic, because in my story --
23 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection, Your Honour. Now she's speculating. "He
24 must have mentioned." Either he did or he did not. Now, if she wishes to
25 consult her notes - I assume you have notes from those days - I have no
1 objection to her consulting those notes which of course I'll be
2 requesting, but otherwise I would appreciate if she does not speculate as
3 to what somebody might or might not have. That's not proper journalism.
4 You know, I know it and the Trial Chamber knows it. Thank you.
5 MR. KRUGER:
6 Q. Madam, you've heard the objection, but from --
7 A. Because in my article is that he is near Prlic. So he has
8 mentioned this name because it was to me not familiar, not at that time.
9 Q. Thank you. At this stage you -- can you remember any further
10 details round what you have just said or is this basically --
11 A. Well, what was for me important in that interview was that he was
12 threatening to cut the road to Tuzla. It had already been cut and they
13 were quite desperate in Tuzla because we visited that only -- that also.
14 But it was just the normal talk of securing -- securing this and that.
15 Q. Now, madam, let's step on to a different topic. Are you aware of
16 talk of an ultimatum that was issued by the HVO early in April 1993?
17 A. It should have been 3rd of April, and about it there was several
18 press reports in Austrian press, and I suppose also in English press,
19 Reuters and so on. It means that it was -- it was not my thing. I was
20 reading it like any consumant [sic].
21 Q. Now, if I may refer you to Exhibit P 01804. And this is the very
22 first exhibit in the bundle you have. It's the very first document in
23 your bundle.
24 A. Mm-hmm.
25 Q. Yes. I think -- I think, madam, you still have the --
1 A. That's Borba. The first one.
2 Q. Can you just --
3 A. Oh, still one. Okay. Yes, yes, yes. Okay.
4 Q. Yes. Madam, this is titled with the headline "Bosnian Croats
5 demand Muslim troop pullouts," dated April 4, 1993. And just above that
6 it's copyright 1993, Reuters Limited, the Reuter Library Report.
7 As a journalist, are you able to tell us what the Reuter Library
8 Report was or what this kind of document represents?
9 A. Well, somebody from Reuters has had knowledge about this -- this
11 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour. Excuse me. Your Honour, at this
12 point I would object to the witness testifying about this particular
13 document unless there's a foundation laid. Obviously she did not pen this
14 particular article, and unless it can be demonstrated that somehow she had
15 access to this, read it at the time, I would object to any question --
16 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I --
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, let me make my record and you can go
19 MR. KRUGER: I can help you.
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Let me just make my record. So unless, unless she
21 was aware of this article at the time, I would object.
22 Now, the question came prior to this with respect to an ultimatum.
23 He can ask about that particular issue. But to try to get the witness
24 to authenticate what somebody else wrote about something else is improper
25 unless some sort of a foundation is laid.
1 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour --
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger, I'm sure you have a
4 MR. KRUGER: Yes, Your Honour. Yes, there is a reason, and my
5 next question will show that the objection was an utter waste of time of
6 this Court, and if I'm just given the time to clarify this.
7 Q. Madam, if we look at this document, I'm going to just point out
8 one or two aspects of it and then I'm going to ask you --
9 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I object. I object unless the
10 foundation is laid. Was the witness aware of this article? If not,
11 there's no need to look at this article because we're going to have this
12 witness commenting about what another journalist wrote. That was the
13 purpose of my objection which was not a waste of time. Perhaps the
14 gentleman could kindly laid lay a foundation, if he's capable of doing
15 that, and I dare say he's not, because the witness has not seen this
16 document before, at least not during that period of time. And if she has,
17 I'm sure she would have volunteered it.
18 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, the witness has testified that she saw
19 reports of this nature in the Austrian press and I would just wish to ask
20 her whether what is in this press report corresponds in basis to what she
21 saw in the Austrian press. Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Madam, this article, if we look at the body, the very first
23 paragraph says:
24 "Bosnian Croats on Sunday demanded the withdrawal of Muslim troops
25 from provinces designated for Croat self-rule under a UN peace plan,
1 reviving tensions between nominal civil war allies who battled early this
3 And if we go further down, one, two, three, four -- about the
4 fourth paragraph down below that: "The HVO set an April 15 deadline for
5 Bosnian President Alija Izetbegovic to sign a joint communique ..." Do you
6 see that?
7 A. Mm-hmm.
8 Q. And if we go two paragraphs down from that "If Izetbegovic fails
9 to sign this agreement by April 15, the HVO will unilaterally enforce its
10 jurisdiction in cantons three, eight, and 10. The statement from HVO
11 headquarters in south-west Croat stronghold in Mostar warned."
12 Now, madam, you had mentioned that you saw reports of an ultimatum
13 in the Austrian press.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. How does that accord to what we've just seen here?
16 A. Well, it's about the same, because the system is working like
17 that. Every newspaper and, for instance, Austrian press agency, they have
18 Reuters. They are just translating it, and if they choose something it
19 goes to whole Austrian press, but I don't have access to Reuters. I have
20 access to Austrian press agency and I buy every day several Austrian
21 newspapers but they were all writing about the same -- this can be the
22 original -- original one. I don't know, because Austrian press notes not
23 "Reuters," they make a note "agencies".
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, following the objection
25 of Defence Counsel Karnavas, when you saw the Austrian press I would like
1 you to tell us whether upon reading these articles in the Austrian press
2 you formed an opinion that was close to what you can see here in the text
3 of the Reuters agency. Did it say the same thing?
4 THE WITNESS: Yes, it said the same thing, but -- well, if you are
5 following some country, if you are covering some country, you just read
6 everything what is -- what is written about it, and of course when I went
7 shortly after that to Bosnia I was asking about this ultimatum, is it true
8 or is it not true, but the knowledge originally I got only through the
10 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Madam, if we could look at the next document in the bundle, which
12 is P 01808. And if we can actually look at the original, a photocopy of
13 something coming from Borba. My first question to you is: Do you know or
14 had you heard of Borba or what it was?
15 A. I believe that it was a Serbian newspaper from Belgrade.
16 Q. Now, madam, on this page next to the picture of a man with his
17 hand held on his head, there's a short article and that's the one that has
18 been translated. In the English it stands, "HVO ultimatum demands
19 pull-out of Muslim troops from three provinces." And the agency that is
20 listed is Reuters.
21 My question to you is you have seen this article yesterday, and it
22 appears as if this would -- or may I ask you, from your experience with
23 the Austrian press agency, if the Austrian press agency puts out a report,
24 how is that report used by other publications?
25 A. They have cooperation with other news agencies. I don't know
1 how -- I think -- well, there are -- I think almost all small agencies
2 belong to it. How much they use the material or each other, I don't know,
3 but very many of my articles which I wrote to Austrian press agency were
4 also in the Swiss one, and now and then even in DPA. It means that the
5 news agencies, especially the small ones, they are cooperating.
6 Q. And if they use something coming from the Austrian press agency,
7 would that be indicated in the article in another newspaper?
8 A. In Austrian newspapers, yes, and if it's coming from the Swiss
9 STA, they put their own sign there and it's used from Swiss newspapers,
10 because my articles have been in Swiss newspapers.
11 Q. And just a final question on this. If another publication or
12 newspaper uses something attributable to the Austrian press association,
13 may they abbreviate an article and use only parts, a portion of the
15 A. Yes. Oh, yes. That's the problem with the news agencies; it's
16 only material. They can change it, and they are very often making it so
17 they have the same thing from different agencies. It means made, of
18 course, from different persons and they put them together and take this
19 view from there and that from there.
20 Q. Now, madam, I'm asking you as a journalist this article in Borba,
21 which is attributable to Reuters, it appears as if it uses --
22 MR. KARNAVAS: Objection. Non-leading question, please.
23 Non-leading question.
24 MR. KRUGER:
25 Q. Madam, could you comment on the similarity between this article
1 from Borba and the previous article we saw from Reuters.
2 A. Well, they are very similar, but it don't mean that they are the
3 same article. If it has been, for instance, some press conference it
4 could be that hundred people are writing the same thing.
5 Q. Okay. Thank you, madam. Let's step off from this topic.
6 Now, in April 1993 --
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One minute, please, before we
8 move on to another subject.
9 Witness, the Prosecution is asking you questions about a document
10 which was published on April 5th in Borba, but the Prosecution did not ask
11 you to look closely at that document. Now, if you would please do so as I
13 I am noticing that the Reuters paper actually refers to two
14 sources of its own. There is the HVO press release from Mostar, but also
15 the Croatian radio station. So Reuters adds two elements to the document
16 that we saw dated April 4th. There are two new sources. One HVO press
17 release from Mostar and something that was said on the Croatian radio.
18 Did you see that, Witness?
19 THE WITNESS: [Previous translation continues] ... Yes.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. Now, when there are
21 different sources, you as a journalist, would you say that these different
22 sources -- the fact that there are several sources, does that confirm an
23 information or does that make it less reliable?
24 THE WITNESS: Well, honest answer is very difficult. It's
25 depending. Let's say when we have, for instance, a press conference which
1 is pure propaganda, so it's all the same if there are hundred journalists
2 which are writing the same propaganda. But there are two sources. It's a
3 Croatian radio, and it is in that case actually good source, and there is
4 the HVO General Staff.
5 Because these sources are both Croatian ones, it makes it, in my
6 opinion, reliable because if it would be a Muslim source then I wouldn't
7 trust that much, but now I'm thinking future, because in the future then
8 Croats, they were saying it never was an ultimatum but here is a document
9 which are based on Croat sources.
10 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Madam, did you know another journalist by the name of Ed Vulliamy?
12 A. I didn't know him very well, but we all knew each other which were
13 going and coming in Bosnia. Yes, I knew him.
14 Q. Did you meet him in April 1993?
15 A. Yes, I met him.
16 Q. Where?
17 A. I met him in press office in Split and he was sending his
18 articles. He was just came from Bosnia.
19 Q. And did you talk to him?
20 A. Yes, we talked shortly. He only knows that in Bosnia has happened
21 awful things and he also know that in Mostar there had been fighting in
22 former day.
23 Q. What did you do, if anything, as a result of your conversation
24 with Ed Vulliamy?
25 A. Well, because we had already met a Bosnian journalist who was also
1 telling that there has been happening awful things in Central Bosnia, we
2 decided to go to Bosnia.
3 Q. Apart from what Ed Vulliamy had told you, that awful things are
4 happening, did you have any other details of what this might be?
5 A. No.
6 Q. All right. Now, where did you specifically want to go? If you
7 say, We wanted to go to Central Bosnia.
8 A. Well, first we got, of course, to Posusje and then it was
9 always -- it had to be to get some permissions. And then to Mostar,
10 because it was not necessary to go to Mostar if you want to go to
11 Central Bosnia, because the road went from Tomislavgrad, but because
12 Vulliamy mentioned that in Mostar had been fighting, we wanted to go to
13 Mostar to see what was happening there because it was the next point to
15 Q. And where did you go to in Mostar?
16 A. Well, first we were driving around a little bit and we noticed
17 that it was pretty normal. Coffee houses were open, but on the river it
18 was dangerous and the most dangerous place was the Old Bridge. So it was
19 actually on a little bit behind. It was normal and then we went to the
20 headquarters of HVO.
21 Q. Now, just before we proceed, if you say, "We went to the
22 headquarters," who is "we" at this stage?
23 A. We are the three persons which I already mentioned,
24 Mirja Kesavaara as my photographer, and Erich Rathfelder as my colleague.
25 Q. Do you remember where the headquarters of the HVO was?
1 A. No.
2 Q. What --
3 A. But anyway, in Western Mostar, of course, somewhere central.
4 Q. What did you find when you were at the headquarters? Did you
5 speaker to anybody?
6 A. Oh, yes. I suppose that we went -- I don't have to suppose. As a
7 journalist you go as -- first to the press officer, and press officer led
8 us to the -- promised to organise us -- us an interview from higher level
9 and brought us to the canteen.
10 Q. Mm-hmm.
11 A. Where they were eating.
12 Q. And then?
13 A. We were a while in canteen and we were looking. We were very
14 astonished because there were soldiers in black uniforms and we were
15 asking what are these and they told only that they are special troops but
16 they didn't tell us what was their speciality. Later I heard from other
17 journalists that their speciality was to -- to cleanse Muslims from the
18 rows of HVO and put them to prison camps, because before, before in 1992
19 and a little bit later it was so that in HVO were fighting very many
20 Bosniaks also, because it was the time when they were best friends.
21 Q. If we can just backtrack one moment. When in April was this? Can
22 you remember the date?
23 A. Well, I'm not quite sure from the date. It -- I know that -- that
24 in the papers there are told 22nd, but it can be as well 24th. And why?
25 Because I can tell you something. It was the day in which the United
1 Nations Security Council visited Ahmici. It was the same day. So it's
2 very easy to check if it was 22nd or 24th.
3 Why I'm telling 24th is while I was writing my articles, 25th, and
4 they were all published 26th.
5 Q. Now, I don't want to go into this in detail, but you mentioned at
6 line 10 of page 37: "Later I heard from other journalists..." and then
7 you described certain things. Which other journalists are you referring
8 to? Can you remember?
9 A. Where?
10 Q. No, sorry that's in the transcript.
11 A. Mm-hmm.
12 Q. You said you had learned something from other journalists.
13 A. Well, I can't mention the names because there were always pretty
14 many of them, and you were talking. But there was at that time plenty of
15 British journalists, so I would say from British journalists.
16 Q. Did you try to confirm or check the information that this
17 journalist had given you regarding the soldiers in black uniforms?
18 A. No. At that moment I didn't have any possibility or, let's say, I
19 didn't have time to check it and I was at that time not so interested in
20 this black -- black uniforms, but it was later when it was told, and if
21 it's true or not I cannot tell, but I can tell that -- that Muslims
22 disappeared from HVO and there were afterwards prison camps.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I have one question to ask perhaps
25 before the break, or if you -- thank you.
1 Q. Madam, just going back very briefly to something that you had
2 mentioned earlier. You mentioned at some stage Sporazum in 1939.
3 A. '38.
4 Q. '38, sorry, 1938. Can you perhaps give the Court some more detail
5 on this?
6 A. Well --
7 Q. If it's going to take too long, perhaps --
8 A. No, it won't take too long. Let's say so that Yugoslavia, the
9 first Yugoslavia, there was a certain quarrel between Serbs and Croats
10 because it was a unitarian state without any -- it was no federal state,
11 and there was a quarrel. There was a murder. The Croatian
12 parliamentarians was murdered, '27, and Yugoslavian king was murdered from
13 Croats, '34, and so on and so on and so sometimes they decided that let's
14 make an agreement and give -- so that it shall be peace in this country,
15 and it happened, '38. Croat got better position at that time.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Are you sure, madam, are
17 you sure it wasn't the Sporazum of 26 August 1939? That is the date I
18 have --
19 THE WITNESS: Well, if you have so exact date then it is, because
20 even I'm an historian I don't remember everything by heart, but I have
21 always believed that it was already '38. But anyway, it was this Sporazum
22 where the quarrel between Serbs and Croats was finished. And there was a
23 certain area given to the Croats where they have a kind of -- should have
24 a kind of autonomy but it was never in power because a certain Hitler
25 attacked Yugoslavia and it was involved in krieg -- in war.
1 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
2 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. If we can break, perhaps.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. A 20-minute break.
4 See you here again at 16.05.
5 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 4.07 p.m.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger.
8 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
9 Q. Now, Ms. Vihervuori, just before the break -- shortly before the
10 break you mentioned that in the HVO headquarters in Mostar you were taken
11 to a canteen by the press officer and you were asked to wait. Had you
12 asked at that stage to -- for an interview with any specific person?
13 A. No.
14 Q. What happened when you were then in the -- in the canteen?
15 A. We were sitting there and waiting, and as usual Erich was trying
16 to make conversation with everybody. I'm not that communicative. And
17 then somebody came and told that we get an interview and led us to a
19 Q. This person who told you about the interview, was this the press
20 officer you had spoken to previously?
21 A. Yes, I suppose so.
22 Q. Did he say with whom this interview was going to be?
23 A. Yes. He told that it would be with Jadranko Prlic.
24 Q. Did you know who Jadranko Prlic was at that stage?
25 A. No. But he gave -- but it was told me who he is, and he gave also
1 his card, so I knew -- I knew. I just -- what I didn't know was that what
2 is behind this card, because I was always thinking that HVO, that it would
3 be on the top actually only a general, and -- and the name of the general,
4 how -- it was something else.
5 Q. Mm-hmm.
6 A. I don't remember that now at that stage, but I know who is the
7 commandant, the military commandant.
8 Q. Now, when you find out who Jadranko Prlic was, before you arrived
9 at this villa or at the villa?
10 A. In the villa. Or in the garden of the villa.
11 Q. This villa, do you know where it was?
12 A. No, I wouldn't find it, but it was in Western Mostar.
13 Q. Was it a residence or an office?
14 A. I would say both. Anyway, the room we were it was an office, but
15 it was such a beautiful old villa. Surely somebody has been living there.
16 Q. Now, you say that Jadranko Prlic gave you his card. I'd like you
17 to look at the very last exhibit in your bundle, which is Exhibit 9063.
18 P 09063. And if you look at the second page of that, that's a photocopy.
19 Do you recognise this photocopy or what it is?
20 A. It is the copy of that card.
21 Q. Do you know where the original of this card is?
22 A. Yes, in my pocket.
23 Q. Here in court. You still have it?
24 A. I suppose so.
25 Q. Okay. That's fine. But -- so the point that I wish to ask you is
1 on giving you this card did Mr. Prlic tell you what his function was or
2 what position he occupied?
3 A. No. It was already told. I mean, it's also in the card.
4 President of Croatian Defence Council. So it means that it is a kind of
5 political leader from Croatian armed forces.
6 Q. Now, Ms. Vihervuori --
7 A. Or maybe -- maybe you could also tell defence minister. I don't
8 know how the titles were in Herceg-Bosna.
9 Q. Okay. Now, the interview with Mr. Prlic, how long did that last?
10 A. It last 40 minutes.
11 Q. And who were present during this interview?
12 A. He and Mirja Kesavaara and Erich Rathfelder.
13 Q. And yourself?
14 A. And I.
15 Q. In what language was this interview conducted?
16 A. Directly in English.
17 Q. And how was this -- the contents of the interview recorded?
18 A. Well, I was making notes. I have my own system to make notes. In
19 my green years I was making tapes, but I noticed that it's very slowly
20 way. If you're in news business, it's better to make notes. Of course
21 Erich was taking a tape. Of course if I would have known that I am some
22 day going to sit here I would have taken my tape recorder, but I was never
23 dreaming of that, so I was just making a normal interview for newspapers
24 with notes with some sentences which are direct quotations which I need
25 and then some indicates about other things.
1 Q. Okay. Before coming to the substance of the interview itself, did
2 you write any newspaper reports or articles subsequent to this interview
3 based on your notes?
4 A. Yes. And also based on these notes was this investigation which
5 the two investigators from here in October 2001 were discussing in Vienna.
6 I had these notes in my hand. Also, this investigation was based on
7 these notes.
8 Q. And subsequently what has happened to these notes?
9 A. I don't know. They are somewhere, but I have hundreds of logs
10 from every interview, so -- because I was investigated 2001, and I didn't
11 think I'm very important, so I didn't give very much attention to it any
12 more because I thought that I won't come here.
13 Q. And prior to coming here to testify, did you look to see if you
14 could find these notes?
15 A. Yes, but unfortunately I was cleaning last year my old three
16 writing tables. I didn't clean them to waste basket, but to archive, and
17 archive is also a very bad place.
18 Q. Now, madam, yesterday --
19 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Mr. Kruger, may I ask a little question on the
21 In which language did you take the notes?
22 THE WITNESS: In Finnish language. That's why I didn't give very
23 much attention to them, because in my handwriting and in Finnish language,
24 you need an Egyptologue.
25 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
1 MR. KRUGER:
2 Q. Thank you, madam. Now, in the statement you gave to the
3 investigators, you mentioned that the tape, and I take it that this refers
4 to the tape made by Erich Rathfelder, had gone missing.
5 A. I didn't -- well, maybe I said something like that. I was telling
6 that Erich was recording this, but I suppose that it's lost because he had
7 in his working room hundreds of tapes. It was to me a very big surprise
8 that you found it.
9 Q. Okay. Now, madam, you said -- we found it yesterday. I played it
10 tape to you, and did you recognise it when this tape was played to you?
11 First of all, did I play the whole tape?
12 A. No, you didn't play the whole tape, but you bring that much that I
13 could recognise my voice and Erich's voice and a third voice which has to
14 be Mr. Prlic. It's 14 years ago, so I don't remember his voice by heart.
15 Q. If we can turn to Exhibit 2046. Exhibit 2046. And we see here
16 that this says "Interview made by Erich Rathfelder and Marita Vihervuori
17 with Jadranko Prlic in April 1993."
18 Madam, have you had the opportunity of reading this document?
19 A. Yes, I have read it.
20 Q. And based on your knowledge what is this document?
21 A. It is not the interview. It is not all it have because there are
22 always these points, and then as always it's nothing exceptional. After
23 somebody -- after the tape recorder is closed there shall be a little bit
24 discussion still, and so the end of the interview or the last sentences
25 they are not there.
1 Q. Thank you. Now, before proceeding, Your Honour, if I may mention
2 at this stage for the benefit of the Court and for the benefit of the
3 Defence, the actual tape is available electronically if anybody wants any
4 portion played in court. It is also fully synchronised with both the
5 B/C/S as well as with the English transcripts, but unless the Court
6 determines otherwise, I do not propose to play it, but we'll just work on
7 the basis of the transcript for my further questions regarding this.
8 Now, madam, in the course of the interview -- or perhaps if -- if
9 I can refer you to the first page of the transcript, and just above the
10 middle where there's "MV ..." Just above that, that paragraph, in the
11 middle of that paragraph, and this appears to be JP, which I take is
12 stands for Jadranko Prlic, he states: "... I think that, and it is my
13 opinion, official opinion, that this fighting is -- cause of this fighting
14 is attack of Muslim troops to HVO troops at Croat people in middle
16 Could you comment on this and what you discussed regarding the
17 cause of the conflict in Central Bosnia?
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, before we have any commenting or
19 analysis from our good journalist, perhaps a foundation can be laid. We
20 have the tape. We were provided with the tape. We couldn't hear
21 anything, so we assume that over the years something had happened to it,
22 but that's another story. But be that as it may, we have a transcript.
23 The Judges can read the transcript.
24 Now, if we're going to be asking for the witness to give a spin to
25 the transcript, I think a foundation needs to be laid first before any
1 such questions, otherwise I would suggest that the transcript itself and
2 the tape itself are the best evidence, and as such it is the transcript
3 and the tape itself or the tape actually is the best evidence, that is
4 controlling as opposed to what the witness wishes to spin on.
5 Now, again if she wants to give an analysis she has to -- we need
6 to have a foundation laid by the gentleman, which at this point in time no
7 foundation has been laid as a predicate for the question which he just
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger.
10 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Madam, at the time when this interview took place, how familiar
12 were you with the situation in Herzegovina and in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
13 A. Well, not -- I was not aware of the acute situation. I was in
14 Bosnia-Herzegovina some days before. It was in the beginning of April we
15 were there, and I was discussing with various leaders, for instance with--
16 with commandant of 3rd Army Corps of Bosnian army, Hadzihasanovic, which
17 later he was chief of the staff. And I was also discussing with
18 Ejup Dautovic, which was the imam of Zenica, but it was about raped women.
19 It has nothing to do with it.
20 I know that there was a big tension because we had again
21 difficulties to get through Gornji Vakuf, but what had happened after that
22 when I got to Croatia from Central Bosnia I didn't know. I knew only what
23 the Bosnian journalists and Ed Vulliamy had told me, that something awful
24 has happened, and then I could think what this awful was because of what I
25 had seen in January, February, and what I have seen in the beginning of
2 Q. And regarding the things that Jadranko Prlic told you during the
3 course of this interview, were you in a position to be able to comprehend
4 what he was saying?
5 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, may we know what "things" mean?
6 "Things" are a lot of things. Anything from what he ate to what his
7 function was to what was happening on the ground. So what are we talking
8 about "things"? If we could have a precise question. The question is
10 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, the question is broad because it's very
11 clear what the transcript is about. The purpose is, first of all, to just
12 assess generally what the -- what the witness's level of -- or competence
13 was to understand and interpret what Mr. Prlic was saying at that stage,
14 whether she was able to independently assess whether this was indeed
15 correct or not from her own experience.
16 MR. KARNAVAS: In that event, Your Honour, he can simply go about
17 it by asking who, what, where, why, how, explain it, describe. For
18 instance, what exactly did you know about what events were happening in
19 and about Central Bosnia. Then she can give her narration. That's how to
20 do it as opposed to either leading or ask an over-broad question, because
21 then a statement -- an article is written thereafter where in the article
22 the journalist, as most journalists do, also put a spin to it trying to
23 interpret whether the narrator was actually true, accurate, correct or
24 what have you, in this case he was sticky sweet or however you want to
25 describe him. I think we can go step-by-step. And if Mr. Kruger needs
1 some help, I'll be more than happy to conduct his direct for him.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] To avoid wasting any time,
3 Mr. Kruger, if you would like to address the issue of Mr. Prlic's
4 questions, you need to ask the witness how she prepared herself for the
5 interview. Did she walk into it and, in other words, what is the
6 situation as things stand, and the journalist then asks, And in Konjic,
7 and you could have asked her why she put the question about Konjic and
8 then continue with your series of questions. Because there are some
9 questions which she puts which we don't figure in the document because
10 they are small dots and Mr. Prlic's answers and we don't have the
11 question. And so if you wish to highlight a number of important points of
12 the interview, then put the question to her and say you put such-and-such
13 a question and what was your reason for asking the question. Otherwise
14 Mr. Karnavas will object and waste the court's time and everyone has
15 understood what the Chamber is interested in, namely Mr. Prlic's answers.
16 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
17 Q. Madam, if we can actually turn to something which we have dealt
18 with previously in the course of -- of this afternoon. If we can go, and
19 this is again on the first page, and right at the bottom you ask -- or
20 there is a discussion about an ultimatum. Now, can you tell the Court why
21 this came up and why there was a discussion about this ultimatum?
22 A. Well, it's very clear. Firstly, I had, as I already told, read
23 about this ultimatum. Secondly, I was asking Hadzihasanovic what the
24 Muslims are going to do, and I suppose I was interviewing Hadzihasanovic
25 on 13th of April because my interview was published on 14th. And
1 Hadzihasanovic told that they are -- that they don't believe that
2 something happens. They didn't take it seriously.
3 Then I was by Prlic, and I had the knowledge from -- from my
4 colleagues that something very bad had happened, and so I was just
5 counting one plus one.
6 Q. Now, we see in this interview that -- and this is the last
7 paragraph on the first page, that Mr. Prlic says: "There are only one
8 proposal." And if we go further down, the third last line on that page:
9 "Mr. Boban sent proposal about it. It was on the 3rd of April. There
10 are no any terms in it proposal."
11 How did you understand this in -- in light of your knowledge of
12 the ultimatum of the 3rd of April?
13 A. Well, I was thinking, but I don't know if my thoughts are
14 important, that he's lying. That -- because there was a knowledge about
15 this ultimatum. I had it from the press. I had it from Bosnia. And
16 there was this line everywhere told, and he tells, "I don't know anything
17 about it." So I must tell that Croatian leader was very badly informed.
18 Q. Now, the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, did you discuss this during the
19 course of this interview?
20 A. No, we were not actually discussing it, but -- but it was many
21 times mentioned that there was mentioned about these -- these sections
22 which should be Croat, and there was -- there was discussing about that,
23 that -- well, no problems with -- with multi-ethnical provinces and so on.
24 It was -- it was all the time there, but Vance-Owen Plan as such was not
25 under discuss. I mean, it was in discussing in that these regions were
1 mentioned, and Mr. Prlic was of the opinion that it is a good basement
2 for Bosnian peace and so on, but we were not arguing about that document,
3 if it's good or bad or something like that.
4 Q. Now, madam, if we look at page 3 of this transcript, and it is
5 the -- you can say the third paragraph --
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, you told us that when
7 you met Mr. Prlic you'd had an interview prior to that with
8 Hadzihasanovic. At the end of those questions you put to Mr. Prlic, did
9 you put them to him after those questions you had put to Hadzihasanovic?
10 Was it in the light of those questions you'd first put that you put these
11 questions to Mr. Prlic?
12 THE WITNESS: Well, I was interviewing Hadzihasanovic about 13th
13 of April, and Mr. Prlic about 10 days later. And I knew that between had
14 had happened something, so -- so I was somehow -- I was not thinking
15 Hadzihasanovic at that moment.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And did you tell Mr. Prlic that
17 you had met Mr. Hadzihasanovic before that?
18 THE WITNESS: No, I didn't tell him.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Prlic at some point, on page
20 2, says that you had information from one side only, and more specifically
21 when you talk about Gornji Vakuf, you mentioned that the artillery at
22 Gornji Vakuf had been displaced. So you are putting a question to
23 Mr. Prlic on military matters, and he tells you -- in other words, he
24 contradicts what you are saying. Why didn't you tell him at that point
25 that you had information on the 3rd Corps?
1 THE WITNESS: Well, because I didn't have this information from
2 3rd Corps. I had this information from -- from near the Gornji Vakuf and
3 also from BritBat.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Which means that when you put
5 questions to Mr. Prlic, you are not going into the interview blindly. You
6 already had information at your disposal.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes, I had some informations, but I didn't have
8 informations from the acute situation. When I was discussing with
9 Hadzihasanovic, the topic was mostly the common leadership of Croatian and
10 Bosnian -- I mean, Croatian, Bosnian, and Muslim Croatian army and how the
11 difference is going, how the cooperation is going because of these
12 incidents which happened in the beginning of the year, and Hadzihasanovic
13 was very, very positive.
14 It means that when I was ask -- interviewing with Prlic,
15 Hadzihasanovic was to me an optimist who has totally miscalculated the
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Sorry, Mr. Kruger. Please
19 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. Madam, just to -- for the clarity of the record, this interview --
21 you've actually already mentioned it, but was it a planned interview or a
22 spur of the moment kind of thing?
23 A. With whom?
24 Q. With Mr. Prlic.
25 A. It was -- well, we wanted to talk somebody in -- in Mostar because
1 we knew -- because we knew that there had happened something and we were
2 going round, but I didn't ask a certain person. I was very astonished
3 that we got so easily to so high level.
4 Q. Now, madam, the -- or the original audio version of the tape is
5 quite bad, and that is why there are lots of dots or spaces in the
7 If we turn to page 3 of the transcript, the second place from the
8 top where you ask a question and where there are only dots, just below
9 that Jadranko Prlic starts answering: "Mr. Bartolomio visited Mostar
10 before two weeks." Do you see that?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And this discussion is still about the Vance-Owen Peace Plan.
13 About three lines down, Mr. Prlic says: "We want to stop the war and the
14 Vance-Owen Plan is probably the only solution of existing of Bosnia and
15 Herzegovina. Without Vance-Owen, there are no Bosnia and Herzegovina."
16 Do you recall perhaps your question or what triggered this
17 discussion or response?
18 A. No. No. And what is, if I may so, funny in this paper is that I
19 have been so much speaking and Erich so little. I don't remember that he
20 had problem throat at that day. Normally it was so that Erich was talking
21 mostly. So I think that quality of record is that bad that even Erich's
22 questions are made in my mouth.
23 But I know this. We were discussing about -- about existing of
24 Bosnia and that kind of things. But what I should have been asking, after
25 14 years I don't know.
1 Q. Okay. Madam, if we can turn to page 5. And if we can look at the
2 very last paragraph. Now, once again the question is not clear, but the
3 question triggers the response from Mr. Prlic that: "Our aim is not to go
4 with Croatia." And then it follows on: "... We want to have whole Bosnia
5 and Herzegovina. Bosnia and Herzegovina is our state."
6 Could you explain to the Court what this means?
7 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, I'm going to object. Why would the
8 witness -- she can explain what she thought Mr. Prlic meant and gives --
9 but I don't understand the basis for the question. It is what it is. I
10 mean, Mr. Prlic made that statement. Now, what she interpreted that to
11 be, because maybe she has, you know, some suspicion which would then
12 trigger some sort of follow-up question, that's fine, but -- and again, I
13 want to point to the Court's attention the following: She's going to be
14 writing an interview or writing an article based on this interview. She
15 is not some official -- or there in some sort of an official capacity such
16 as some international, for instance, where thereafter she's going to react
17 in accordance with answers that she's going to be getting from this
18 particular individual because of his position, but I believe the way the
19 question is being asked is totally improper.
20 Now, if he wishes to rephrase it as to what she thought he meant,
21 which then would cause a reaction from me as to speculation, because now
22 she's going to be speculating as to what exactly Mr. Prlic meant at that
23 time since she didn't have access to his brain. So I don't see the
24 purpose of the question, but I'll wait for clarification, but at this
25 point I'm going to be objecting.
1 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I may just briefly respond. The -- I
2 will rephrase that question, but the witness is a professional journalist
3 who was in the area, and as a professional journalist certainly she did
4 have the competence to at least assess what was being told to her at
5 various stages and then to also find or point out or comment on certain
6 inconsistencies within what was being told to her, and this is the --
7 where I'm aiming at with the following questions, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Thank you, Mr. Kruger.
9 Witness, so that the Bench is able to understand everything about
10 this interview, you said you didn't know who Mr. Prlic was, and you
11 discover who this person was at the last minute because you hasn't
12 prepared your interview with him in mind. Also, there's something
13 ambiguous about this interview. You said so yourself. On the other hand
14 there are you and your colleague. You are asking the questions. And in
15 English the -- the name of your colleague is not mentioned. The initials
16 MV are in the document, but you said that your colleague did ask
17 questions. So we don't know whether Mr. Prlic's answers are answers to
18 the questions you put or to the questions your colleague put to him.
19 Was this a red thread in your interview? Usually a journalist has
20 something of a -- did you have something of a common thread, something
21 which you were preparing beforehand? Because usually when one interviews
22 an important person you know what kind of questions you are going to be
23 putting beforehand. Did you know in which direction your interview was
24 going to go or was it just open questions you were putting to him based on
25 information provided to you by BritBat or other -- from other sources
1 which you were basing your interview on?
2 THE WITNESS: Well, yes. There are different kinds of interviews.
3 One is a very good prepared with ready questions, and the other one is a
4 discussion, and this was more a discussion. And many, many times when we
5 were making common interviews, Erich and I, we made already before clear
6 that you ask that, I ask that, and so on. It was -- it is all the same
7 who was making the questions, because it was -- anyway, we worked very
8 goodly together.
9 And to this last capital, in that state I can even recall my
10 question which is not there, because Mr. Prlic is in the previous -- he
11 was, and that I remember because they are the important thing, telling
12 that he's Croat, not Bosnian Croat, that he's -- that Yugoslavia was
13 better than Bosnia-Herzegovina and so on. So my question was: "Are you
14 going to join Croatia?" And the answer is: "No, that's not our
16 MR. KRUGER:
17 Q. Now, what you are referring to is on page 5, the second-last
18 paragraph just above MV; is that correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Now, something which I want to ask you how you understood this at
21 the time as a journalist when it was told to you is in that same
22 paragraph, the third line from the bottom -- well, before that, from the
23 second line: "You know, I want to say something. For Croats in Bosnia
24 and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia is better than a unitary Bosnia and
25 Herzegovina. Why? Because Croatia was in that Yugoslavia. Now there is
1 border to Croatia. You know, Yugoslavia was a complex country and now BiH
2 is not a complex country. It would be a unitary country."
3 Now, during the interview what was your reaction to that?
4 A. There was some -- a certain contradiction. On the other hand,
5 Mr. Prlic was speaking about no problems with the multi-ethnical state,
6 and on the other hand he was telling that it's not a good state for
7 Croats. Yugoslavia was better.
8 What can I think in that moment? I was thinking of Serbs and
9 Milosevic. And I was thinking, of course, this Karadjordjevo and these
10 plans of dividing Yugoslavia, which were mostly Milosevic initiatives.
11 Q. Now, madam, on the next page, at the top, just beneath "Side two,"
12 in the light of what you've just said, Jadranko Prlic says:
13 "You know, Croatian nation and Serbian nation is homogen nations.
14 There are no big differences between Serb in BiH and Serbs in Serbia.
15 There are no big difference between Croat in Croatia and Croats in
16 Herzegovina. We think that real Croatia is Western Herzegovina, for
18 Now, at the time when this was said in this interview, how did you
19 view this in -- in terms of what had been said previously?
20 MR. KARNAVAS: Again, Mr. President, if he could just read the
21 entire question or the entire answer and then ask her, because you have to
22 put it in context. And keep in mind they're both speaking a second
23 language of their own, but at least let's have the whole thing and then I
24 don't object to that question. She can have whatever impression she
25 wishes. But the whole answer because it puts it into context, because I
1 think it's the very last sentence that drives the point home.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes, the context.
3 MR. KRUGER:
4 Q. Madam, if we read the whole thing, then, it goes further: "I
5 think that in a global sense one possibility to solve the situation is
6 negotiations between Croats and Serbs. But I know that ... to agree on
7 any agreement about the situation in BiH which not included all three
8 nations in BiH."
9 It seems that there may then be something missing from the
11 Which then prompted a question which ends with: "You and Serbian
12 side want to destroy Muslim nation."
13 Can you recall what your -- what your understanding of this
14 statement was at that stage?
15 A. Well, it was the discussion about -- the old discussion about
16 dividing Bosnia, and the problem was that Serbs had Serbia and Croats had
17 also Croatia, but Muslims, they didn't have anything. They had only
18 Bosnia. And everybody was thinking that they are weak. So it's very
19 easy. Just divide Bosnia and to kick Muslims out. Because I think it was
20 about that.
21 It was exactly same mistake what Serbs made in -- in Croatia.
22 They were thinking that Croatia should be very soon crushed, but the
23 Croats were fighting with bare hands to defend their homes. And couple of
24 years later, after Dayton treaties, Mr. Prlic told Erich and that's
25 secondhand, but anyway, I trust Erich, but they were thinking --
1 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, madam. I will object at this point
2 because now we're talking about beyond Dayton and Erich isn't here so this
3 is beyond the scope of the indictment period.
4 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, hearsay is admissible and this is --
5 MR. KARNAVAS: I never said that it wasn't. I understand hearsay,
6 even hearsay on hearsay is relevant, provided it can be backed up by
7 independent indicia. That's not the point. I well familiar with the
8 rules of evidence. What the point is, is now we're talking about what she
9 heard or somebody heard after the Dayton Accords. It has nothing to do
10 with this particular interview. We're talking about 1997, Dayton being in
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Kruger, this is an
13 interview that is before the Dayton agreements, so there's no point in
14 bringing up Dayton. What interests the Bench is the questions placed by
15 madam and her colleague and the answers given by Prlic at that time, that
16 is April of 1993.
17 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
18 Q. Madam, what -- I'll just come back to what you were saying.
19 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, on the question that
20 Mr. Kruger just brought up, at some time you or your colleague asked
21 Mr. Prlic the following question: "You and the Serbs are trying to
22 destroy the Muslim nation." And Mr. Prlic answers you: "Why?" At that
23 time we don't know exactly what you're saying, and Mr. Prlic is giving an
24 explanation. He's saying that during the six months when the UNPROFOR was
25 there, there were, et cetera, et cetera, but what -- what this means is
1 Mr. Prlic's answer does not fit in with the feelings that you or your
2 colleague were voicing about the destruction of the Muslim nation.
3 Do you remember that particular time in the interview, Witness?
4 THE WITNESS: Well, that is two levels. The one level is
5 political level, and the other level is -- is that humanitarian level.
6 And so when I'm asking political questions about possible dividing from
7 Bosnia or something like that, he is answering how much Croats had been
8 helping Muslims before UNPROFOR came, because UNPROFOR came first in
9 October '92. And all these refugees were brought to Croatia before it.
10 And that's all true. But it has nothing to do with these questions I
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So what you're saying is that
13 his answer was just an attempt to steer the conversation away from the
14 question that you posed.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Well, how can it be then that
17 you did not choose to steer him back towards that subject afterwards?
18 THE WITNESS: I think that our time was closing, because it's in
19 the very end of -- of an interview.
20 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right.
21 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
22 Q. Now, madam, if we can turn to page 4 in the transcript. And if we
23 look at the third paragraph where Jadranko Prlic gives a response, that's
24 the one starting with: "I think that it depend on which you speak -- on
25 which who you speak, you conversate." That paragraph. We'll look in a
1 moment at the contents, but at this stage had you any idea of the ethnic
2 composition or the statistics regarding ethnic composition within Bosnia
3 and Herceg -- Herzegovina at that stage?
4 A. Well, every journalist had the map of the census of
5 Yugoslavia '91. Everybody knew. That was an official paper. You could
6 get it everywhere. So you could -- and there was told exactly how many
7 from which nation in which town were living. But at that stage you could
8 only know that in the Serbian-occupated area -- but not occupated but the
9 area which was under Serbian control there were very many Muslims and
10 Croats expelled and where they were it was not know. Partly they were in
11 Central Bosnia, and partly they were outside Bosnia and partly even
12 outside Yugoslavia. It means that in the situation from ethnical
13 cleansing which had been the fact already since -- since the war begin --
14 begun in April 1992, in the beginning especially in Serbian-hold areas.
15 Nobody could exactly told how many refugees are sitting in which town, but
16 I'm not counting the refugees population because it was also possible that
17 they went go further or they can go back. But the ethnical composition
18 from every town was known.
19 Q. Now, if we look in that paragraph, the fourth line, it says, "...
20 Croats make ethnic cleansing of Croats." From there downwards, Mr. Prlic
21 says, "The number of Croats will decrease in all of this period and in the
22 future also. We had only 17.5 per cent of Croats before the war in BiH.
23 Today, not more than 12 per cent ... In this situation we will be national
24 minority in BiH."
25 Now, this statement of the Croats becoming less and who will
1 eventually become a minority, was this something that you had heard before
2 or heard subsequent to this?
3 A. Well, yes, but in other context. I heard dozens of times in -- in
4 Kosovo, when the Kosovo Serbian leaders were singing how the number of
5 Serbs are -- are getting less and less and they are only 7 per cent,
6 Momo Trajkovic, and that's why they have to kick some Albanians out and so
7 on and -- and I was thinking in Kosovo at that moment it means that for me
8 it was a kind of excuse of a nationalistic fears. We are getting less.
9 We have to defend our positions.
10 If the Croats really get less in Bosnia-Herzegovina, I can say
11 yes, in numbers, but if they got less in -- in comparison, I don't know
12 because refugees were still more than Muslim nation. I think that the
13 number of refugees was very high at that moment.
14 Q. If we look at page 2 of this transcript, the last paragraph on
15 page 2. And if we look at the fifth line of that paragraph: "There are
16 less number of Croats in Bosnian provinces than before the war. There are
17 more Muslims in Croat provinces than before the war."
18 Were you in a position at that stage to -- to understand whether
19 that was accurate or not?
20 A. It was true. It was true in that meaning, that so many Muslims
21 were ethnically cleansed. There were enormous refugee camps, for instance
22 in Posusje, at that moment. Well, I think he was thinking about that.
23 Q. Was this a sort of concern to the people you spoke to within HVO
25 A. No, because it was maybe excuse for something, but nobody was
1 concerned about refugee camps because they cannot stay forever. They were
2 very, very bad camps. They were cold, there was nothing to eat, and the
3 situation was bad. It doesn't mean that if you have refugees that it
4 should be a lasting thing or lasting situation.
5 Q. Madam, if we can turn to page 5 of this transcript and the
6 paragraph about in the middle of the page where Jadranko Prlic
7 starts: "Logic is not always." Do you have that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. In that paragraph the discussion turns to -- to the HVO army, and
10 Mr. Prlic, in the middle says: First point that was the Muslim army and
11 the Croat army don't have a good relationship. The second point: "We
12 have a huge army. It is greater than Croat army in Croatia." And then he
13 refers to: "At the same time we don't have more than 20 previous
14 officers, not more than 20."
15 Did you understand what he was referring to about 20 previous
17 A. Yes. He was meaning in HVO were only 20 officers which were
18 serving in JNA, in former Yugoslavian army, and telling that in Bosnian
19 army were several former officers from former Yugoslavian army. If it's
20 true or not, I cannot tell it, but I know that many commanders in all
21 armies had been before serving in JNA because it was -- they wouldn't have
22 had any other military education.
23 Q. Now, madam, Mr. Prlic, when he spoke to you about the HVO, the
24 military, and then in the rest of this transcript where he speaks about
25 the implementation or not of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, et cetera, did
1 you -- did you form an impression at that moment as to whether this was a
2 person who was speaking from a basis of authority?
3 A. Oh, yes.
4 Q. From what did you gain that impression?
5 A. He was one of the highest leaders in -- in -- in the Bosnian Croat
6 or in Herceg-Bosna, which was already at that time founded, and it
7 correspond -- corresponded. I don't know, and nobody knows how near the
8 contacts were to Zagreb. That I don't know. And how much authority, for
9 instance, Mr. Tudjman had to these things, because we cannot call Tudjman
10 here. He's dead.
11 Q. Now, madam, you say that after the tape was switched off there was
12 still another part to the interview, and you referred to a meeting between
13 Mr. Boban and Radovan Karadzic. Did you tell what that discussion was
15 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, before we have an answer to that
16 question, it's indicated, at least today we learn for the first time,
17 sometime late in the morning, that the witness has indicated that
18 something was said to her after the tape recorder was turned off. It
19 wasn't mentioned when she was interviewed. It wasn't mentioned in her
20 statement. It wasn't -- there's a reference to this point in what she
21 wrote, but she makes some sort of a notion that this was from her
22 shorthand notes. We've heard today that those notes are unavailable.
23 They may be in her archive, albeit it's probably not terribly well
24 organised from what I understand, but if there are going to be any answers
25 to this part, I'm entitled to have all of that, because if she's relying
1 on those particular notes which only she has had access to, then I would
2 move to disallow any questions concerning what she may or may not remember
3 at this point in time because we don't have access to that information.
4 We have access to a tape, one that was provided to us that we
5 could not hear anything, which of course we'll be moving to get a cleaner
6 copy. We have the transcript from the tape, but we do not have her notes,
7 and I am at a distinct disadvantage at this point because I have to take
8 the witness at her word and I choose not to.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, I have been listening to
10 Mr. Karnavas with some attention. Now, you told us that you were taking
11 notes - that's the way you worked - in Finnish. So I presume you asked a
12 question. You asked Mr. Prlic a question, he gives you an answer, and on
13 your piece of paper you note Mr. Prlic's answer.
14 Now, the tape is off. The tape player is turned off. Now, it
15 seems that the conversation was going on after that. Now, when the
16 conversation was still carrying on with Mr. Prlic, did you, on your
17 notebook at the time, note the questions that you carried on asking, and
18 did you also note the answers that you were getting from Mr. Prlic on
19 subjects that do not appear on the piece of paper that we already have.
20 THE WITNESS: Well, I note the answer. I didn't note my question.
21 And I have many pieces of paper where this answer is. It is in my book.
22 It is in the press articles which I was writing on base of my notes at
23 that time. At that time it means one day after this interview. So if you
24 want, I can bring you my book and my press articles which are based
25 directly on these notes. They are not in that meaning disappeared because
1 they were used.
2 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. So everything you are --
3 that you mentioned to Mr. Kruger, these elements that do not appear on the
4 tape or on the transcript of the tape, everything is based on notes that
5 were in fact used for the books that you published and for the articles
6 that you wrote.
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] That's what you're saying.
9 THE WITNESS: Yes. And actually it wasn't very much. The only
10 important thing was that he admitted that Boban had been visiting Pale to
11 get trust -- because it was necessary to get just trust solution in
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Right. So you are telling us
14 that Mr. Prlic told you that Mr. Boban had had gone to Pale.
15 THE WITNESS: Yes.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. And this,
17 Mr. Kruger, is what you would like to use as evidence?
18 MR. KRUGER: Yes, Your Honour. And if -- if I can immediately
19 request the witness to turn to Exhibit 2094. Exhibit 2094.
20 Q. And if you can turn to the German version, the original. And this
21 is a document titled "Genozid in Mittel Bosnia," and at the top
22 Mag Schreiberhuber. Do you recognise this?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. What is this document?
25 A. That is my original article, and if you look in the very end of it
1 you see that -- that I have been writing it on 25th -- 25th of April.
2 That is the last sentence.
3 Q. In the English version that is on page 6 of the translation.
4 Now, madam, can you tell us, this article written on the 25th, I
5 see it's titled, "The interview with the HVO president in Mostar." Which
6 interview are you referring to?
7 A. This interview. What we are discussing all the time. The
8 interview with Mr. Prlic.
9 Q. Thank you. And for the record, the contents of and the factual
10 contents of this article, where did you obtain the material for the
11 factual content?
12 A. Well, it -- it was my notes from the interview.
13 Q. If we can turn to the second page of the English translation, the
14 English version. And if we look at the very second paragraph. It says:
15 "Prlic does not deny that Boban would have met secretly with
16 Radovan Karadzic." And: "According to his statement, it is necessary to
17 talk with the Serbs ..." And it goes on.
18 At what stage did Mr. Prlic say this?
19 A. It was in the very end. I think we were already standing and
20 shaking hands. It was in the very end.
21 Q. And the tape recorder?
22 A. Well, it was maybe already in Erich's bag or pocket.
23 Q. Can you recall the context in which this final part of this
24 discussion took place, or what generated this information from Mr. Prlic?
25 A. It was the discussion about the future of -- of
1 Bosnia-Herzegovina, and to find a solution, because nobody wants a war.
2 And -- and -- well, of course it is said very beautifully here in the
3 interview, but in the fact it was to me actually dividing up Bosnia,
4 because, funnily, Serbs were not very active at that time when Croat and
5 Muslims were fighting, because Croats were doing their job.
6 Q. Let's turn to the first page of the English transcript, or it's
7 the very first paragraph of the original version if you wanted to look at
8 that. And it says -- it starts off the article: "The president of the
9 HVO, Jadranko Prlic, is as sweet as sugar. He denies any violation of
10 human rights by Croats against Muslims in Central Bosnia and repeats the
11 official propaganda according to which the Croats are victims."
12 Now, this appears to be your own assessment of the -- of the
13 interview with Mr. Prlic. What made you come to this conclusion and made
14 you write this?
15 A. Well, when I was writing this it was next day from the interview,
16 and my information states what's totally different as by the interview. I
17 had between visited with the UN Security Council representatives, for
18 instance, Ahmici. I had saw the burnt villages. I had been discussing
19 with many officers of BritBat. So I was at that time when I was making
20 this article, I was very well-informed, informed of the situation. The
21 previous day was so full of programme that I never came to write. I made
22 all what I had seen and heard in the next day, first in the next day in
23 shelling as is told in the end.
24 Q. Now, in what manner did the fact that you visited Ahmici and that
25 there was a United Nations Security Council delegation also visiting
1 Ahmici? How did that change your information basis?
2 A. Well, I saw what happened. For that I have only second-hand, and
3 that's for historian. It's not very good evidence, second-hand
4 information. But then I had first-hand knowledge. I had my own eyes.
5 Q. The -- Ahmici, did that at all come -- or the events that occur at
6 Ahmici on 16 April 1993, had that all come up during the course of the
7 interview with Mr. Prlic?
8 A. By the course of interview with Mr. Prlic I had never heard the
9 name Ahmici. I was asking from the British major, information major
10 with -- who was coming to my car, I was driving him there, and
11 asked, "What is the name of this village? Can you spell it to me?"
12 Q. The fact that a United Nations Security Council delegation was
13 visiting Ahmici, did that all come up in the course of the interview with
14 Mr. Prlic?
15 A. No. I didn't even know it. I -- I was told when we got to
16 Central Bosnia -- we were told, "Sit here." We were sitting in the car
17 and waiting for something. We didn't know what we were waiting. Then
18 suddenly they told us, "Now let's go." And we were joined to a long
19 convoy. I was thinking what is this crusade now, where we are going. And
20 suddenly we went the one destroyed village, and for us was the commandant
21 Bob Stewart of the BritBat, Colonel Bob Stewart, and four representatives
22 of the United Nations Security Council. We learned that first in Ahmici
23 that that -- that something like that was happening.
24 Q. Now, madam, when you came across this delegation from the
25 United Nations Security Council, first of all, did you know who was
1 leading this delegation?
2 A. Yes. It was -- I don't remember his name, but it was the guy from
4 Q. And my second question on this: Were you able to ascertain
5 whether the HVO authorities were in any way involved in setting up or
6 arranging or allowing this visit by this delegation?
7 A. I don't believe so. I think that it was organised from BritBat
8 because there was no representative of HVO. I think that they didn't
9 especially like that UN Security Council came to see what had happened.
10 Q. Now, madam, if we can change to page 2 again of the article, and
11 this is the second section which talks about the street blockade of
12 Tomislavgrad. Do you have that?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now the very first paragraph and this refers to -- is in relation
15 to Tomislavgrad and it says that, "At the street blockade, stood a line of
16 UNHCR lorries of several kilometres. Our press passes were also not
17 accepted. The name Prlic was not considered authoritative."
18 Can you comment on this? What does this mean?
19 A. We were told there was free access of goods and persons, but in
20 Tomislavgrad nothing was going on, just nothing, but what was very odd was
21 that we were sent three times to get some paper to -- because there is
22 some kilometres between this road blockade and Tomislavgrad. Maybe 25, I
23 don't know exactly. We had to drive three times to Tomislavgrad. Nobody
24 took the responsibility of letting us through, and nobody took the
25 responsibility of preventing us. But anyway, this -- that everything was
1 so free and wonderful as we were told was not true. It was to see there.
2 Q. Just the next paragraph. You -- along the same line it seems,
3 "'He is their president,' said a high British officer for him. This was
4 another proof that local Croat units were not under control." Can you
5 comment on this, what you meant when you wrote this?
6 A. Well I'm quoting an angry British major. They were -- they were
7 very angry because in negotiation level it was guaranteed that they can
8 get through, but in the reality they were -- they were not let through and
9 the humanitarian help was also standing -- standing there. And because it
10 was systematical preventing and closing Bosnia, it was actually using
11 blockade as a weapon. But, of course, nobody is admitting such things.
12 Q. Okay. Madam, if we can turn to page 5 of the English version.
13 And if we can look at the second-last paragraph on that page. It's the
14 one that starts with "Ahmici is also ethnically cleansed." You have that?
15 A. Mm-hmm.
16 Q. Madam, what's interesting in this is from the second line:
17 "For Croatia's reputation, the occurrences in Central Bosnia mean
18 a tremendous loss. Herzegovina Croats started with a genocide at exactly
19 the same time as the Croat President Franjo Tudjman was visiting the USA
20 to commemorate another genocide. The behaviour of the Herzegovina Croats
21 is a burden for Croatia."
22 Can you recall on what basis you wrote this, what caused you to
23 write this?
24 A. Well, firstly I was thinking on the visit of UN Security Council,
25 and in that context Bob Stewart, the British colonel, was telling that it
1 was a systematical genocide. It started everywhere at the same point. It
2 was -- his words was: "It was not an obeyance from lower level. It was
3 from high leaded." And on the other hand I was thinking because shortly
4 before Tudjman had been in America, I suppose in New York, and remembering
5 the genocide on Jews, because there was also some concentration camps
6 in -- in Croatia in the time of the war, and Croatia had, because of
7 Ante Pavelic, a little bit fascistic reputation. And so Tudjman was
8 trying to repair that reputation and at the same time happens this kind of
9 genocide in Central Bosnia. It all didn't come together.
10 Q. Madam, just the next paragraph. We've touched upon this
11 previously, but this is basically an assessment of the Vance-Owen Peace
12 Plan. "The Serbs have not subscribed to the Vance-Owen Plan because they
13 have already conquered far more than the plan awards them." And
14 then, "The Croats couldn't wait to sign as the plan awarded them more than
15 they had dreamed of." Is this your own assessment or was this generally
16 spoken about --
17 A. That was generally spoken. The Serbs had 65 per cent of Bosnia
18 under their control, and -- and for Croats this paper gave very much.
19 They were happy with it.
20 Q. Now, the very last sentence of that paragraph: "They tried to
21 push through -- this refers to the Croats, "They tried to push through
22 their interpretation of the Vance-Owen Plan with force." Was this your
23 assessment or was this generally spoken about at that stage?
24 A. It was generally spoken.
25 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, "generally spoken". What does that
1 mean? Who are these generally spoken -- who are these people so we can
2 cross-examine? We have this particular witness, it is her assessment. Is
3 it her assessment? And based on what? That's the issue over here. And
4 that's not -- hearsay can come in but who are these hearsayers? I think
5 it's improper and I think it's unprofessional to ask questions in this
6 fashion, and I would think Mr. Kruger would know better than that.
7 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Madam, when you say that that
8 was generally spoken, we are reading your article so that you are
9 speaking. You don't say in the article some people say or it is generally
10 said that. You are making your own conclusion.
11 THE WITNESS: Of course, I'm making my conclusions, but I'm also
12 discussing with my colleagues. Well, let's say "generally spoken" maybe
13 in that so-called journalist [indiscernible]. I didn't have very much
14 other contacts in Central Bosnia than the victims and the journalists.
15 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Madam, if we can jump to another topic.
17 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] One minute. If we're going to
18 move to another subject with Mr. Kruger and now that I have the paper in
19 front of me, I do have two very brief questions for you.
20 Your article was published in German under the general
21 title, "Genocide in Central Bosnia." Now, that is a very attractive
22 title. It's going to draw lots of attention.
23 Now, looking at the text more closely, I note on page 4 in the
24 English version that a Russian member of the Security Council told you, on
25 the subject of Ahmici, that this was not genocide. Wouldn't you say that
1 there is a contradiction between your title and what is actually inside
2 the article? There is a paragraph in which you are discussing, apparently
3 with a member of the Security Council, of the delegation that was present
4 there, and they obviously didn't actually say that it was a genocide. And
5 in fact you are quoting Vitez, where 200 more people apparently had been
6 killed. Why then did you choose to call that article genocide if only to
7 quote an interview of the HVO president in Mostar where, as we saw earlier
8 in the interview, there's not much about genocide in the content of that
9 interview? Could you perhaps say a few words to explain that?
10 THE WITNESS: Yes. Firstly, this article was never published in
11 this form. This is the original material which I was giving for Austria
12 Press Agency. It was there little bit more beautifully written, without
13 grammatical mistakes and so on. But I was thinking this what I have
14 myself have written is authentic. But I don't think that it is with this
15 title anyway. My title in Finland was "A Death of a Village" in my
16 Finnish article. That I know. That is first thing.
17 Secondly, the Venezuelan guy told quite publicly that this is
18 genocide and this must be published -- punished. And also in Austria,
19 this is all the material what I was giving them on that day. There were
20 four different or maybe five different messages, UN agency messages. An
21 agency message never looks like that. That is the material what I gave
22 Austria press agency that they can make it in that form what they want,
23 and the press agency is always very serious media. They don't have titles
24 like yellow press.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Thank you for these
1 clarifications. It makes it easier to understand. The title of the
2 article was not then yours. You actually called it "Death of a village."
3 THE WITNESS: No. In Finnish article, I called it, "Death of a
4 Village". What I made in Austrian, well, it was all the same because I
5 knew that they anyway make their own.
6 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
7 Q. Now, Ms. Vihervuori, jumping to another topic. Did you know a
8 person by the name of Veso Vegar?
9 A. Well, I met him.
10 Q. Mm-hmm. And who was he?
11 A. He was the pressman of HVO in Mostar.
12 Q. When did you meet this person?
13 A. Autumn 1993. I -- I don't know. October or November. I was
14 pretty long time at that time in -- around there.
15 Q. And how did this discussion come about? Under what circumstances
16 did it take place?
17 A. In press office.
18 Q. Do you recall who was present?
19 A. Yes, the same. The same as before. I, Erich Rathfelder, and
20 Mirja Kesavaara.
21 Q. And what was the main topic of discussion with Mr. Vegar?
22 A. The situation in Mostar.
23 Q. Did you talk about -- at all about detention centres or prisons?
24 A. Yes. We were talking very much about prisons, because it was a
25 topic which Erich Rathfelder always wanted to talk, and Mr. Vegar was
1 telling us that they are going in the next future, in few days, close the
2 prison camp of Gabela.
3 Q. Had you heard of Gabela at that stage or did you know about
5 A. I knew that there are some prison camps. I knew from name Gabela
6 and Dretelj.
7 Q. Okay. Now, before continuing with Mr. Vegar's discussion, did
8 you, subsequent to the discussion with Mr. Vegar, talk to anybody else
9 about Gabela shortly after this meeting?
10 A. What Mr. Vegar was talking, I don't know.
11 Q. No. But did you talk to anybody else about Gabela?
12 A. Well, I was not talking -- talking anybody else, but I went from
13 Mostar to Medjugorje. I was normally living in Medjugorje because Mostar
14 was divided town with shootings and so on. And in Medjugorje I met two
15 mercenaries -- or three mercenaries, or let's say they were not quite real
16 ones because they didn't like the war. They learnt it very soon that it's
17 better to not. And one of these mercenaries had had a long beard, and so
18 Croats were thinking that he's a Chetnik and arrested him and sent them to
19 Gabela. That's why when we met he had quite white face because he had
20 shaved himself for security. And he told something about Gabela.
21 Q. When was this? Can you recall?
22 A. I suppose it was on the same day as Mr. Vegar or in the next one,
23 but they were very close to each other. And that's why I was asking him
24 that -- that Vegar told that it shall be closed, and he don't know because
25 they just brought new weapons there.
1 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I have one further question on exactly
2 this topic, but I see it's 25 to.
3 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Oh, just one more question. I
4 think you may.
5 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
6 Q. Madam, this mercenary, did he say anything about what he had
7 encountered in Gabela?
8 A. He told that the people were starving, that the food was not to be
9 eaten. He told that he didn't see any bodies, but he see -- but he saw --
10 saw coffins, and these coffins were loaded to -- to a truck, brought back,
11 and then again brought away and then again back. So he made the
12 conclusion that the bodies were -- that they were full of bodies and they
13 were taken to some mass grave and the coffins were used several times.
14 And then he telled -- and it was very funny when I was asking how much
15 people there are, he said 1.500 plus 25 plus 1. These 25 were persons
16 which were taken, according to him, from fields directly to Gabela and one
17 of them was very old and in very bad shape and he was thinking that he
18 won't survive and he told that they had been mishandled.
19 Q. And who was the one?
20 A. It was he.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 A. Because he didn't count himself because he was only three days.
23 So he was plus one.
24 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Okay. We will now take a
1 20-minute break.
2 --- Recess taken at 5.36 p.m.
3 --- On resuming at 5.56 p.m.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Kruger.
5 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, upon
6 commencement if I may just for the record state that with regard to
7 Exhibit 02046, that is the audio recording of the interview with
8 Mr. Prlic, during the break the Prosecution has made available to all
9 Defence counsel and to Registry then also with additional copy for the
10 Bench. We have made available the cleaned-up version, hopefully which is
11 a little bit better quality of the audio recording of the interview, and
12 we hope that's consistent with everyone. The audio recording and the
13 transcript, I have checked that they do accord to each other. Thank you,
14 Your Honour.
15 Q. Witness, before the break you were referring to your conversation
16 with a mercenary who had been in Gabela. Can you recall the name of the
18 A. No. And the mercenaries very seldom told their names. There are
19 some I know the name, but because he was so exact and because of his
20 dialect and his way of acting he was in my eyes like a former officer,
21 officer from DDR, Stasi. So he's in my notes just with the name Stasi.
22 Q. Thank you. If we can return to your conversation with Mr. Veso
23 Vegar. Now, you mentioned that the main topic of the discussion was
24 Mostar when you spoke to Mr. Vegar.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. What about Mostar were you talking if you can recall?
2 A. Well, in Mostar, the situation was in Mostar at that time very
3 bad. We were actually hanging in Medjugorje to get in Eastern Mostar
4 which was totally seized. It was a pocket. And Mr. Vegar told that
5 "Anyway, they," it means Herceg-Bosna, "has to get Mostar for their
6 capital," and he was telling why. "Because it's the only town we have."
7 Maybe he meant bigger town. The others were so small.
8 Q. If he says, "the only town we have," what do you understand him to
9 mean by "we"?
10 A. Herceg-Bosna HVO. Bosnian Croats -- I mean Herzegovina Croats.
11 Q. Did he take you through Mostar?
12 A. Not he personally, but we made a very funny walking. Somebody was
13 sending us always to places but not coming himself. "Go there. Go
14 there." And then -- but there was nothing to see. But then Erich noticed
15 that we are always on the plain place where we could see from
16 Eastern Mostar, and well, maybe they wanted that Bosniaks shoot us when we
17 were walking there, but they didn't.
18 Q. Madam, now you were in Mostar at various stages during 1992, 1993,
19 and 1994. You mentioned that you were in Mostar in July 1992 just after
20 it had been liberated from the Serbs, and then you were there, as you
21 stated now, towards the end of 1993. Can you perhaps give the Court just
22 an idea of the levels of destruction in the city as you observed it from
23 July 1992 and then in -- towards the end of 1993?
24 A. The difference was not very big, and I cannot compare it, because
25 1992, after liberation, I was on the bridge. I was on the bazaar area.
1 It means I was in the old centre, which is mainly inhabited from Bosniaks
2 or it was a bazaar. But that time when it was divided we didn't get in
3 Eastern Mostar. The Spanish UNPROFOR promised it several times but it
4 never came true. So I didn't have any possibility to see what was the
5 situation in Eastern Mostar. Western Mostar was not very destroyed.
6 I saw the situation in Eastern Mostar first when Croats and
7 Muslims made their federal state, and then it was pretty destroyed, but it
8 was, I think, first in the beginning of 1994.
9 Q. When you went there.
10 A. In the eastern part.
11 Q. Okay. Did you, during 1993 and 1994, ever go to Pocitelj?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And when did you go there?
14 A. It was one of my trips to Mostar. It was after the federation was
15 made. It is 1994 or 1995. I suppose 1994. But anyway, it was at that
16 stage when there were no hostilities between Croats and Bosniaks, more
17 they had their common state. Herceg-Bosna was not officially -- was still
18 officially in -- live but there was already this peace between these two
20 Q. Under whose control was Pocitelj when you were there?
21 A. It was HVO.
22 Q. Had you been in Pocitelj before that time?
23 A. Yes, because it was a kind of museum village. It was a very
24 beautiful museum, actually.
25 Q. A museum in what sense?
1 A. Well, I think that it was old Bosnian, I mean Muslim, culture.
2 Q. The -- what did you find when you were there in 1994?
3 A. Well, it was a little bit destructed, and we wanted to take
4 photos, and we stopped and there was one man, armed man sitting in a
5 coffee house and stand up and talk that if we are taking one photo, he'll
6 shoot us. Well, we didn't take the photo. We disappeared.
7 Q. This armed man do you know from what military organisation he was?
8 A. I'm not sure but there are only two possibilities, HVO or some
9 paramilitarian, but in that place HVO is more likely.
10 Q. You say the village "was a little built destructed." What do you
11 mean by that?
12 A. Well, it was not totally in ruins but the mosques were and how you
13 call them Koran schools and what all kind of things in the Muslim culture
14 they are. They were hit. They were not totally abolished. It was not
15 that kind of destruction what the Serbs were making when they were making
16 asphalt and parking place instead of old mosque. They were just ruins.
17 Q. Did you around this time also visit Gradsko?
18 A. Yes. Only -- only once, and it was twice, actually, but it was
19 very unhealthy visit. They didn't like that we take photos from mosques,
20 but what we were doing, we were trying to find the people of this village.
21 Q. Before going on, if I may interrupt you, where was this village?
22 A. It was near Medjugorje. If you come to Medjugorje from coast so
23 it's on the left side, little bit before when you turn right to
25 Q. Now, madam, you say once again "we" tried to find the people.
1 "We", who --
2 A. It was the same, let's say, group.
3 Q. And you said "they" didn't like that we take photos. Who is
5 A. They were HVO. It was also very unhealthy, but I think we got a
6 couple of photos.
7 Q. Did you find out what had happened to the people who had lived
9 A. Actually, not very surely. We were looking them from Red Cross.
10 Red Cross didn't know. We were looking them from UNHCR. No, they didn't
11 know. Somebody wrote that maybe they are in some Croatian refugee camp,
12 but we didn't find them there. And then later, much later, it was already
13 the war was over and there was WEU police, and I suddenly met a Finnish
14 policeman there, and I asked him, Can you find me these people of this
15 village, and some months later he called me and told that -- that his
16 contact persons have told him that they were -- they were killed and that
17 they are in some kind of mass grave in -- in a forest, but he told me that
18 don't go to look after it because they are full of mines. But if it's
19 true or not, but I must tell that the person who was looking for me,
20 this -- this refugees is a policeman, and nowadays he's the one who is
21 studying the place where crime has happened.
22 Q. You mentioned that you wanted to take a picture of the mosque. In
23 what condition was the mosque in this village?
24 A. It was exploded. It means that -- and it was very funnily
25 exploded. Funny is a wrong word. It was exploded so that there has been
1 a kind of bomb inside, so that the walls were like, in German, swollen.
2 Q. Swollen.
3 A. Swollen. And some rips, long holes.
4 Q. Tears.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Thank you. Now, just a few final things. Madam, during 1992
7 and -- to 1994, were you able or in a position to follow what was being
8 reported in the Croatian media, either newspapers or television?
9 A. Yes, when I was on Croatian side I was always listening the news,
10 and I was trying to read the newspapers. I could understand some
11 Croatian. Now I haven't been there many, many years now it's very rusted,
12 but I could understand the main things. And I could understand the line
13 in which they were going. Not every detail.
14 Q. Were you in a position to assess the -- the position that was
15 being given or given through the media regarding the conflict between the
16 Muslims and the Bosnian Croats during that period?
17 A. Well --
18 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, ma'am. Excuse me.
19 Objection, Your Honour. Who is "they"? Through which media?
20 Okay. She's talking about being able to figure out what's happening in
21 the media, but who is "they". Are we saying now there is -- are these the
22 official media or are these interviews? If we can have more precision
23 perhaps I may not be objecting.
24 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I may respond. I thought it was
25 pretty clear that we were referring to the Croatian media, both written
1 media as well as the television media at this stage, and we were referring
2 specifically to the period 1992 to 1994.
3 MR. KARNAVAS: But, Your Honour, the media -- the media is
4 independent. They may be giving their spin to it or their analysis.
5 That's one thing. Now, is it -- is she reading what the media is saying
6 that officials are saying? Is it an official media source? What is it?
7 It's as if I'm reading what The New York Times is saying and attributing
8 that to the Bush administration, which nothing could be further from the
10 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Witness, when you talk
11 about the Croatian media, I cannot establish a distinction between the
12 media in Zagreb, in Croatian media they were operating out of Mostar.
13 There is some degree of ambiguity here. In addition, your international
14 correspondents, who were they, the ones you met in Mostar? "The media" is
15 a very broad term. Can you perhaps give us details about the people you
16 met and about your colleagues?
17 THE WITNESS: I don't know the names of all the colleagues and --
18 but -- well, I was meeting pretty much of them, and what the media comes
19 of course you are listening the news and looking TV if you are in a place
20 where you can do it, but let's say I'm pretty many -- British journalists
21 because the Brits were very active. And then when I was talking very
22 often was a Spanish one with a German name. I have forgotten his name,
23 but he was writing for biggest newspaper in Spain and got even some kind
24 of journalistic prize. He was also making books. He was a very aware --
25 aware of the things. And I met several German ones. Not only Erich.
1 Austrian ones from Austrian TV and from the newspaper Die Presse. And
2 also from Kurier, but he was an idiot so I don't refer to him. And many
3 others. But I have somewhere cards of the most of them, but after so many
4 years journalists you have met sometimes -- they are very deep in my
5 memory and I cannot pick them so quickly out.
6 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The Croatian media you
7 mentioned, in Mostar did you meet journalists or journalists coming from
8 Zagreb, people who were actually doing their job, or were you just
9 listening to television?
10 THE WITNESS: I met some Croat journalists. They were quite
11 active also, in Mostar especially, and I met also some Slovenian
12 journalists sometime, one of my good -- which I was meeting often was got
13 killed in Sarajevo. And then one I was talking with was a Slovenia. His
14 name was Ervin. And so, yes, there was Croatian journalists, but I was
15 also when I was in Croatian side, listening to radio news, or looking TV
16 news, and reading some newspaper like Nedeljna Dalmacija which was not
17 following government. Nedeljna Dalmacija was the freest newspaper in
18 Croatia, and then Vjesnik which was more near government.
19 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
20 Q. If I may follow up on that. The television that you were
21 watching, Croatian or in the context of Croatian media, which television
22 stations were you following?
23 A. The official ones. They were clearly in government hands.
24 Q. Now, madam, returning to the original question then, from these
25 media could you gauge the line of reporting being followed with regard to
1 the conflict between the Bosnian Croats or Herzegovinian Croats and the
3 A. Well, of course you could see it, because -- because media had --
4 has in a -- in a state which is not -- well, let's say in a state-owned or
5 state near -- government near media always has a certain role, and so you
6 could see from this media very well.
7 For instance, in the beginning of war, already before, the media
8 was very Muslim friendly, and Croatia was very Muslim friendly. It is
9 true that they took hundred thousands of Muslim refugees. Also Croat
10 refugees, but Muslim refugees. It's true. But then you could see that
11 the policy is turning. Up after January '93, after Vance-Owen Plan, it
12 was suddenly talking about fundamentalists and about a danger of Islamic
13 republic, about Islamic Republic of Bosnia. So it was suddenly leading
14 the opinion towards -- against Muslims. And then in the end of '93,
15 beginning of '94 when they again started to do their common state,
16 suddenly it was again friendly to Muslims.
17 It means that you could -- it was like a wave. You could -- the
18 Croatian attitude was corresponding what was happening in -- in this
19 Croat-Muslim relation in Central Bosnia and Herzegovina. But of course
20 it's clear that -- that Croatian feelings were on Croatian side, but on
21 the other side it was systematically leading our opinion.
22 Q. Now, in your context during the same period that we've been
23 referring to your analysis of the Croatian press and television that
24 you've given, were you -- could you comment or are you in a position to
25 comment regarding your contacts with HVO officials and people you
1 interviewed? How does -- how did that correspond to the views being
2 presented on through the press and through the television?
3 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Your Honour. Where is the nexus between
4 the previous question and the answer - and of course journalists are free
5 to comment however they wish - and this particular question the way it
6 assumes facts that are certainly not in evidence? If he could lay a
7 foundation, because now the assumption is, the assumption built into this
8 question is that HVO or officials from Herceg-Bosna somehow influencing
9 the -- the media in Croatia, which is why the Croatian media is reporting
10 the way it does. One has nothing to do with the other. And I don't see,
11 first of all, what the Croatian media has anything to do with -- with a
12 particular indictment. Now, if that could be explained to me I would
13 welcome, you know, perhaps more questions, but until we have some sort of
14 a nexus and where we're going, it might be interesting, it might be
15 prejudicial, but it's certainly not relevant.
16 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, now to understand the
17 question, you were a witness because you were present in the area and in
18 Western Mostar. So you met a number of people. You witness a number of
19 facts, and you were in contact with a number of people. The question
20 which has been put to you now by the Prosecution and which has been
21 challenged by Defence counsel is this: How did you see things? You wrote
22 articles. You had interviews. Now your own view of the situation based
23 on what you saw and based on what you heard in the Croatian media, did you
24 share that same opinion or was it a different view you had, and if your
25 view was different in what way was it different?
1 THE WITNESS: Well, firstly, I would like to -- Mr. Defender, that
2 I don't think that anybody is thinking that Herceg-Bosna is leading
3 Croatian media. I think that -- that Croatia was very well aware what was
4 happening in Herceg-Bosna, and the question to me was always how much is
5 Croatian government involved in the happenings in Herceg-Bosna? Is the
6 Herceg-Bosna leadership the highest, or is there still a higher level
7 sitting in Zagreb? But it's not relevant at the moment, because this
8 higher level is already in -- in graveyard.
9 But anyway -- and in this meaning, this media was very interesting
10 because it was exactly corresponding what was happening in Herceg-Bosna on
11 the view of Croats and on behalf of Croats and repeating the propaganda of
12 Islamic state and Muslim danger and telling from Middle Ages how the
13 Croatia was always the bulwark against Muslims and fighting for
14 Christianity, and these articles really were appearing at that time.
15 MR. KRUGER:
16 Q. Madam, if we can turn -- return, finally, to a document which we
17 have looked at previously, and this is Exhibit 8575. Exhibit 8575. And
18 this is the analysis that you made entitled "The Croats are sitting on
19 three chairs." Do you have it before you?
20 A. Mm-hmm.
21 Q. Now, if we look at the first page of the English version, right at
22 the bottom it says, and this returns to the old question of the ultimatum,
23 it says: "In April, the president of the self-proclaimed Republic of
24 Herceg-Bosna, Mate Boban imposed an ultimatum on the predominantly Muslim
25 Bosnian army."
1 Can you very briefly just comment on what basis you said
2 Mate Boban imposed this ultimatum?
3 A. Well -- well, I have to look at the German version to see what is
4 about. Anyway, it was the 3rd of -- 3rd of April when according to all
5 these previous press reports Boban made this ultimatum, and it was written
6 to name of Boban.
7 Q. Now, if we can turn to the second page of this English version,
8 and the second paragraph. It says: "The highest command of Herceg-Bosna,
9 Mate Boban -- President Mate Boban and HVO President Jadranko Prlic ..."
10 On what basis did you refer to them as the highest command of
12 A. Well, Mate Boban was the leader of Herceg-Bosna. He was the
13 president. And Mr. Prlic was the leader of armed forces, and so in the
14 wartime I think that the leader of armed forces is a very, very high
16 Q. And about Mr. Prlic?
17 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Your Honour.
18 MR. KRUGER: Sorry, I withdraw that question.
19 Q. If we just go on in that sentence, it says that: Mr. Boban and
20 Mr. Prlic are being more prudent in its statements, or the highest command
21 is being most prudent. "Both of them are saying beautiful words about all
22 groups of people living together and try to put the blame on the Muslims
24 Now, with regard to Mr. Prlic, on what basis did you write this?
25 A. On the basis of an interview where he was talking about, We don't
1 have any problems living together with Muslims and so on. It means
2 that -- that this higher level was talking more beautiful but in the
3 middle -- middle level like it was more brutal. They were talking more
4 direct. Let's say that they were not as good politicians.
5 Q. Can you recall on what basis you said the same of Mr. Boban?
6 A. Well, I never interviewed Mr. Boban, but I was reading several
7 interviews which other people had made. I was sometimes behind his door
8 in Grude, but it never opened.
9 Q. Can you recall whose interviews with Mr. Boban you read, perhaps?
10 A. Anyway, Erich Rathfelder.
11 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Praljak.
12 THE ACCUSED PRALJAK: [Interpretation] In order to be able to
13 prepare for the defence, I'd like them to define the names, the middle
14 levels with the names and surnames.
15 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, can you answer that
16 question just put to you by Mr. Praljak?
17 THE WITNESS: I mean middle level -- middle level. The press
18 officer, for instance, in Tomislavgrad Veso Vegar, and these persons with
19 the -- and also I would count Dario Kordic to this middle level.
20 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
21 Q. Now, madam, at the end of that paragraph there's a sentence: "In
22 reality these gentlemen are the architects of ethnic cleansing." On what
23 basis did you say this?
24 A. I say that on that basis, that they were trying to tell that it
25 was some local commandants which were not obeying the orders from the
1 centres and they were making a kind of solo dancing. But it is a very
2 funny thing that it occurred everywhere in Central Bosnia at the same
3 time, about 5.00 in the morning, 16th of April, but how they get so this
4 obeyed in the same moment. There must be a higher order. And this
5 opinion was publicly told also from Colonel Bob Stewart who was present
6 when that all happened. Even they were a little bit sleeping, but anyway.
7 Q. Now, just related to which we touched upon earlier, in the next
8 paragraph, second line, it says: "There have been rumours for a long time
9 already about the secret trips to Pale from Boban to Karadzic.
10 Jadranko Prlic did not deny these secret contacts."
11 Just for the record then, on what did you -- on what did you base
12 that entry?
13 A. Well, I had some information that it was not the only trip through
14 Pale what Mr. Prlic was -- was telling, but -- but anyway, one of the
15 basement was also this that he told, that Boban had been in Pale, but
16 there were also others who told that it has happened several times.
17 Q. Now, madam, if we can turn to page 3 of the English version, and
18 the second paragraph from the bottom which starts with "The core of the
19 problem is that ... " Do you have that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Now, madam, this paragraph states that "The core of the
22 problem is that the Croatian leadership cannot decide what kind of Croatia
23 to strive for," and then three options or three -- let's call them options
24 are given. "Officially, the aim is an independent Croatia with the
25 current borders which is called Little Croatia," and then you refer, "In
1 practice however Western Herzegovina is already annexed to Croatia.
2 Especially the supporters of Mate Boban strive for this
3 ethnically-cleansed Smaller Croatia. And then, however, there is a still
4 a third version, Great Croatia up to the Drina."
5 Is this your own categorisation or on what basis did you write
7 A. It is, of course, my own -- my categorisation, but I think that
8 I'm not alone -- alone in this -- this thing. It is -- it was one option.
9 It means that -- that Croatia as an independent state. It was -- anyway
10 it was -- it was the aim and at that moment when I was writing that
11 Croatia was not Croatia, because about one-third were under Serbian
12 control. But then the other option was, of course, joining Herceg-Bosna
13 to Croatia. It means that they make an ethnically pure bigger Croatia.
14 And there were some indications which were talking to this direction, and
15 I'm not now going to so far as Ante Pavelic, which was also from
16 Herzegovina, but let's say that in Croatian government were very many
17 Herzegovinians, and -- and then it came even so far later that
18 Herzegovina -- Herzegovina Croats could vote for -- in Croatian
19 parliamentary election and for them were reserved even a certain amount of
20 places. It means that there was not only rumours of -- of my analysis
21 from smaller or Greater Croatia. It was -- it was worked in direction of
22 it or how you can -- I have never before heard that in parliament are
23 representatives from neighbouring country, for instance. That was not at
24 that moment realised, but it tells that it's not -- it's not taken from
25 the air this analysis.
1 And in the third one, the Great Croatia, the Drina. This is the
2 historical. This is the historical. There are some other persons as
3 Paraga were wanting. It means some kind of federation with -- with
4 Muslims, and of course, Serbs. They wanted to cleanse over the Drina
5 River. And this is based on history. It means in the Austro-Hungarian
6 time, but it's very interesting to notice that the very moderate Muslim
7 leader Lagumdzija told me, I think in February 1993, that they are ready.
8 They could make a federal state with Croatia. So it was -- it would have
9 been possible, but Serbs had -- would have never said yes to that kind of
10 option, but these options, they were there.
11 Q. Could I just make certain or check what you had said. Did I
12 understand correctly that what you had said that Herzegovinian Croats had
13 representation in the parliament of the republic of Croatia?
14 A. Yeah, they had, but I don't remember now when they got it, but
15 they had, and it was of course -- it was very funny. It was also still
16 after the war. I think that this constitution is now changed, but it
17 was -- it was. So it means that there was some kind of attempts to
18 unificate Herceg-Bosna with Croatia. And you have to remember if you take
19 the ethnical map, Herceg-Bosna is the most Croatian area in the whole
20 Croatian-inhabited areas. There's -- in Grude there is, I think, 98 per
21 cent or how much it was Croats. The only area in Croatia which was that
22 Croat was Varazdin. All other places they had some kind of minority. So
23 it was -- and I think that that was also was what Mr. Prlic meant when he
24 told that Herzegovina is the heart of Croatia or more Croat as Croatia. It
25 is really the purest Croatian populated area in former Yugoslavia.
1 Q. Madam, if we can just turn the page to page 4 of this English
2 transcript. And if we look at the second last paragraph. It says: "The
3 splitting up of Bosnia is no new idea. Franjo Tudjman and
4 Slobodan Milosevic have already negotiated about that before the war."
5 What are you referring to here?
6 A. That's the meeting in Karadjordjevo. But I would say to that that
7 knowing Milosevic a little bit he was a very clever guy. I don't think
8 that -- that he was honest. I think that --
9 MR. MURPHY: Your Honour, I don't know how much of this
10 speculation the Trial Chamber is going to put up with. We've now -- it's
11 been going on for some time. I've tried to be patient. If this witness
12 is being asked to be an expert in certain areas, then she should be
13 disclosed under Rule 94 bis. It's not right for her to be expressing
14 these opinions without any notice to the Defence. This goes way beyond
15 her statement and it's completely -- it's completely unacceptable.
16 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I won't pursue that line of questioning.
17 Q. Now, I have only one --
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Witness, a follow-up question.
19 This famous document which Mr. Kruger is examining with you, on page 3 you
20 talk about Mr. Paraga, and you expand on this and come up with a theory
21 whereby the person in question was in favour of a confederation of Bosnia
22 and Herzegovina, that he was against the HVO, and you mentioned that he
23 had been killed in November, that he had a private army. What do you base
24 this on when you are writing about it?
25 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't think that Paraga was killed. It was
1 the Herzegovinian leadership of HOS. But he had the private army, HOS,
2 and it was, of course, a kind of concurrence to HVO and it had a totally
3 different ideology.
4 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] And in what way was that
5 ideology totally different?
6 THE WITNESS: He wanted Great -- Great Croatia together with
7 Muslims. He wanted to annex Bosnia to Croatia. And that was never the
8 aim of HVO.
9 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] So in your opinion Mr. Paraga
10 wanted Bosnia to be annexed to Croatia --
11 THE WITNESS: Yes.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] -- which would have created a
13 Greater Croatia. And you say that that was not what the HVO wanted.
14 THE WITNESS: No. Because HVO didn't want the Muslims in the same
15 state. They were talking about fundamentalistic danger and that kind of
16 things. Even in this Prlic interview is -- is the word towards me, "Do
17 you want an Islamic state?" And that was the difference. But in this
18 Paraga ideology, which I know very well, there was a one thing. The Serbs
19 would have been then kicked out because Serbs he didn't want to have in
20 that Bosnia. He wanted to very Great Bosnia with Muslims but without
21 Serbs. And HVO was cooperating very well with Serbs, but they were -- had
22 this fundamentalistic card at present.
23 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right.
24 MR. KRUGER: Sorry, Your Honour. I'm just checking something.
25 Q. May we just for clarity, if I may ask you to just ask exactly what
1 was the difference between the -- what you referred to as the Paraga
2 ideology and then the HVO view?
3 A. Paraga ideology was not that ethnical. It was not that ethnical
4 pure. It was not that Croatian. For him were also -- he was also
5 thinking Muslims. He was -- his thinking -- way of thinking were more
6 historical, because if you go to the time before and let's say to --
7 before 1918, Bosnia and Croatia, they were both actually belonging to
8 Hungary, and -- and they -- and he was thinking on this historical terms,
9 but HVO were more thinking joining all the Croats in the same state.
10 Exactly what the Serbs were -- the idea of Greater Serbia was to join all
11 Serbs to the same state. It was everywhere published. And the HV
12 ideology was about the same but on Croatian side.
13 Q. Madam, I just want to ask you one last aspect. Earlier there had
14 been reference to what Mr. Erich Rathfelder told you Mr. Prlic had told
15 him after the Dayton Accords.
16 A. After the -- is sorry. After the grounding of federation between
17 Croats and Muslims, after that peace.
18 Q. Now --
19 A. First peace before Dayton.
20 Q. Okay. Now, what Mr. Prlic told Mr. Rathfelder, to what period did
21 that relate?
22 A. It relates on this -- this April 1993.
23 Q. And what did he tell Mr. Rathfelder --
24 MR. KARNAVAS: Excuse me, Mr. President. There was an objection,
25 and it's common courtesy and rather professional to first ask for
1 permission from the Court. Now that the question is phrased differently
2 or laid a foundation, if he may go to -- revisit that area, but there was
3 an objection. The objection was sustained. The gentleman moved on. Now
4 he wants to go -- he does not need to go through the back door if he can
5 come through the front door, but I'm here -- but I dare say that there was
6 an objection. And I don't see him asking for leave to re-ask the same
7 question to which there was an objection to.
8 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, if I may respond.
9 The objection was within the context of a specific document.
10 We've moved off that document and therefore the objection as it pertained
11 to that specific document does not apply, with respect.
12 MR. KARNAVAS: Your Honour, it goes to -- my objection was to the
13 period of time. Supposedly there is this conversation. This gentleman
14 isn't here. I understand hearsay can come in. But we're talking about a
15 period that's after the indictment took place.
16 Now, if you may recall, Your Honour, the Prosecution has tried on
17 many occasions to try to get this so-called map napkin that supposedly was
18 drawn by the late President Tudjman in 1995 when he was in London. There
19 was a clear indication from the Trial Chamber that that was outside the
20 period and therefore Mr. Ashdown could not come in and neither could this
21 so-called napkin which he took part in drawing.
22 So based on your rulings already, if we use the exact logic and
23 the exact basis for which you overruled -- or you sustained the Defence's
24 objection to the Prosecution's motion with respect to Mr. Ashdown, I again
25 urge the Trial Chamber to use the same approach and to uphold the
1 objection that it had sustained earlier today.
2 JUDGE PRANDLER: I'm sorry, Mr. Kruger, for interrupting you. As
3 a matter of fact, I would only like to make one comment with reference to
4 the statement made by our witness a few minutes ago. She mentioned when
5 she spoke about Paraga, I believe, that Paraga believed in a Croatian
6 Bosnian state, and he was thinking this, as the witness put it, if you go
7 back through to time and to history before 1918, both Croatia and Bosnia
8 belonged to Hungary.
9 Now, as a Hungarian, I would like to say that it is not a very
10 exact rendering of the historical situation and the history. It is true
11 that the -- that the Hungarian kings used to be in a personal union at the
12 same time Croatian kings from the -- from the 13th century, but on the
13 other hand, of course, it was not a unitary state, I mean Hungary and
14 Croatia, but the Croatians have preserved their independence now, not
15 speaking about the Turkish occupation, of course. That is the first
17 And the you could one that Bosnia-Herzegovina belonged not to
18 Hungary but after the 1878 occupation and later on in 1908 annexation, it
19 belonged to the Austro-Hungarian monarchy and not to Hungary as such. I
20 would just like to say for the record, and thank you very much.
21 JUDGE TRECHSEL: On the objection of Mr. Karnavas. On page 95,
22 line 11, I see it relates to this -- on this April 1993. I don't know why
23 you say this is outside the period of the indictment.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: What I'm -- well, again, if I may refresh your
25 recollection a little bit with your decision on Paddy Ashdown.
1 Paddy Ashdown has supposedly a conversation with President Tudjman in 1995
2 and one could say that the conversation dealt with Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3 The question actually was what would Bosnia and Herzegovina look 10 years
4 from now. That was napkin drawn supposedly, and wine was flowing
5 copiously as Mr. Ashdown has indicated.
6 In any event, based on that the Prosecution was trying to conclude
7 that therefore Tudjman had some sort of designs on Bosnia-Herzegovina in
8 1991, 1992, 1993.
9 So what I'm saying here is in 1994 sometime, supposedly there is
10 this supposed conversation with somebody who is not here, he's not on the
11 list, I don't get to cross-examine, has a conversation with this
12 particular journalist about some event, about what was going to happen in
13 1993. And that's the whole basis. And you sustained the objection once
14 and I'm asking that it be sustained it again. If you don't wish to
15 sustain it, then go ahead.
16 JUDGE TRECHSEL: Thank you.
17 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Mr. Scott.
19 MR. SCOTT: I apologise to Mr. Kruger for intervening but on the
20 Ashdown matter, this is something I think I'm a bit closer to than
21 Mr. Kruger, and to follow up and Judge Trechsel's point. I think it's
22 completely false logic to say that someone can't make a statement in 2001
23 about something that happened in 1993. If that was the logic then all
24 these -- every statement taken by the Office of the Prosecutor in terms of
25 what someone said in 2001, 2005, about what happened in 1993, by that
1 logic those would all be irrelevant. It's what the witness is talking
2 about, not when the statement was taken, number one.
3 Number two, in terms of Ashdown, with all due respect I think -- I
4 think the Chamber's ruling on that point was wrong exactly for this
5 reason, because it was tendered exactly for the purpose of what Tudjman's
6 views were toward Bosnia and Herzegovina and his objectives, and it was
7 admitted in Blaskic case it was admitted in Kordic case, it was admitted
8 in Tuta Stela, and I believe it was also admitted in the Milosevic case
9 where Paddy Ashdown came and gave viva voce testimony. And it was all to
10 the effect, what was Tudjman's views towards Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now as
11 we just said, he may have expressed those views in 1995, 1997. He may
12 have even expressed those views, the day before he died in 2000 or 1999.
13 But if they reflect his views, that he continually held through that time
14 period, they are just as relevant no matter when he made those
15 statements. And to bring it back home again, it doesn't really matter
16 when this interview occurred. He's talking about what was relevant at the
18 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] All right. Mr. Kruger, we have
19 10 minutes left. I'll have to ask you to try on the one hand to resolve
20 Mr. Karnavas's objection, because it appears that there is a confusion.
21 You were asking the witness questions about a text which as far as I can
22 see was drafted on May 27, 1995, but now it sounds like you're proceeding
23 on -- on 1995. But now you're saying no, this is a different subject.
24 Maybe that's the source of our confusion concerning 1995.
25 Now, would you please be specific and tell us the new -- the other
1 subject that you wanted to deal with.
2 MR. KRUGER: Certainly, Your Honour. Your Honour, I've stepped
3 off the documents. My understanding was that the previous ruling with
4 regard to the objection was that we were indeed dealing with a document
5 from 1993 and which was the analysis of the witness or her report, then,
6 on her interview with Mr. Prlic, and in the context of that document,
7 anything, as I understood the ruling, which took place at a much later
8 stage was not relevant to the discussion of the document on that stage.
9 And that is why stepping off the documents and now being freed of the
10 documents, I thought with -- it could be done, but, Your Honour, in the
11 interests of time I would request then permission to then raise this or
12 ask this question.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Please go ahead. Put the
14 question. We'll see.
15 MR. KRUGER: Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Q. Madam, you have said that Erich Rathfelder told you something that
17 Mr. Prlic had told him pertaining to April 1993. What did Mr. Rathfelder
18 convey to you?
19 A. He told only that Mr. Prlic admitted that they had been
20 miscalculating the strength of Muslim army. They were thinking that it's
21 a matter of two weeks but in reality it was a long war. And in reality --
22 but that -- that's only a resolution to the war. In reality, the Croats
23 from Central Bosnia lost their homes and were refugees. But that
24 Mr. Prlic didn't say. He only said they were miscalculating. They were
25 thinking that Muslims are lasting couple of weeks.
1 Q. Thank you.
2 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, there's only one final aspect that I
3 wish to return to, and it is in the transcript on page 96, if I recall.
4 Page 94 of the transcript and line 9.
5 Q. Witness, you referred to and this is in the context of the Paraga
6 ideology. You said, "He wanted a very Great Bosnia with Muslims but
7 without the Serbs." I would just like to clarify when you refer to a very
8 Great Bosnia what you --
9 A. I mean very Great Croatia with Bosniaks. I was, well, getting
10 tired, and I must give the right to Mr. Judge. Bosnia was not under
11 Hungary, and not even Dalmatian coast. It was only the Pannonian Croatia.
12 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Witness.
13 MR. KRUGER: Your Honour, I have no further questions.
14 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] The examination-in-chief is
15 over. Witness, I'll have to ask you to be here tomorrow for a hearing
16 which starts at 9.00 in the morning. Between now and then I want you to
17 speak to nobody, and tomorrow you will be cross-examined by the Defence
19 We will have a hearing lasting until 1.45.
20 Mr. Karnavas, you wanted to speak? You were raising your hand.
21 MR. KARNAVAS: I just need -- I think the Defence needs some sort
22 of a clarification again with respect to Ahmici. On paragraph 33 of the
23 indictment, Ahmici is mentioned. That part is part of the statement of
24 the facts, and the Defence is entitled to know whether we need to defend
25 against Ahmici. As I understand the testimony today what the Prosecution
1 is arguing is that because of the so-called ultimatum on the -- after the
2 15th collapses you have the incident in Ahmici and therefore that's as a
3 result of any inaction on the part of the Muslims vis-a-vis the so-called
5 Now, I need to know, at least in representing Dr. Prlic, and I
6 would suspect that my colleagues would also want the same thing because
7 we've asked this question at one of the Status Conferences or 65 ter
8 Conferences before the commencement of the trial, before we had the other
9 Judges with us, whether Ahmici is part of the indictment that needs to be
10 defended. We need a clear-cut answer from the Prosecution. That's all
11 I'm asking.
12 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Yes. Mr. Scott, Ahmici is an
13 event that everybody is familiar with. Mr. Karnavas would like to know
14 whether Ahmici is something that is part of the indictment or not. It
15 is -- is it mentioned in the indictment as an accusation or as an event?
16 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, the Prosecution's answer today is the
17 same answer that we've given whenever it's been raised and that it is,
18 indeed, part of the indictment. It's specifically mentioned in paragraph
19 33. All this comes from the same HVO policy -- this is the Prosecution's
20 theory of the case -- it all comes from the same top-down Mostar HVO
21 leadership. What happened in Herzegovina and what happened in
22 Central Bosnia was all of one piece. So it's absolutely in the
24 Now, having said that the structure of the indictment is very
25 clear that when you get to the subsequent pages of the indictment - I'm
1 just turning - page 56, you have the section on Ljubuski, page 58, you
2 have the section on Stolac - excuse me - page 61, you have the section on
3 Capljina. Ahmici is not included in that crime base that was charged in
4 that -- those specific parts of the indictment. But is it relevant to the
5 indictment? Is it part of the indictment? Absolutely, it is. And it
6 also goes to knowledge of the accused.
7 If -- if these -- if these accused that are ultimately part of the
8 Prosecution case have every reason to know, it was widely reported, what
9 happened in Ahmici. It goes to the conduct and policy and practices of
10 the HVO and the same things happened in Mostar, the same things happened
11 in Stolac, the same thing happened in Capljina, so, yes, it is absolutely
12 relevant to the conduct in this case.
13 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] Legally speaking, Mr. Scott, is
14 it your position, your position, the Judges will consult on that question,
15 the issue has already come up but it will come up again and it stays with
16 us, would you say that on the legal plan, on 7(3), for example, could we
17 hold it against the accused that they did not take reasonable measures to
18 prevent those crimes which occurred in Ahmici, and if they were aware of
19 that, could it be held against them? Could they be considered guilty for
20 not having punished? This is the problem.
21 MR. SCOTT: Your Honour, if I can hedge my bets by saying I want
22 to talk to Mr. Stringer and some of the other colleagues on that -- excuse
23 me, Counsel, I'm answering the Court's question.
24 MR. KARNAVAS: I haven't said anything.
25 MR. SCOTT: Excuse me, please. I believe the answer is no and
1 that's the distinction I made just a moment ago, and that is why I believe
2 it's entirely relevant. I think it goes to state of mind. I think it
3 goes to common knowledge and practice. It is not, as I just said, it is
4 not charged in the indictment the same way that Gornji Vakuf and Jablanica
5 and Mostar and other things are. But I think it's absolutely relevant,
6 and absolutely is part of the indictment in terms of the overall story of
7 what happened. What happened in Central Bosnia was part of the same
8 policy and the same practice as what happened in Herzegovina and
9 Herceg-Bosna - excuse me, apologise for my voice, I have something in my
10 throat - but when we talk about Central Bosnia let's also not forget
11 Vares, and Vares is specifically charged in the indictment in every
13 MR. KARNAVAS: That's the problem, Mr. President. That's why we
14 asked prior to the commencement of the trial. This is perhaps, perhaps,
15 the clearest answer we've received thus far but when he's asked again then
16 he hedges his bets. It either is or it isn't. Now you asked the question
17 with respect to 7(3). What about 7(1)? I think the Defence is entitled
18 to know clearly what it is that they need to defend. So, you know, I
19 would like to know concretely, exactly, what the Prosecution's position
20 is. I think many of the accused, if not all of them, would want to know
21 this answer. And we don't have to do it this second. He can talk to, you
22 know, he can run it up the ladder. He can talk to Madam Del Ponte if he
23 wants to.
24 JUDGE ANTONETTI: [Interpretation] However all this may be, it is
25 not an urgent question to solve in the minutes or hours to come. The
1 Prosecution will discuss this matter and so will the Bench. We will
2 discuss it again.
3 Witness, we will see you here again tomorrow at 9.00. Thank you.
4 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.03 p.m.,
5 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 28th day
6 of August, 2007, at 9.00 a.m.